Moving Towards a New Paradigm in International Cooperation

The day was bright and sunny outside in Bern. Inside, the converted factory building was light, spacious and large enough to accommodate the almost 300 participants who gathered yesterday afternoon – joined by online participants from all over the world. Fittingly, Helvetas’ 2024 Symposium started with a short video with the voices of people whose lives have been heavily impacted by some of the present crises in the world: war, drought, floods, economic desperation. The picture was distinctly less sunny. Yet they were also dignified voices, each offering their wishes for positive change. The voice that lingered with me was of Angélica Uribe, a migrant from Venezuela who proudly expressed that she can now pay her taxes and be a citizen who contributes to society.

So what did we learn about the future of aid at the symposium? Following an event rich in ideas and opinions, here are my four main takeaways.

1. Breaking the donor-recipient relationship

Both keynote speakers, Kathryn Nwajiaku-Dahou from ODI and Shobhini Mukerji from the Jameel Poverty Action Lab J-Pal, stressed the importance of working in international partnerships. Shobhini highlighted how the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have become a tool used by many countries to measure progress and spoke of specific partnerships to this effect, such as the GAVI Global Vaccine Alliance working towards the achievement of SDG 3 (focused on health).

Kathryn’s position was more radical. She called for a new paradigm of equal partnerships in international cooperation under which countries of the North and South pool financial resources. The mechanism, a Global Public Investment Network, is described in more detail here, but the essence lies in three principles: all contribute, all decide and all benefit. Kathryn gently questioned the title of the symposium (“Driving Development Cooperation in a Changing World”) and the picture of a highway submerged in water used to illustrate it: Who, she asked, is in the driving seat?

The ideal picture, of course, is never easy to find. Perhaps a representation of Kathryn’s ideas would be boatloads of people coming towards the stranded vehicles, with everyone jumping out to build together a large bridge over the murky waters.

Sabine Zwaenepoel from the European Commission also argued for moving away from a donor-recipient relationship. In the perception of the European Union, this means using official development assistance (ODA) funds as a catalyst for economic development. She outlined the two mechanisms envisaged: the Global Gateway for boosting and leveraging private investment and Team Europe “for pulling together European actors to deliver international partnerships.”

Everyone who participated as a speaker and panelist seemed to agree that the words “development” and “donor” are unhelpful and best removed from our vocabulary.

2. Cooperation as a form of self-interest?

The speakers acknowledged the trend towards self-interest that is evident in much of the Western world. The COVID-19 pandemic and threats of war, climate change and economic depression (among other factors) have all taken their toll. As Maria Melbing of Swedish Sida noted, “Societies under stress become defensive.”

Nicole Ruder of the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation acknowledged that from a purely political perspective, it is increasingly necessary to position international cooperation as a matter of self-interest. In the global battle for power in which BRIC countries are gaining traction and the intentions of certain autocratic governments may be feared, Western countries can position themselves as partners of trust. She also noted that it was a group of African countries that successfully acted at the recent UN General Assembly to avoid Russia breaking the consensus over the Pact for the Future. There is certainly an acute political awareness in such international negotiations.

But while it may be politically expedient to argue for international cooperation as a form of self-interest, is this really the right thing to do? At the end of the event, Helvetas’ Executive Director, Melchior Lengsfeld, revisited this issue, asking that we not forget our commitment to human rights.

3. An all-women panel

I cannot resist pointing out how striking it was, in the first half of the event, to see an all-women panel. And this was not by design, but simply because we invited experts for this discussion and they all happened to be women! The feminine line-up reminded me of an online debate started by Duncan Green many years ago in which he commented that it was very difficult to find women in senior positions who could be invited to panel discussions on development issues. Needless to say, he was roundly rebuffed by indignant women, but the fact remained that he thought it true. That particular exchange seems to have disappeared from the Poverty to Power website – but oh how things have changed, Dr. Green.

4. The Swiss position

The second half of the symposium was dedicated to the current debate in Switzerland over the 2025-2028 budget for international cooperation. In the Federal Council’s proposition, CHF 1.5 billion (13% of the total budget) will be diverted to support for Ukraine; there is a serious risk that the parliament will decide on further cuts to augment defense spending. (The irony of a gathering of the Swiss military taking place in the same building a floor below us was not lost on the audience.)

The financial burden of responding to the pandemic was cited as a reason for the tight financial situation at federal level. The “Schuldenbremse,” the rule limiting federal debt that is inscribed in the constitution, is the argument used against any additional allocation for international cooperation. However, higher defense spending is foreseen. And yet, in annual polling of the Swiss public conducted by the Center of Security Studies of the ETH university for science and technology, there is always a majority in favor of giving a greater percentage of Swiss GDP to international cooperation. There is also still a majority against greater defence spending.

How can we reach these likeminded members of the Swiss public? This was perhaps the thought that occupied me most at the end of the day – both because I have considerable faith in the Swiss system of democracy and because there appears to be scope for greater debate at the communal and cantonal level. In writing this as the results of the American elections are announced, the importance of thinking beyond self-interest is all the more evident.

About the Author

Jane Carter is Senior Adviser for Natural Resource Governance at Helvetas and is a seasoned development professional, having worked for over 35 years in the sector. With colleagues Matthias Herfeldt and André Urech, she was actively engaged in the organization of the Helvetas Symposium 2024.