 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following profiles have no official value. These are working papers and the research is not complete.
Unlike Southern Europe, the state and private voluntary organisations have almost symbiotic relations in Norway. The proportion of Norwegian Official Development Assistance provided through NGOs has grown significantly over the past few years and now surpasses direct bilateral aid programmes. Although Oslo does provide funding to regional and international NGOs, more than two third of its support is channelled through approximately one hundred Norwegian organisations, and the government can back up to 100% of their projects. Symbolised by the prestigious Nobel Peace prize, whose ceremony is held in Oslo’s city hall, the Norwegian foreign policy is very dynamic, from peace building in Sri Lanka or Israel to backing the Palestinians or the Kurds. Independent from Sweden since 1905 only, Norway got involved in anti-colonial struggles. It first condemned Portuguese colonialism despite the fact that both countries were members of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation). In a Cold War context, it is also quite remarkable that it supported movements that were recognised by the Soviet Union and received their weapons from countries belonging to the Warsaw Pact, i.e. the ANC (African National Congress), SWAPO (South West Africa People’s Organisation), ZAPU (Zimbabwe African People’s Union), FRELIMO (Frente de Libertação de Mozambique), MPLA (Movimento Popular da Libertação da Angola) and PAIGC (Partido Africano da Independência da Guiné e Cabo-Verde). In addition, Norway extended its assistance to the ZANU (Zimbabwe African National Union) and PAC (Pan-Africanist Congress), which were regarded to be closer to China. In a way, Norwegian INGOs have been useful in extending diplomacy by other means, more discreetly than during official summits. Thus through the NCA (Norwegian Church Aid) or the NPA (Norwegian People’s Aid), the Ministry of Foreign Affairs directly backed the guerrillas of the African National Congress in Southern Africa, the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front in Ethiopia and the Sudan People’s Liberation Army in Sudan. In general, the international setting of Norwegian NGOs also corresponds pretty well to the foreign policy’s objectives of the country. For obvious reasons of geographical proximity and national interest, they are particularly active in the Baltic states and the ex USSR. For instance, the Bellona Foundation, created in 1986, funds Alexandre Nikitine’s Ecological Human Rights Centre in Saint Petersburg, Nikitine being a former captain in the Soviet Navy who had written a report on the derelict Northern fleet’s nuclear submarines and who was then accused of spying for that, and jailed for ten months in 1996… The close links between the Norwegian state and the NGOs rely on four main factors. From a cultural point of view, first, the population is generally very sympathetic to humanitarian issues. Such involvement may be explained by a tradition of mutual assistance, adapted to the difficult climate and the wildlife of the country. A citizen frequently subscribes for several associations. That is why there are almost three times as many association members than there are Norwegian people! The authorities simply can not ignore such a network. A country of about four million inhabitants with a small diaspora and no former colonies in the third world, Norway also needs all of its human resources to ensure an international presence. This compels the government to consult frequently humanitarian workers abroad. Unlike volunteers from Southern Europe, these can provide expertise and have a lengthy field experience because it is possible in Norway to make a whole career in an NGO with a good salary. Thus according to a survey by Terje Tvedt, in 1992, 66 Norwegian NGOs operating in developing countries were employing about one thousand expatriates, more than four thousands locals, but less than one hundred volunteers.
The fact that the state and the Church have not been separated has also favoured a good relationship between missionary movements and the government. Norway is a Lutheran state, in particular in the Southern “Bible Belt”, and the Christian Democrat Party has (almost) always been in the government. The Constitution decrees that Lutherianism is the official religion of the State and that the King is the supreme temporal head of the Church. Only 3% of the population turn up at ordinary Sunday services. But the Church is financed by taxpayers and has a strong position in the society : it embraces 88% of the population. Today, the geographical repartition of INGOs is also linked to the historical establishment of missionary movements, which evolved and adapted to the circumstances. From a secular point of view, the development of a welfare state and a corporatist society also aroused vocations, and the trade unions are deeply involved in international solidarity actions. The union of teachers, for instance, dedicates 3.5% of the subscriptions of its members to development programmes. As the government is eager to lead a cooperation policy that corresponds to the country’s social ideal, it supports those initiatives, and it maintains close institutional relations with the trade unions. Unlike the US, the authorities do not compel NGOs to buy Norwegian products for aid. Since 1979, exports’ promotion is channelled through Nordfund, which insures and subsidies investments in the third world, and the Norwegian Trade Council, which runs and provides relief stocks for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the NRC (Norwegian Refugee Council). As a consequence of such a trustworthy relationship between the state and the NGOs, the Norwegian law looks quite soft in comparison with that of other European countries. Charities dot not need to be registered to raise private funds. Most of them, it is true, are more transparent than their Southern European counterparts. That might explain why there is so little governmental or private control: for instance, the Stiftelsen InnsamlingsKontrollen i Norge, or Charitable Collection Control Foundation, established in 1948 and reorganised in 1992, does not compel humanitarian associations to publish their annual reports, whereas it is supposed to check their accounts. In any case, the authorities do not look deeply into the way NGOs are funded. Each year, charities benefit from funds raised in the telethon, in the street or at church. Some humanitarian organizations are also allowed to administer slot machines. The “jackpot” is quite considerable: in 2000, it represented more than 55% of the Norwegian Red Cross’s resources, employing almost 40% of its permanent staff! Five associations, the “Big Five”, prevail: the NCA (Norwegian Church Aid), the NPA (Norwegian People’s Aid), the Norwegian Red Cross and Redd Barna, the local branch of Save the Children Fund. Regarding the Aid Watch’s database, only the first three ones were studied. M.-A.P.d.M.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
At
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in particular, 83% of bilateral
aid went through INGOs in 2001. If we only consider the operations
conducted outside the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe), that same year, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs dedicated
41% of its humanitarian funds to private voluntary organizations,
17% to the Red Cross movement, and 42% to UN agencies. Meanwhile,
the part devolved to NGOs for development actions in peacetime represented
18% of the spending of the Norwegian co-operation agency, NORAD.  |
 |