Development and aid policy is facing major challenges. Both abroad, because the world is undergoing dramatic changes with climate change and major armed conflicts. And here at home, because there is growing skepticism about aid.

At the major development debate, held for the seventh time at Arendalsuka, representatives from six different parties were present to tell how they think development policy should be. Caritas is one of about thirty organizations that are co-organizers of the debate.

The panel consisted of Anne Beathe Tvinnereim, Minister for Development, Espen Barth Eide, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Lene Westgaard-Halle, MP for the Conservative Party, Dag-Inge Ulstein, MP for the Christian Democratic Party, Audun Herning, Party Secretary of the Socialist Party and Lan Marie Berg, MP for the Green Party.

The one percent target

The debate was chaired by Anne Håskoll-Haugen. She said that one of the points on her notebook was a warning against letting the debate end up in an argument about the one percent target. It was prescient of her, as that was precisely how the debate developed.

There was broad agreement that at least one percent of gross national income should be spent on the development budget. Herning (SV) was clear that one percent is a starting point, not a ceiling, and that more should be spent. Berg (MDG) wanted more money for everything, both aid and a separate climate item, and believed that we could also consider drawing money from the oil fund outside the action rule. Westgaard-Halle (Conservatives) believed that it was not the percentage of GNI (gross national income) that was important. The most important thing was what you managed to achieve, and he believed that we therefore needed to get better at measuring the impact of aid. Ulstein also emphasized the evaluation of development projects.

Poverty alleviation vs. global public goods

Another key issue was the way in which the aid budget was used for a number of things other than development projects and poverty reduction. Funds to deal with the influx of refugees from Ukraine is one example. Another, and more difficult case, is projects aimed at preserving global common goods, such as climate and nature. This is also important for poverty alleviation and conflict prevention, but there was agreement that one should not be at the expense of the other. Should global public goods and poverty reduction be funded separately?

Most people, including Development Minister Tvinnereim, believed that ideally a distinction should be made. However, she was concerned that if they were divided, not enough money would be set aside for either. The only person who was crystal clear that climate and development should be on the same post was Foreign Minister Barth Eide (Labor Party):

- I am very much against this dichotomy. To think that climate and nature are something other than aid is completely wrong. Everything must be seen in the light of the climate and nature crisis.