– I’m sure this will provide better and more efficient help. There is great potential in coordinating themes and agreements when we have to manage most of the help in the same house. “I am also sure that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will be given the freedom to carry out what is the core activity of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, namely foreign policy and development,” Bård Vegar Solhjell told Panorama.

Director Norad spoke about what Development Minister Anne Beathe Tvinnereim (Sp) called a “proper clean-up” in Norwegian aid – a move that was met with both praise and harsh criticism.

Recently, the government announced that Norad, in addition to its existing duties, will take over responsibility for most of the aid, including emergency aid, which until now was managed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This means that almost all aid will now be managed by this directorate. Panorama asked how Solhjell envisioned the move would contribute to better interactions, so-called Nexbetween humanitarian work and long-term development.

– Norad will continue the work of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs so that Norway can continue to be a flexible humanitarian aid donor. Then we’ll add dimensions to this. Much of the humanitarian aid used in countries is the same as long-term aid because the crisis has been so prolonged. “Our goal is to realize joint agreements with the same treaty partners that manage long-term humanitarian assistance and development assistance,” Solhjell said.

– Can’t be specific

– But can you be specific: How do you envision humanitarian aid management being operationalized?

– It’s tempting to answer no; I can’t be specific, because we’ve never managed humanitarian aid before. So Norad now has to enter what I call a learning mode, getting expertise and people from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and we have to learn from Norway’s humanitarian partners.

– Researcher Cecilie Hellestveit believes that these changes will lead to fewer people receiving emergency aid, and some others we have spoken to, for example Prio researchers Jon Harald Sande Lie and Gry Ballestad of the Norwegian Institute for People’s Aid, say they are not sure whether this is the case. is a wise move. What would you say to convince them?

– That we take criticism seriously. And I think the criticisms that have been made have contributed to a good debate with a good perspective. The aim was to achieve what CMI director Ottar Mæstad wrote, without falling into the traps that Cecilie Hellestveit had warned about.

– You almost have to explain it further.

– Mæstad writes about how to achieve what you call better relationship, which we call a holistic effort, namely looking at long-term humanitarian and aid efforts in a better context, while providing greater flexibility to partners. Hellestveit warned that we may lose the strength that Norway has as a humanitarian partner. I experience that some people think that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should not regulate this politically, but they are very wrong. This ministry will be close to the political management of Norway’s future humanitarian contributions. “What we will do at Norad is provide professional advice, manage and implement it,” said Solhjell.

– A real challenge

Director Norad emphasized that all change processes have risks.

– Therefore, it is important to start the process with an honest admission that we cannot do this, that this is specialized knowledge that we do not have, and that we as an institution must learn. Therefore, it is also important to bring in skilled and experienced Ministry of Foreign Affairs employees. And then we have to have a change of pace in some parts of the organization, because human work has a speed that we don’t have in our organizational culture.

– What can you call humanitarian culture?

– Yes, so we have to create it. This means that we need at least three things – what we could call the three Cs: competence, providing context and culture. We must learn to understand how partners work based on humanitarian principles and Norway’s humanitarian strategy, and we must strengthen dialogue with Norway’s external apparatus. And this will become even more important in the future, because currently, I don’t think we are good enough at carrying out dialogue in long-term development efforts. We will provide professional advice, so that better dialogue with the embassy will be a priority task in the future, Solhjell said.

– Do you think, for example, that now more and more Norad employees will have to obtain security clearance?

– Maybe that’s one of the things that needs to be sorted out. For example, this became a relevant topic when we were given responsibility for Ukrainian aid. But I believe that, above all, we must study the particularities of humanity. Calling yourself a humble person is stupid, but we understand that this will be a real challenge for Norad – and at the same time believe that this is possible to achieve. After all, almost all other donor countries manage emergency aid and long-term aid in the same institutions – and get it done, Solhjell said.

– Political decisions

Director Norad said he did not know how many heads would be transferred from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or how many would work with human assistance when the administration moved from one ministry to a directorate. In general, many things seem unclear.

– First there must be a process at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs about what will be transferred, then a process with departments and employees. It is important for us at Norad to respect this, because the process of change is very demanding, both for institutions and society. But the Ministry of Foreign Affairs wants us to get the resources to complete the mission. And I think the most important reason for this is quite simple – that they are equally dependent on us for this to work.

– But do you think Norad will get some autonomy or is the setup here for now still blue?

– I differentiate between political and professional here. In my opinion, it would be much more important for us to be able to work closely with the Norwegian embassy now, to have access to professional reports and assessments made by foreign missions, and to be closer to a number of humanitarian partners. especially now at the beginning, to understand how it works.

– Controlled in great detail

The Director considers it very likely that the political leadership at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is close to politics, even though the government is in Norad. He said this is a governance issue.

– Let me give two examples. Regarding Ukraine aid, which we have recently been responsible for, we are dealing with it in great detail because it is politically sensitive and the Foreign Ministry and the government are closely involved. In the framework agreement we have with civil society, we receive comprehensive guidance, but we make our own assessments and decisions. So management can be done in various ways, and I hope that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will continue to be close to humanitarian assistance, even though we are the ones managing it.

In 2016, donors committed to a “major agreement”, emphasizing the need for better coordination on humanitarian and long-term needs. When asked why Norway’s aid management took so long to achieve what was agreed at the meeting in Istanbul, Solhjell answered that a lot of work had been done, but there was still a long way to go in terms of organization.

He believes this is because Norwegian aid has been divided between two ministers, where the management of most of the long-term aid is in Norad, while humanitarian aid is in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

– When measures are now taken, and almost all the management is in the same institution, we at Norad can carry out further “big deal” work, for example through agreement structures, said the director of Norad.

– Can’t find a definite answer

– With Norad’s new mandate, and as director of all of them – why is it better that “everything” now ends up at Norad, in the super directorate, rather than at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs?

– There is no definite answer here, so the most important thing is to choose one of the models. Some countries have everything in ministries, others in directorates. The downside in Norway was that we had two different models, and I’m glad we ended that.

Solhjell believes that with this new model, Norwegian aid can be managed more efficiently.

– But, apart from the administrative aspect, why is this a good step for the communities that Norway is supposed to help?

– If we do something about the quality of management, we can base ourselves more on knowledge and choose partners and spend money that is right on target and makes an impact. And if we manage to use every penny in a way that makes the greatest possible impact, we can also help more people.