How can a development co-operation system valued for its principled, long-term and patient approach maximise its comparative advantage in the face of growing fiscal pressures and internal scrutiny? This question underpinned the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) peer review of Switzerland, conducted by Hungary and Luxembourg, with Croatia as an observer. The peer review assesses where Switzerland stands, its achievements, and how it can improve further. Switzerland’s official development assistance (ODA) has increased in the past years, reaching USD 5.2 billion in 2023, representing 0.6% of the country’s gross national income (GNI). However, the envelope for the 2025-2028 strategy (CHF 11.12 billion or USD 12.57 billion) will reduce the ODA/GNI ratio to 0.41%, or 0.36% excluding in donor refugee costs (IDRC). Developing strategies to reverse this decrease is critical for Switzerland to achieve its commitments and ambitions.
Switzerland’s long-term country engagement in complex areas is a strong asset. Its approach to programming, with gradual scaling-up over time, is strongly valued by partner countries. Switzerland also often engages in projects whose results are not always immediately tangible or easily measurable, but that can bring positive change in the long term. By supporting complex projects, Switzerland is often an anchor donor, paving the way for further support from others.
Following the 2019 peer review recommendation, Switzerland has made clear efforts to reduce its number of priority countries. The overall number narrowed from 52 to 41 under the 2021-24 strategy, mainly by SDC phasing out bilateral development co-operation in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) and Mongolia. Exit from LAC was well planned, communicated, and handled with both partner countries and staff, with a strong focus on learning and sustainability.
While poverty reduction is a clear objective of Swiss development co-operation, the share of least developed countries receiving bilateral ODA has decreased in recent years. This is partially driven by increased allocations to IDRC and Ukraine. Building on SDC’s focus on leaving no one behind, Switzerland should ensure that poverty reduction systematically informs all programmes.
Swiss international co-operation staff are professional and knowledgeable, and their expertise is a critical asset; but filling posts in fragile contexts remains challenging. Identifying trained, experienced and motivated staff for posting to fragile contexts remains a challenge for SDC, despite testing solutions such as post-sharing since the previous peer review. Building and nurturing thematic expertise is also challenging. Adjusting the management of human resources to the specificities of development co-operation, notably by making the rotation system more flexible, would enable progress on these challenges.
Switzerland has one of the most comprehensive systems among DAC members for measuring impact, using a balanced mix of context-specific and standard indicators. Since 2019, Switzerland has improved its results-based management further by refining indicators and enhancing evidence-based decision making. The Results Data Management (RDM) system has improved transparency, though challenges remain in data access, collection, and security risks. Harmonising the RDM across SDC, SECO and PHRD would enhance results aggregation. Joint evaluations are rare due to institutional differences, though collaboration is increasing. Switzerland’s learning culture might come under pressure from an increased focus on efficiency and accountability; resources and time for learning and reflection need to be therefore safeguarded.
Public and political support for development co-operation has diminished recently. Funding for development awareness and communication strategies has also decreased, and technical language and confidentiality sometimes make it hard to communicate the value of Switzerland’s international co‑operation. A compelling narrative is needed that appeals to Switzerland’s international reputation and highlights the domestic benefits of development co-operation and Swiss contributions to sustainable development and global stability. A more tailored use of channels and messages is also needed for strategic engagement with political decision-makers and civil society organisations.
Switzerland is well-equipped to operate in unstable environments. In the past years, Switzerland has started the most ambitious administrative reform amongst all DAC members, called Fit-for-Purpose (F4P), which has brought together SDC’s Humanitarian and Development units. This has allowed for joined-up analysis and response to emerging or protracted crises, linking short and long-term response. SDC’s two-year learning journey (2020-2022) on staying engaged in authoritarian contexts makes it better equipped to react to democratic backsliding and is also helpful for other DAC members. Switzerland’s neutrality, technical expertise and robust frameworks mean it knows how to build trust with local authorities while protecting civil society actors, making it a valued development partner even in politically constrained environments. Building on this unique position, Switzerland should incentivise staff to dedicate the time to build and secure these partnerships and the political understanding to gear programmes towards key aspects of resilience and stabilisation. Building on the F4P reform, Switzerland could further link development efforts and peace objectives. It could apply a fragility lens throughout its portfolio and not just in contexts of crisis.
Switzerland has pioneered various positive development initiatives with the private sector, but stronger linkages across instruments would achieve more impact. Initiatives include vocational training, results-based financing, and the SDG Impact Finance Initiative (SIFI), which aims at mobilising private resources for development. SECO and SDC sometimes operate on similar themes – such as economic framework conditions, skills development, SME support, investment funds – with limited opportunities for knowledge exchange. Moreover, embassies do not work closely with projects supported by Swiss instruments, such as SIFI or SIFEM, and are sometimes not aware of them. Clarifying the links across instruments and identifying areas for complementarity would allow Switzerland to make the best of its private sector toolbox. In addition, while Switzerland currently leads the way on untying ODA, planned partially tied aid programme for Ukraine risks undermining Switzerland’s standing.
Switzerland has taken steps to improve policy coherence for sustainable development but struggles to systematically integrate transboundary considerations into federal policies. Standardised consultation and co-ordination mechanisms ensure consensus-building and cross‑departmental alignment, and the 2030 Sustainable Development Strategy and its action plans aim to integrate sustainable development across all policy sectors. However, these initiatives rarely assess the transboundary impacts of policies. Switzerland supports sustainable trade through corresponding provisions in trade agreements and platforms like the Better Gold Initiative, though compliance burdens and market practices pose challenges. Progress has been made in responsible business conduct and tackling illicit financial flows, but gaps persist in commodities trading regulations and anti-bribery enforcement.
