- Climate change and the environment
- Energy
- Macroeconomics and public administration
- Global Health
- Education and research
The work that Norad contributes to covers a broader scope of project sector:
- Good governance
- Economic development and trade
- Education
- Health and social services
- Environment and energy
- Emergency assistance
Figure 2 shows the distribution of Norwegian development aid by project sector. Considering the second of Norad’s development goals is to ‘Concentrate most resources on following up on the main priority areas of Norwegian development policy’, Figure 2 shows a severe lack of investment in education, and health and social services,
Figure 2: A pie chart showing the distribution of Norwegian development aid in 2011 by sector.
Most recently Norad has received a flurry of press attention following the ‘Radiaid’ spoof development campaign going viral worldwide. The YouTube video is a parody of Band-Aid, depicting a group of Africans donating radiators to Norway to combat extreme cold, with the aim of combating “incomplete images...[that] we are frustrated at the constant repetition of... Since the narrative tends to be the same as it was when development assistance first started some 50 years ago, it might give the impression that none of these efforts have produced any results and thus lead to apathy.” (Schreiner Evans, 26/11/2012). This project was created by the Norwegian Students' and Academics' International Assistance Fund (SAIH), funded from leftover budget from 2011, awarded for “creative and new ways of raising critical awareness” (Bakken Riise, 26/11/2012). Radiaid has sparked debate; bringing increased awareness of the work that SAIH and Norad carry out. However, there has also been criticism as to the negative effect on attitudes to aid that Radiaid has been perceived to promote and encourage, epitomised with a colleague of mine commenting “about time Africans gave something back”.
Figure 3: Radiaid (www.africafornorway.no)
Tourism related work
Norway invested 71.5 million NOK in the tourism sector in 2011. This is only 0.0026 % of the total NOK given to development aid from Norway, but is the largest percent since the year 2000, indicating that Norad increasingly recognise tourism as a development tool (see Figure 4). Norad takes an indirect approach to the use of tourism as tool for poverty alleviation; although it does not undertake tourism business, it promotes tourism through management of tourism areas and development of tourist products and infrastructure. An example of this from the year 2000: Norad funded a $75,000 project to construct a tourism software network in Dar Es Salaam, with the aim of promoting tourism by connecting all tourism related bodies in Tanzania (Pamba, 2000). The majority of tourism related projects that Norad contributes to are Natural Resource Management (NRM) projects – an example of this can be seen in the following case study.
Figure 4: A chart showing Norad's investment in the tourism sector 2000-2011
Figure 5 shows a breakdown of the sources of development aid from Norway in 2011, showing that only 3% is from the public sector, with the majority of aid stemming from private donors. If tourism is proving to be an effective tool for poverty alleviation, then this could be recognised by Norad by directing an increased sum of aid through tourism related projects.
Figure 5: A pie chart showing the source of Norwegian development aid in the tourism sector by partner in 2011.
Case study:
Management of Natural Resources Programme, Tanzania TAN-0092
The Management of Natural Resources Programme (MNRP) run by Tanzania’s Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism (MNRT) has been funded by Norway since 1994 with an input budget of around 300 million NOK. MNRP consist of 11 projects within three areas: Forestry and forestry research (6 projects); Wildlife and wildlife research (4 projects); Marine (1 project) (Norad, 05/2007). Most of these projects have a direct or indirect link to tourism in the local area, and 2% (29, 610, 722 NOK) of the total MNRP budget was spent on the ‘Support development of ecotourism guidelines based on national policies and international best practice’ (Cooksey et. al., 2007).
The goal of MNRP is: ‘Natural resources contributed on sustainable basis towards reduced income
poverty, vulnerability amongst the poorest groups and improved quality of life and
social well-being in Tanzania.’
The main objective of MNRP is: ‘Increased benefits to rural communities based on sustainable natural management in Tanzania (Norad, 05/2007).’
The final evaluation report observes the results of these individual projects, scrutinizing the impact of this long-term Norwegian support to Tanzania.
The results recorded show many successes in ‘increased income generation and poverty reduction’ among community members in project areas ‘as a result of natural resource conservation and restoration’ (Cooskey et. al., 2007):
- In the Serengeti Regional Conservation Project (SRCP), there has been an increase in food security for employed individuals such as Village Game Scouts.
-
‘Income from tourism has led to increased benefits to the rural communities in the 21 villages in the project area, particularly in terms of social and welfare amenities.’ (Cooskey et. al., 2007).
- At a community level, investments in social infrastructure have been made using income gleaned from various project activities, including tourism royalties, meat sales, and taxes on forest products.
Despite the positive results that the MNRP produced, the final evaluation report also recorded shortcomings from some of these project initiatives.
The Document for the 2006 Annual Review claims that ‘the number of qualified staff in natural resources and tourism … remains the main challenge to the government’ at both national and district level (Norad, 05/2007). Rectifying this issue requires either the import of talent, or education and training of Tanzanian locals.
Another issue specifically related to tourism is that the evaluation team observed that the benefits can be ‘limited to a fortunate few, often the better-off members of the community, while the poor majority do not enjoy significant...benefits.’ (Cooskey et. al., 2007). It was noted that too often the benefits received by tourist companies and central and local governments often outweigh the costs borne by villagers in Wildlife Management Areas (WMA), as a result of agricultural damage (Holmern et. al.,2004). The distribution of these benefits is a governance issue which should be carefully considered when assessing the positive and negative outcomes of a project, especially in relation to the impact on local communities. Undermining community empowerment in this way goes against the main objective of the MNRP.
These conclusions should be considered by Norad and the Government of Tanzania (GOT) when planning and implementing future NRM projects that show similarities to the MNRP, and can be used to avoid a repeat of these inadequacies.
In the final project evaluation, Cooksey et al. recommend that tourism (along with marine, forest, and wildlife hunting) ‘need to be integrated into the mainstream of economic planning, taxation and regulation’ and that ‘Norway take a more pro-active role in furthering this process among development partners’. A long-term goal is also advised for NRM support: ‘to make the GOT financially independent of donor aid by valuing and taxing natural resources effectively and enforcing NRM laws and regulations’. This ties in with the first of Norad’s strategies: Help to empower recipient countries to achieve their own development goals.
Figure 6: Zebras cross a road in the Serengeti national reserve on October 25. Mid last year, the Norwegian government suspended funding to the tune of millions of dollars for the Management of Natural Resources Programme. Picture: AFP
Conclusion
From the research carried out in this report, it is clear that Norad is investing high volumes of capital in development aid. To analyse the efficacy of their work, the results can be compared with some of Norad’s strategic goals:
- Help to empower recipient countries to achieve their own development goals
- The MNRP project in Tanzania goes some way to achieve this with the GOT. Clearly there is further work needed to enable GOT to operate without assistance.
- Produce and apply knowledge of what works and what doesn’t in order to improve development assistance
- The research and reports published by Norad, such as the final project evaluation for MNRP, use data to make clear recommendations for use in future development assistance.
- Be an instigator of public debate on development assistance and development
- The Radaid project proves a prime example of this.
Whilst the work of Norad is clearly beneficial in many respects, it is prudent to continue to evaluate results and question the benefits at all levels. It could be asked whether continued government funding provides political leverage for donor countries; financial control and other forms of soft corruption should be monitored and flagged up through constant self and independent regulation. Conversely, providing projects are alleviating poverty and increasing the quality of life of vulnerable people more than they are benefiting governments and outside agencies, then that is development success. It could be argued that irrespective of potential corruption, it is better for projects to exist and do some good than not exist and nothing get done at all. Ideally, a perfectly functioning development agency, such as Norad, should be aiming to make all project initiatives self-sustainable, eliminating the need for continued donor support, and the potential for foul-play.
Bibliography and references
Aidwatch (12/11/2010) What is multilateral aid? Online document may be viewed at http://aidwatch.org.au/where-is-your-aid-money-going/multilateral-aid/what-is-multilateral-aid, accessed on 03/12/2012.
Bakken Riise, Anja (26/11/2012) Radiaid: the making of a viral video. Online document may be viewed at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/26/radiaid-norway-charity-single, accessed on 27/11/2012.
Bjørgulv, Braanen (09/03/2012) Bistand. Online document may be found at http://klassekampen.no/60001/article/item/null/bistand, accessed on 27/11/2012.
Cooksey, B., Anthony, L., Egoe, J., Forrester, K., Kajembie, G., Mbano, B., Von Oertzen, I., and Reidmiller, S. (2007) Management of Natural Resources Programme, Tanzania TAN-0092 : Final Evaluation. Online document may be viewed at http://www.norad.no/en/tools-and-publications/publications/norad-collected-reviews/publication?key=109608, accessed on 27/11/2012. Pages iii, iv, 3, 7, 8, 11, 13.
Holmern, T., et al. (2004) Human-Wildlife Conflicts and Hunting in the Western Serengeti, Tanzania, NINA Research Report No. 26, Trondheim, May.
Norad (05/2007) Management of Natural Resources Programme, Tanzania TAN-0092: Final Evaluation. Online document may be viewed at http://www.norad.no/en/tools-and-publications/publications/norad-collected-reviews/publication?key=109608, accessed on 27/11/2012.
Norad (06/2011) Norad’s Strategy towards 2015: Results in the Fight against Poverty. Pages 2, 3. Online document may be found at http://www.norad.no/en/tools-and-publications/publications/publication?key=383567, accessed on 29/11/2012.
Norad (27/10/2011) About Norad. Online document may be viewed at http://www.norad.no/en/about-norad, accessed on 23/11/2012.
Pamba, Salehe (22/12/2000) Tanzania: NORAD To Fund Tanzania's Tourism Software Network. Online document may be viewed at http://allafrica.com/stories/200012220225.html, accessed on 27/11/2012.
Schreiner Evans, Erik (26/11/2012) Radiaid: the making of a viral video. Online document may be viewed at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/26/radiaid-norway-charity-single, accessed on 27/11/2012.
World Tourism Organisation (2005) Tourism, Microfinance and Poverty Alleviation. World Tourism Organisation, Madrid, Spain.
World Vision (2007) What are the different types of aid? Online document may be viewed at http://www.worldvision.com.au/Libraries/3_1_1_-_Issues_-_Aid/What_are_the_different_types.sflb.ashx, accessed on 27/11/2012.
Images & figures:
NORAD logo: https://twitter.com/noradno
Figure 1: http://www.norad.no/en/countries
Figure 2: http://www.norad.no/en/tools-and-publications/norwegian-aid-statistics
Figure 3: http://www.africafornorway.no/
Figure 4: http://www.norad.no/en/tools-and-publications/norwegian-aid-statistics
Figure 5: http://www.norad.no/en/tools-and-publications/norwegian-aid-statistics/microdata
Figure 6: http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/news/Tanzania-forced-to-refund-embezzled-funds-to-Norway/-/2558/1063182/-/view/printVersion/-/11xglqgz/-/index.html
by
snowclare (student)
