DEBATE: This is a opinion peace in relation to the ongoing discussion of a new development policy strategy for Denmark.
The development policy strategy "The World we share" failed in its attempt to ensure coherence between humanitarian aid, development cooperation, and peacebuilding. In the new strategy, the government should try again, according to economist Niels Harild.
By Niels V.S. Harild
Niels Harild is an economist with more than 40 years of international experience in development and humanitarian efforts in conflict zones, with a particular focus on displacement and peacebuilding in organizations such as UNHCR and the World Bank.
The Danish government is defining a new development policy strategy. This is done with a national basis in the Law on International Development Work and internationally in the UN's Sustainable Development Goals and building on experiences from previous development policy strategies.
A new development policy strategy should, of course, take into account the difficult geopolitical, economic, and security policy developments we are currently seeing. With the prospect of more conflicts and prolonged crises, we see an increased focus on military expenditures at the expense of funds for development initiatives and humanitarian efforts. Furthermore, as I see it, the global, rule-based system for multilateral and bilateral cooperation does not work in its current form, and it gives increased room for autocratic and national-populist tendencies4.
Need for strong political leadership
Therefore, I welcome the planned integration of Danish foreign, security, trade, and development policy. In the challenging geopolitical situation, it requires strong political leadership with participation and common understanding among the involved ministers.
The total global aid for both acute humanitarian efforts and long-term development aid will be significantly less, and this will further worsen the already catastrophically underfunded humanitarian and development needs. This underfunding has been attempted to be solved for several years through the so-called Humanitarian, Development, Peace Nexus – or simply the HDP approach, which is based on strengthening the coherence between humanitarian aid, development cooperation, and peacebuilding. Unfortunately, it is my assessment that the approach has failed, as the initiative has so far primarily been driven by the humanitarian sector with a secondary focus on development and peacebuilding efforts and a lack of strong overall leadership.
In the future, I hope that Denmark will strengthen its development efforts - rather than humanitarian aid in response to prolonged crises. This is especially important for refugee crises, where lasting solutions have very long prospects. An HDP approach focusing on development efforts will better address the long-term needs, also when climate changes worsen these crises – and in this way prevent unwanted and unregulated migration.
A Danish-led effort to improve the coherence between humanitarian aid, development cooperation, and peacebuilding will not only promote a more effective use of scarce resources. It will also promote Denmark's status as a continued strong player in international aid - in the EU and especially in cooperation with the OECD's development committee DAC, which has a Danish chairperson, and in the relevant UN organizations such as the Security Council, where Denmark currently has a seat.
New role for the UN
In the future, I believe that equal partnerships should be established with partner countries – with a much greater focus on local leadership, ownership, capacity, and implementation through national structures. This localization will reduce costs, build capacity, and increase sustainability. A focus that is fortunately already highlighted in the government's Africa strategy.
The equal partnerships with a central focus on localization are a necessity right now due to the geopolitical trends and the economic consequences exacerbated by Trump 2.0. This leaves a much smaller role for the UN and international NGOs in the implementation of aid - partly because there is no money. A redefined role for these could be to advocate for a new division of tasks, guidance, and only limited implementation of narrowly defined and time-limited life-saving efforts in areas where local capacity is not present. Denmark should also promote that international financial institutions such as the World Bank and also IFU – the Danish Investment Fund developing countries - for contribute to financing long-term development activities. It would also be useful if initiatives in the new Danish development strategy could attract non-traditional donors, for example, in the Middle East or China.
It would also be important if situation-specific opportunities could be created for the business sector to play a larger role (see, for example, the Danish-supported program for refugee areas in Kenya, where three large Danish companies participate with financial resources and technical expertise). To attract the private sector, it requires that host nations proactively pursue creating investment-friendly framework conditions, which can be supported by financial institutions. And finally, it is important that the strategy includes a goal or text on the importance of defining a new and contemporary rule-based system for international cooperation, where the global south has a greater determining role.
With the global decline in aid financing, I hope the new Danish strategy can help promote a more effective global system for development aid, where development, foreign, trade, and security policy are better connected through strong interministerial management at home. At the individual country level, this should ideally result in Denmark working under the leadership of the host country with a much greater focus on localization through equal partnerships.