Whole‑of‑Government Approaches to Development Co‑operation: Netherlands
Table of contents
This country note provides an overview of key characteristics of the Netherlands’ development co-operation as it relates to whole-of-government co-ordination. It is based on desk research and interviews held with relevant stakeholders. This note complements the OECD DAC peer-learning exercise, Whole‑of‑Government Approaches to Development Co-operation (OECD, 2026[1]). This note highlights institutional arrangements, co-ordination mechanisms and quality assurance processes in place to support a whole-of-government approach to development co-operation. Data in this note reflect the latest available year, 2024.
The Netherlands’ approach to development co-operation is anchored in an integrated foreign policy model that aligns trade, development and other foreign policy priorities within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA). This structure enables strong alignment in foreign policy. However, co-ordination with other ministries and other semi-autonomous actors within the Dutch system occurs through a mix of successful co-ordination tools, such as the “homogenous budget process”, ad hoc thematic task forces and country platforms. A recent sequence of minister leadership changes, as well as budget cuts, can risk further complicating co-ordination, magnifying trade-offs between development and trade priorities and potentially limiting engagement from non-lead ministries and other key actors.
Since the 1990s, the Netherlands has placed particular emphasis on ensuring increased coherence between and integration of the political, development and economic dimensions of its foreign policy (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2020[2]). Structural and organisational reforms of its foreign policy function during the early 2010s supported the creation of a more integrated system between foreign trade and development policy as part of the Dutch foreign affairs portfolio. While co-ordination and coherence is often encouraged from political leadership and institutional structures, the Netherlands does not have an explicit legal framework that specifically highlights its commitment to whole-of-government co-ordination, as is the case for other DAC members. At the same time, the Netherlands has a clear objective of and commitment to increased policy coherence in their foreign policy and within government, especially in the combining of trade and development co-operation (IOB, 2021[3]).
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) leads development co-operation policy and activities. A dedicated Minister for Foreign Trade and Development oversees both the trade and development portfolios, while sitting alongside a Minister of Foreign Affairs mainly focused on political, EU and other regional affairs. Within the MFA, a specific Directorate-General for International Co-operation is responsible for the vast majority of the development programming and liaison at the operational level with the other actors involved in the Dutch system. The Directorate General for Foreign Economic Relations has responsibility over the Dutch approach to international trade, with a focus on helping Dutch business develop and export abroad, often with a geographic or thematic focus1. Within the MFA, there are several regional departments that lead co-ordination efforts with Dutch presence abroad and cover the priorities of both ministers, working with all directorates (OECD, 2023[4]); (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, 2026[5]).
Notes: FMO is the Dutch Entrepreneurial Development Bank, RVO is the Netherlands Enterprise Agency, DRIVE is Development Related Infrastructure Investment Vehicle, DGGF is the Dutch Good Growth Fund.
The Netherlands is a centralised single ministry model, where the development function is integrated not only with the broader foreign affairs function alongside with trade policy (OECD, 2026[1]). Such an arrangement often allows for fast decision-making processes and clear alignment across development co-operation activities (OECD, 2009[6]). Interviewees noted that the strength of the integrated ministry is the ease of meeting and working across the Directorate Generals, leading to stronger and more coherent policy vision across the different policy areas covered within the Ministry. The main challenge, however, is ensuring that central control does not crowd out meaningful co-ownership by line ministries on cross‑cutting issues that require their expertise and substantive engagement. Having a strong integrated foreign policy system is therefore not a substitute for co‑ordination architecture, and structured governance is required for effective whole-of-government approaches.
Several other agencies also play an important role in delivering Dutch development co-operation, with differing involvement by the MFA. The Netherlands does not have a formal implementing agency but relies on a variety of instruments and actors to carry out its development programming alongside the MFA. Some of these entities are more closely connected to government than others due to different governance structures. For co-ordination to occur between the government and these entities, it is therefore necessary to create some clear incentives.2 Furthermore, as part of the European Union (EU) Global Gateway strategy, the EU has asked member states to develop National Team approaches, leading to the creation of Team Netherlands. This brings together the Ministry and partners, and while it is still too early to express a judgment on its results, it can provide an opportunity to invest time in creating synergies and understanding diverse Dutch priorities.
The main public entities involved are:
The Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO): a public institution that implements some of the Dutch private-sector partnerships. As an external agency, it still remains part of the MFA’s management team for development co-operation and is one of the bodies with which MFA staff at headquarters and in country directly collaborate due to its operational mandate.
The Dutch Entrepreneurial Development Bank (FMO): the Dutch public–private development bank (51% state owned). While the government is the majority shareholder and is responsible for policy, FMO is independent operationally, following its own statute, and is at arm’s length from the government. FMO’s own operations are not counted as ODA. FMO also manages public funds from the Dutch and other governments. However, FMO operates in line with the Dutch development co-operation ambitions.
Invest International: a joint venture of the Ministry of Finance (51%), and FMO (49%). It manages investment programmes previously handled by RVO. Through subsidies from the MFA, it combines public programmes and commercial activities with dual goals of impact in partner countries and support to Dutch commercial interests.
Setting the annual budget on foreign allocations is a process of strategic co-ordination between the MFA and other ministries. This upstream ex-ante process named “homogenous budget” aims at ensuring alignment between ODA spending and other foreign policy expenditure, through co-ordination between the different ministries involved (Tweede Kamer, 2025[7]). Among DAC members, the Netherlands’ “homogenous budget” represents a strong example of deliberately creating a co‑ordination process for assessing which line ministries or other public entities should contribute to a given development outcome, with clear objectives and expectations, and a shared understanding of what one means to achieve through development co-operation (Gulrajani and Calleja, 2021[8]).The budget follows nine broad thematic areas3 of ODA and non-ODA spending that make up the Dutch foreign policy priorities. In 2024, beyond the MFA, other ministries disbursing ODA were: i) Justice and Security, ii) Economic Affairs and Climate and Green Growth, iii) Infrastructure and Water Management, iv) Agriculture, Fisheries, Food Security and Nature, v) Health, Welfare and Sport, vi) Finance, and vii) Education, Culture and Science. These and other ministries also contribute to the same overarching themes through non-ODA disbursements. In 2024, ODA spending made up 62% of the Dutch foreign policy envelope. 75% of this was allocated by the MFA (MFA+BHO) and the remaining 25% by the above-mentioned ministries.4
Note: Data are presented in a log10 scale in order to show all ministries at comparable resolution.
Source: (Tweede Kamer, 2025[7]) Homogene Groep Internationale Samenwerking 2026.
Responsibility for multilateral engagement is distributed across ministries, which operate with institutional autonomy and some hold primary responsibility for the Netherlands' participation in specific multilateral bodies.5 Multiple global strategies, such as that of Climate and Health, are the result of an expressed whole-of-government ambition across ministries. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs bears overarching responsibility for government-wide co-ordination of the Dutch multilateral framework and broader global strategies. To ensure coherent and timely policy alignment, regular inter-ministerial co‑ordination meetings will be established between ministries, with the MFA having a lead co-ordinating role in this process. (Government of the Netherlands, 2023[9]); (OECD, 2023[4])
Recent budget cuts and a greater emphasis on trade, security and migration can present challenges for existing co-ordination practices. In the 2025 policy letter,6 the Minister of Foreign Trade and Development announced cuts to ODA and stipulated that national interests such as trade, security and migration will take precedence in development policy (Government of the Netherlands, 2025[10]). While, on one hand, this change might suggest an even closer alignment and co-ordination between trade and development portfolios, the modalities through which this was announced do not necessarily lead to the same conclusion. The former 2022 policy “Do what we do best” was a good example of an overarching strategy that integrated and presented trade and development priorities jointly (OECD, 2023[4]). In a change to previous practice, in 2025, two different policy letters presented to parliament in two separate instances, one for development co-operation and one for international trade. While the development policy letter has strong mentions of trade interests, the international trade policy letter makes no reference to development co-operation.
The Dutch system has set up and makes use of different levels of formal structured inter-ministerial co-ordination mechanisms:
Multiple ministerial sub-councils are held, chaired by the prime minister, in which the MFA takes part. The thematic sub-council wherein international development co-operation is discussed is the “Defence, International, National Economic Security - RDINEV”, whose role is to prepare cabinet decisions on defence, economic security (including non-European foreign policy), migration and security and development policy linkages.
Thematic cross-ministerial co-ordination takes place via specific task forces and ad hoc steering groups. These co-ordination groups are often both at the strategic/senior level as well as working level (Government of the Netherlands, 2026[11]). A few examples include:
The Inter-departmental Taskforce on International Migration, which is a joint effort led by the MFA with the Ministry of Asylum and Migration, which was created with the ambition of advancing Dutch migration interests through a whole-of-government approach. Within this taskforce, up to EUR 118 million per year by 2029 has been budgeted from these two ministries, combining ODA and non-ODA expenditure (Ministry of Asylum and Migration, 2025[12]).
The Inter-departmental steering group, led by the MFA and the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, which convenes also with other relevant ministries and permanent representations to discuss progress about the Global Health Strategy (Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, 2022[13]).
The Inter-departmental Task Force for Climate Diplomacy, which includes a broad range of ministries and other actors such as RVO, was established to support the progress and implementation of the International Climate Policy (IOB, 2023[14]).
While it is important to recognise the key role of these frequent and structured interactions, co-ordination challenges still arise when mandates and roles are not clearly defined and when these co-ordination groups are not viewed as places where strategic choices and trade-offs can be addressed (IOB, 2024[15]).
The Dutch integrated approach combines diplomatic, military, development and justice instruments under a single cross-ministerial policy framework, and represents one of the most consistently articulated and institutionally embedded whole-of-government practices in the Dutch foreign policy system. The approach brings together the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Justice and Security around a shared objective of contributing to stability, security and rule of law in fragile and conflict-affected contexts. A recent evaluation of these efforts documented genuine results in improvements in social cohesion, livelihoods and resilience that reflected the added value of sustained, multi-instrument engagement in settings where few other development providers maintained a comparable breadth of presence. However, the evaluation also found that translating the integrated approach from policy framework into effective cross-ministerial practice in highly volatile environments presented some implementation challenges, such as frequent rotation of embassy and headquarters staff which disrupts continuity of context knowledge and inter-ministerial relationships; programme management capacity being insufficient relative to the complexity and ambition of the portfolio; and information flows between field and headquarters not consistently structured to support adaptive decision making. It recommended therefore that the government should be more explicit about the objectives and operationalisation of the integrated approach and invest more in joint problem analysis to ensure the coherence of foreign interventions by different ministries (IOB, 2023[16]).
Co-ordination on development-specific policy matters with other ministries remains ad hoc due to relevant thematic expertise sitting within the MFA. The MFA retains a good level of thematic experts covering priority issues for Dutch development policy, from agri-food to water. When relevant, collaboration with thematic ministries occurs in an ad hoc manner. Inputs from other ministries are often minimal, due to limited funding and very small international departments with limited capacity to engage. Interviewees did not consider this as a main challenge but rather a reality of the work, to which they have successfully adapted by valuing internal capacity.
At headquarters there are opportunities for improved synergies with private sector focussed instruments but can be time consuming. Due to differences in mandates, finding synergies is often more time consuming than expected. Investing time into understanding each other’s priorities and ways of working is crucial in establishing a shared base from which to build a vision or a programme to which all can contribute. Learning to prioritise when and on what to co-ordinate is valued by a variety of stakeholders. Incentives for closer collaboration can also sometimes be imbalanced, where one side needs the other more. FMO mentions that it sometimes receives suggestions from the MFA or the RVO agency to finance companies that have previously received grant support from them, which is not possible because these companies are too small or do not fulfil FMO’s Environmental Social and Governance standards or Know Your Customer requirements. RVO and MFA private sector programmes could potentially play a market creation role for FMO and its investees, but this would require building a common understanding of what bankability means (IOB, 2021[3]; OECD, 2026[17]).
Policy coherence for sustainable development (PCSD) is an area that sees strong leadership from the MFA and could benefit from increased consistent engagement from the rest of the government. The 2023 OECD DAC Peer Review praises the Netherlands for prioritising PCSD in its government action plans, addressing spillovers from trade, climate, and economic policies on developing countries, and leveraging multi-stakeholder dialogues involving civil society and businesses. It highlights that there are strong mechanisms and tools in place to deliver policy change. Despite a wide recognition of the value of policy coherence, a deeper engagement from other parts of the government is necessary to drive policy change and deliver on Dutch ambitions. For example, despite having an obligation, ministries often do not complete the “SDG test” in sufficient quality or in a timely manner. The government also could, for instance, require all ministries to demonstrate how their work contributes to the SDGs, including in developing countries and at global scale (OECD, 2023[4]; IOB, 2023[18]).
Country platforms are a well-functioning example of co-ordination between headquarters and country presence. These are led by the country desks within the regional departments who convene every 6-8 weeks, bringing together a range of stakeholders from diverse MFA staff from headquarters and country offices, other involved ministries, RVO, Invest International and FMO. While these meetings are seen as key policy alignment opportunities for the most involved, for others, they can also have the function of information sharing.7 Multi-annual country strategies are a key output discussed in these meetings and are a clear example of strong whole-of-government co-ordination, where for each partner country, the Netherlands makes a government-wide effort (led by MFA) to highlight and link all the relevant themes. In 2025 three months of consultations and discussions were held even prior to the start of the drafting period for multi-annual strategies. Interviewees noted that this brought an opportunity for increased coherence and alignment of the changing priorities.
At the country level, the Netherlands has established a unique system to operationalise trade and development integration, which also facilitates whole-of-government co-ordination. The Netherlands categorises its country presence in three ways: “development-focused countries”, “trade‑focused countries”, and “combination countries” (Government of the Netherlands, 2022[19]); (OECD, 2023[4]):
Development-focused countries are countries with which the Netherlands maintains a broad development relationship, and countries where development co-operation is aimed at achieving specific goals.
Trade countries represent markets in which economic diplomacy and RVO trade promotion instruments are used.
Combination countries are where both trade and development activities are undertaken.8
Each of these approaches comes with a set of different instruments available. For a combination country, for example, the MFA can provide seed funding for a cluster of local and Dutch entrepreneurs, and further human resources are allocated at headquarters. The combination countries are those in which co-ordination over trade and development objectives is more visible and intentional. A “combination” country is followed by both the MFA’s Directorate General for International Co-operation and by the Economic Diplomacy Department. In these countries, therefore, it is possible for the Netherlands to deploy instruments that cater for both development co-operation and trade ambitions. In Kenya, through the project HortIMPACT, for example, the Netherlands has combined development funding for climate-resilient agriculture with support for Kenyan and Dutch private-sector involvement in horticulture value chains. Embassy ODA-funds were used to de-risk investments from private companies and support local capacity, while trade instruments facilitated market access and business partnerships (Netherlands Embassy in Kenya, 2026[20]; SNV, n.d.[21]). The Ministry of Agriculture was also involved in the project, providing technical input and support when necessary (De Greve and Obiere Were, 2019[22]). It was noted that this approach has helped with the creation of an appealing narrative for parliament, especially important in times of cuts to ODA.
There are clear efforts to reflect a whole-of-government approach in terms of staffing and expertise within embassies, though capacity constraints persist. Recent budget cuts have led to the closing of embassies in contexts facing high fragility, and a 10% overall cut to capacity for Dutch embassies (Government of the United Kingdom, 2025[23]). However, despite reduced capacities, expertise appears to be thoughtfully allocated at the country level. For example, in Côte d’Ivoire, where agri-food is a priority, a thematic counsellor from the Ministry of Agriculture has been appointed with three specialist staff. Other figures such as defence attaché, security advisors and Responsible Business Conduct expert also support the embassy and the whole region, coming from diverse parts of the Dutch government. For larger programmes, thematic experts are often paralleled with local experts across themes such as health, water and food security. Positions in the embassies are advertised across government, and thematic ministries lead recruitment for thematic posts. While there is scope for stronger collaboration between actors such as FMO and embassies, instances of FMO secondments to embassies have showcased positive trajectory for co-ordination between the different portfolios. Increasing the level of delegation of authority to embassies can be beneficial for improved internal coherence and whole-of-government efforts. Generally, headquarters retain control over funding and instruments while embassies can co-design central projects and play a key role in aligning with local priorities and partner engagement (OECD, 2023[4]). In terms of whole-of-government co-ordination, embassies play a crucial role in information sharing and diagnostics, as they are in touch not only with headquarters but with a variety of actors in the country and in the region. For example, in Côte d’Ivoire, the embassy benefits from engagement with RVO due to their operational mandate, which complements some of the limited capacity at the embassy for managing administrative tasks.
A single evaluation unit, the Policy and Operations Evaluation Department (IOB), is mandated to evaluate Dutch development assistance, as well as foreign policy and trade activities that affect partner countries. This broad mandate ensures that development co-operation evaluations are not siloed but embedded within the government’s overall approach of an integrated foreign policy. The MFA’s evaluation policy follows national directives set by the Ministry of Finance, which is responsible for national co-ordination and quality control of policy evaluations (OECD, 2023[24]). This alignment supports coherence between development co-operation evaluations and evaluations conducted across other public policy domains. While structurally a part of the MFA, IOB is independent through a formal protocol and independent director. Whilst IOB does not function as an evaluation service for the whole of Dutch government, by evaluating the policy fields that fall under the homogenous budget the work of other ministries can fall within IOB’s evaluation scope. Yet, final responsibility for their programmes remains with the respective ministries (Government of the Netherlands, n.d.[25]). Similarly, IOB has evaluated instruments or programmes implemented by FMO and RVO. Other policy departments and embassies can also carry out evaluations, and sometimes third-party evaluations are commissioned. While lessons from evaluations seem to be taken up within MFA, it is much more difficult to influence behaviour change in ministries that are not the primary focus of IOB.
The Dutch Action Agenda on Policy Coherence for Development on Taxation constitutes a notable example of a whole-of-government approach to addressing cross-border tax issues affecting developing countries. By formally aligning the MFA and the Ministry of Finance under a jointly owned framework, the Netherlands acknowledged and operationalised the need to reconcile domestic fiscal policy with international development objectives. The structured design of linking international standard-setting, domestic policy reform and capacity development demonstrates how thematic coherence can be embedded across policy domains that are typically more siloed institutionally. The 2021 IOB evaluation found, however, that the depth of inter-ministerial co-ordination could have further improved; as in practice, the Ministry of Finance retained primary control over tax treaty negotiations and international standard-setting, limiting the extent to which development considerations were systematically integrated into upstream decision making. At the same time, the Dutch experience offers concrete examples of how these tensions can be managed through institutional design to achieve development-relevant results:
Formalised co-ownership elevated development concerns within fiscal policy discussions, placing the development impact of tax policy on the Cabinet agenda.
Structured inter-ministerial platforms created entry points for the MFA into processes historically dominated by the Ministry of Finance, even if influence remained uneven.
Multi-stakeholder engagement, including civil society and private sector actors, introduced additional pressure and legitimacy for integrating development perspectives.
Parliamentary reporting requirements increased transparency, creating incentives for both ministries to demonstrate progress on coherence commitments.
Shared evidence base through commissioned research on developing country priorities informed negotiations, even if uptake into policy positions remained inconsistent. The results of the approach of a cross-ministerial agenda resulted in concrete changes for developing countries: Dutch support for capacity development expanded to 24 countries; the Tax Inspectors Without Borders programme delivered peer-to-peer technical assistance; the Netherlands co-founded the Addis Tax Initiative, contributing to improved donor co-ordination on domestic resource mobilisation; and anti-abuse provisions were incorporated into bilateral treaties with nine developing countries (IOB, 2021[26]).
The Netherland’s approach to whole-of-government co-ordination in development co-operation highlights unique features and common challenges:
Integrated foreign policy fosters coherence, with trade, development, and political priorities aligned under the MFA. Focused and frequent inter-departmental meetings – while requiring considerable time and resources – have proven successful in maintaining clarity and policy alignment within ministry and government in a context of changes in political leadership.
The homogenous budget process is a key co-ordination instrument, providing a structured cross‑government mechanism, even though most ODA is still channelled through the MFA and contributions from other ministries remain limited. A lack of incentives for other ministries and actors to co-ordinate more closely with the MFA can lead to uneven participation.
Co-ordination mechanisms exist at multiple levels, including in the form of task forces and country platforms, but effectiveness varies due to overlapping mandates, differing operational models and capacity constraints. For the private sector co-ordination, building shared understanding, especially around timelines, risk appetite and bankability, are key.
Country‑level structures support coherence, particularly in “combination countries” where trade and development portfolios converge. Despite capacity constraints, whole-of-government expertise is leveraged in smart and effective ways.
Evaluation and learning are strong within the MFA, with IOB’s integrated mandate supporting coherence across foreign policy, but this culture of learning does not always extend to other ministries or actors.
References
[2] Bertelsmann Stiftung (2020), An EU Survey on Whole-of-Government Approaches to External Conflict and Crisis; WGA 2020 Country Report — Netherlands, https://www.wga-project.eu/docs/2020/country/WGA2020_Netherlands_Report.pdf.
[22] De Greve, P. and T. Obiere Were (2019), Report of the Final Evaluation of the Kenya Market-led Horticulture Project, https://www.snv.org/assets/downloads/f/191310/7417eddf64/final_evaluation_report_of_kmhp.pdf.
[11] Government of the Netherlands (2026), Task forces, ministerial committees and subcouncils, https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/regering/ministerraad/taskforces-ministeriele-commissies-en-onderraden.
[10] Government of the Netherlands (2025), Policy letter on international development, https://www.government.nl/documents/2025/02/21/policy-letter-on-international-development.
[9] Government of the Netherlands (2023), Policy framework Global Multilateralism 2022-2026, https://www.government.nl/documents/2023/06/08/policy-framework-global-multilateralism.
[19] Government of the Netherlands (2022), Policy Document for Foreign Trade and Development: Do what we do best, https://www.government.nl/documents/2022/10/10/policy-document-for-foreign-trade-and-development-cooperation-do-what-we-do-best.
[25] Government of the Netherlands (n.d.), Evaluation of foreign policy spending, https://www.government.nl/ministries/ministry-of-foreign-affairs/policy-and-budget/evaluation-of-foreign-policy-spending.
[23] Government of the United Kingdom (2025), The Magenta Book: Central Government guidance on evaluation, Guidance, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-magenta-book.
[8] Gulrajani, N. and R. Calleja (2021), Can we better manage donor insitutions for tackling global challenges?, https://media.odi.org/documents/Can_we_better_manage_donor_institutions_for_tackling_global_challenges_september.pdf.
[15] IOB (2024), Periodieke rapportage internationaal klimaatbeleid – Een goed klimaat voor ontwikkeling, https://www.iob-evaluatie.nl/documenten/2024/04/30/klimaatbeleid.
[18] IOB (2023), Better Aligned? Evaluation of the action plan on policy coherence for development, https://english.iob-evaluatie.nl/documents/2023/05/19/action-plan-policy-coherence-for-development.
[16] IOB (2023), Inconvenient realities. An evaluation of Dutch contributions to stability, security and rule of law in fragile and conflict addected contexts, https://www.iob-evaluatie.nl/documenten/2023/08/28/nederlandse-bijdrage-aan-stabiliteit-in-fragiele-contexten.
[14] IOB (2023), Rising Seas, Raising Ambitions: Evaluation of Dutch Climate Policy 2018-2021, https://english.iob-evaluatie.nl/documents/2023/09/20/climate-diplomacy.
[26] IOB (2021), A taxing issue: Evaluation of the Dutch government’s policy on strengthening developing countries’ tax systems, https://english.iob-evaluatie.nl/documents/2021/10/5/evaluation---strengthening-developing-countries-tax-systems.
[3] IOB (2021), Coherence or co-existence?, https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/blg-978432.pdf.
[12] Ministry of Asylum and Migration (2025), Kamerbrief toezegging terugkeersamenwerking, https://www.eerstekamer.nl/brief_in/20250905/kamerbrief_toezegging/f=/vmqjkwgofxtw.pdf.
[13] Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (2022), Dutch Global Health Strategy 2023-20230, https://www.government.nl/site/binaries/site-content/collections/documents/2023/03/29/dutch-global-health-strategy/Dutch+Global+Health+Strategy+2023-2030.pdf.
[5] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands (2026), Organigam of the Minsitry of Foreign Affairs, https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/ministeries/ministerie-van-buitenlandse-zaken/organisatie/organogram.
[20] Netherlands Embassy in Kenya (2026), Agriculture and Food, https://www.netherlandsandyou.nl/web/kenya/themes/agriculture-food.
[1] OECD (2026), Whole‑of‑Government Approaches to Development Co‑operation: Insights and Lessons from Practice, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/05846ace-en.
[17] OECD (2026), “Whole-of-Government approaches to private sector development and engagement”, OECD Development Co-operation Working Papers, No. 121, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d89289de-en.
[24] OECD (2023), Evaluation Systems in Development Co-operation 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a255365e-en.
[4] OECD (2023), OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: Netherlands 2023, OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/67b0a326-en.
[6] OECD (2009), Managing Aid: Practices of DAC Member Countries, Better Aid, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264062689-en.
[21] SNV (n.d.), Kenya Market-led Horticulture Programme (HortIMPACT), https://www.snv.org/project/kenya-market-led-horticulture-programme-hortimpact.
[7] Tweede Kamer (2025), Homogene Groep Internationale Samenwerking 2026, https://open.overheid.nl/overheid/openbaarmakingen/api/v0/attachment/15f4bc2d-ebdc-407f-bc5a-e4a19853487e.
This work is issued under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD, and does not necessarily reflect the official views of OECD Member countries.
This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
The full book is available in English: OECD (2026), Whole-of-Government Approaches to Development Co-operation: Insights and Lessons from Practice, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/05846ace-en.
© OECD 2026
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. By using this work, you accept to be bound by the terms of this licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Attribution – you must cite the work.
Translations – you must cite the original work, identify changes to the original and add the following text: In the event of any discrepancy between the original work and the translation, only the text of original work should be considered valid.
Adaptations – you must cite the original work and add the following text: This is an adaptation of an original work by the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed in this adaptation should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its Member countries.
Third-party material – the licence does not apply to third-party material in the work. If using such material, you are responsible for obtaining permission from the third party and for any claims of infringement.
You must not use the OECD logo, visual identity or cover image without express permission or suggest the OECD endorses your use of the work.
Any dispute arising under this licence shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Arbitration Rules 2012. The seat of arbitration shall be Paris (France). The number of arbitrators shall be one.
← 1. Another two Directorate Generals complete the four pillars of the Ministry: Political Affairs and European Co-operation.
← 2. The Working Paper “Whole-of-government approaches to private sector development and engagement” highlights practices from the Netherlands in creating these incentives in order for MFA and FMO to work more closely when relevant.
← 3. 1) Strengthened international legal order, respect for human rights and host country policy; 2) peace, security and stability; 3) effective European co-operation; 4) consular advocacy and promoting Dutch values and interests internationally; 5) sustainable economic development, trade and investment; 6) sustainable development, food security, water and climate; 7) social progress (including education); 8) strengthened frameworks for development; 9) equipment costs and other expenses.
← 4. The financial and economic department within the MFA is responsible for co-ordinating the total Dutch ODA reporting to the OECD, in compliance with ODA definitions and rules. As reported to the OECD, however, the Netherlands’ ODA is channelled/managed 100% by the MFA. This indicates careful centralised and well co-ordinated reporting within government, but at the same time provides a limited overview of the contributions and involvement of other ministries and actors.
← 5. For example, the MFA and the Ministry of Finance rotate deputies to the International Development Association between each fundraising round.
← 6. At the time of the interviews and writing, the February 2025 international development policy letter was the policy direction in place.
← 7. The degree of involvement and co-ordination will also affected by the time and capacity of each to engage and, as noted by some, also by personalities. With Invest International, collaboration is increasing, while with FMO it remains quite limited as ad hoc information sharing. While benefiting from the country platforms, it still appears to be challenging to align different actors in co-programming due to priorities and mandates being strongly distinct.
← 8. The 14 countries where the Netherlands combines international development and trade: Bangladesh, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Egypt, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Ukraine and Vietnam.