OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: Denmark 2016
The OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) conducts periodic reviews of the individual
development co-operation efforts of DAC members. The policies and programmes of each
member are critically examined approximately once every five years. DAC peer reviews
assess the performance of a given member, not just that of its development co-operation
agency, and examine both policy and implementation. They take an integrated, system-wide
perspective on the development co-operation and humanitarian assistance activities
of the member under review.
If you are unable to download this report, click here and send us a message with your request.
The DAC's main findings and recommendations available in English | French
Denmark is a top aid donor but reduced budget and refugee costs pose risks
Denmark has been a generous provider of development aid, providing high-quality support to countries most in need. With an estimated 2015 aid budget of USD 2.6 billion, equating to 0.85% of its gross national income, Denmark is one of a handful of countries to regularly surpass the international commitment to provide at least 0.7% of GNI in official development assistance (ODA). However, it faces significant challenges from a reduction of its aid budget and fast-rising refugee costs, according to the latest DAC Peer Review.
Strengthened coherence between long-term development efforts and humanitarian assistance
Denmark is well equipped to design a comprehensive strategy to support implementation of the World Humanitarian Summit. It has already conducted pioneering policy work examining the persistent challenges in the humanitarian-development nexus and has developed funding mechanisms that can finance either humanitarian, transition or development activities. Humanitarian and development staff share a common terminology which strengthens understanding and ownership of the search for coherence. Denmark’s new strategy for development co-operation, due for release in late 2016, is also expected to increase the integration of humanitarian and development actions.
However, increasing humanitarian allocations while cutting bilateral and multilateral allocations puts Denmark’s capacity to bridge the gap between the two workstreams at risk. It also presents challenges for addressing the root causes of conflict and migration, particularly given that addressing these challenges will require long-term financial and policy commitments.