Nothing new from Arendal

Minister of International Development Åsmund Aukrust (Labour) has launched a major project. It sparked enthusiasm in some, fear in others, and indulgence in those who have seen such reviews before. Now, it has primarily become tedious.

Civil society actors have done what they can: shown up and provided input through op-eds and memos. Yet, the minister is not satisfied. He is receiving very little of the input he asked for, namely concrete proposals for cuts. At the same time, there is little new to be found from him either.

Reprioritizing away from education funds and marine litter is a welcome first step, but the amounts have so far been small. Overall, the priorities Aukrust highlights are the same ones mentioned in previous years.

Criticism of the process is now coming from both the opposition and the Labour Party's own ranks. In Arendal, both Erna Solberg (Conservative) and Liv Tørres (LO) were clearly frustrated.

The wait is costly

Langsikt called in the spring of 2025 for a comprehensive review of Norwegian aid, and was consequently pleased when Project Turning Point was announced. We believed it should have been completed by the August conference this year, in order to have an impact as early as 2027. After major cuts from several countries, there is truly no time to lose: People are dying while we wait.

The minister is playing his cards close to his chest, waiting for the aid organizations to say what can be cut.

At the same time, they are criticized for following the herd and prioritizing funding levels over results. But it is largely the government's own fault that the organizations are ill-equipped for the debate on priorities.

The war in Ukraine forced cooperation

When the war in Ukraine started, billions of kroner were immediately at stake. First, because the government wanted to make massive cuts across the budget to cover increased refugee costs. Then, because we, according to the government, became too rich to be able to meet the percentage target.

Back then, Norwegian aid organizations effectively united around funding levels and ensuring more resources reached the poorest. This yielded excellent results, including the "South Package."

Since then, however, things have moved in the wrong direction. The government's aid budget for 2022 was 42 billion kroner. The proposal for 2026 was 39 billion, excluding support for Ukraine and refugee costs within Norway. While some funds were allocated to both purposes in 2022 as well, the picture remains clear: even though the percentage target survived the dramatic increase in national income, funding for areas unrelated to Ukraine has decreased. Adjusted for inflation, the situation looks even worse.

The price of holding the line

The organizations have faced an uphill battle against a government that, on paper, was supposed to protect funding levels, but has repeatedly proposed major cuts, banking on partners to spend their political capital to reverse them. As the Socialist Left Party (SV) became less willing to take on that role, the work has increasingly drained the organizations' capacity.

Against this backdrop, the organizations' "herd mentality" has prevented further cuts and dilution in several of the ordinary and revised budgets in recent years.

This did not come for free. Many have deprioritized their own key issues when meeting with politicians, leaving themselves vulnerable to the caricature that these organizations are satisfied as long as Norway keeps giving generously.

When the cards are on the table

Herd mentality was the right tool for defending the one-percent target. However, it is not suitable for prioritizing within that budget, because reprioritization means someone loses out. Langsikt has two pieces of advice for what lies ahead: one for each side of the table.

To the aid organizations: Be prepared to justify why something deserves to exist based on research or expert knowledge. Not what an initiative is intended to achieve, but what results it actually leads to – additionally. Ottar Mæstad touched on the same point in Arendal when he advocated for shifting more aid toward initiatives with documentable results.

This is not a demand that aid be limited to simple solutions with so-called tick-box metrics. The government must prioritize initiatives that provide the greatest possible impact per krone, but Langsikt also wants systemic change, for example by shifting power and funding to civil society support for organizations in developing countries, without Norwegian intermediaries. This is based on a clear theory of change, but can also be justified by research.

To the Minister: Show us action, not just process. Highlight some actual priorities now – or in the national budget this autumn. Inequality has been a priority for the government for several years, without it becoming clear what measures that actually entails. Also, mention some budget items the government believes should be cut entirely, and the reasoning behind it. We recommend starting by looking at Langsikt's proposals. Also, state what should be prioritized. This would make for a far more exciting debate throughout the autumn, and lead to a better white paper in the spring.

For now, there is nothing new to report from Arendal. But two budget years will have passed before the white paper takes effect, and a hundred billion in aid will have been spent while the Ministry of Foreign Affairs conducts its drawn-out process.