As development aid budgets contract across much of the Western world, Norway has emerged as a rare exception.
The country has increased its aid spending while maintaining one of the highest levels of official development assistance in the world. Today, it is one of the only countries that consistently exceeds the United Nations’ target for wealthy countries to spend 0.7 per cent of gross national income on development aid.
Yet Norwegian officials say that maintaining support for development does not mean standing still.
Russia’s war against Ukraine, Israel’s war in Gaza, climate change and growing geopolitical instability have all reshaped where Norway directs its aid and how it thinks about development cooperation.
Canadian Affairs reporter Alexandra Keeler spoke with Åsmund Aukrust, Norway’s minister of international development, about how Norway is continuing to prioritize poverty reduction, human rights and multilateral cooperation at a time when many other countries are reducing aid budgets and linking assistance to national interests.
This interview is the fourth installment in a series examining how shifting political priorities are reshaping the global aid system and what those changes mean for donor countries, including Canada.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.
AK: Has Norway’s development philosophy changed over the last decade? Or has Norway maintained its long-standing focus on poverty reduction, humanitarian assistance and human rights?
AA: Our main goal and our main approach is the same. However, of course, with such dramatic changes in the world, we have also changed our development policy and our priorities.
Today our biggest receiver of Norwegian development assistance is Ukraine. I mean, a few years ago, no one would have thought that a European country would be the biggest receiver. However, we have a full-scale war in the middle of Europe, so therefore Ukraine is our main priority. The same also with Palestine, which is the second biggest receiver.
There’s been changes also related to climate, which is, of course, now higher and higher on our agenda.
We, as politicians and the country, constantly need to renew our policy. Therefore, I have also started a big process here in the ministry to really dig into, ‘What does development look like for the next decade with such dramatic cuts from many other countries?’ We will present a white paper for parliament around Christmas.
The key word in development for the years to come … is partnership. The time when some countries were donating to others, and others were only receivers — that time is now over. What real development looks like is clear partnership.
AK: In recent years, countries like Sweden and Denmark have increasingly tied development assistance to migration, security and other strategic priorities. How do you see Norway’s approach differing from that of its Nordic neighbours?
AA: The Nordic countries are still our closest friends and partners internationally in all kinds of issues. I will, however, say that there’s always been differences among our countries. We have a broader political landscape among Nordic countries today.
In Finland, my colleague there is from the True Fins, which is more right-wing populistic. In Sweden, the [right-wing populist] Swedish Democrats are a part of the coalition that supports the current Swedish government. So you will see bigger differences among the approaches from the Nordic countries.
But even though Sweden has reduced their development assistance in recent years, the Nordic countries are still among the few which are above the UN’s 0.7 per cent of gross national income target.
We want to reach out to more countries — also outside of the Nordic countries — especially Canada. We are so like-minded. We can align in so many ways, especially with this Carney government. With less funding internationally, we need to be better coordinated.
AK: Norway has significantly increased support for Ukraine in recent years. How does Norway balance support for Ukraine with long-term development commitments elsewhere?
AA: [Ukraine] is a big priority from a total bipartisan support in our parliament, from the very left to the very right.
However, since our budget on development has increased since we set this goal — where we are achieving one per cent of our national income — the Ukrainian support has been an add-on, so the support for the rest of the world is about the same as it was in 2022 when the war started.
But of course, without the war in Ukraine, there would have been much funding that we could have used in other ways.
AK: Is the Nordic model still viable and politically sustainable in today’s world? Or does Norway see itself as demonstrating an alternative model for other countries?
AA: We look to Canada as our model also, and we all remember the very important speech from your prime minister in Davos, where he said that it’s time for medium-sized countries to come together. I would add small countries as well. Many of them are in the Global South. There is a very close linkage between security and development, and it is important to form partnerships with countries in Africa, the Middle East and beyond.
Solidarity is also partly about self-interest. We are of the belief that to help others is also to help yourself. International solidarity is an investment in our common future.
AK: Some experts I spoke with have argued that Norway’s aid generosity is only possible because of the country’s oil wealth. How much of Norway’s development leadership is a product of political choices, and how much is a product of economic circumstances?
AA: It’s a combination.
We are in a better situation than many other European countries, and I would say it’s partly because of oil and gas, but mostly because of political decisions we are making around oil and gas, where all the income goes back to the public purse.
There are many countries that are very rich on natural resources, that are very poor on the national economy.
Norway’s generosity is because of brave political decisions by politicians before me. International solidarity has been a priority for our country. We started our first aid budgets right after the War in the 50s, when Norway was still a poor country.
[Norway launched its sovereign wealth fund, which is based on oil revenue, in 1990.]
AK: Where does Norway see the world going in the development aid sector, and what is worrisome to Norway?
AA: There is very much worry. It’s possible to spend the whole day looking at the many problems. But I would say what worries me the most is the attack on the whole idea of multilateralism and international cooperation.
We see how international laws, humanitarian laws and the whole rule-based world order are attacked from many different angles at the same time. And I think all of us understand that today it would not be possible to form a UN charter, to form international laws.
Therefore, we try to have a very clear principle from our government to be very strict on international law, whether it is violated in Ukraine, in Palestine, in Sudan, or in Greenland. I mean, in the end, it’s the same laws that are protecting us.
We also try to remain a very steady and strong supporter of the UN, of the World Bank, and the other development banks. These institutions are also there for us when needed.
However, I think if the multilateral system should survive, it also needs to be reformed. We should meet the UN and international architecture with tough love. We should have clear demands and expectations of reform of our long relationship with them, because they are needed now more than ever before.
It really worries me that multilateralism and international law are under attack. So I was so glad to hear the voice and the speech from your prime minister to really say, ‘Now it’s serious times, but it’s up to all of us to respond.’ We are politicians. We have to face the changes and respond to them.
I think Canada is really stepping up internationally as an important voice for human rights, for democracy and for international cooperation, and I’m very glad to see that. We want to continue to do it with Canada.
Both of us could do even more, and the world demands that of countries like us.
