Posted on 13 May 2026
The OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) is not an institution most people outside development policy circles spend much time thinking about. Yet despite its relatively low public profile, the DAC plays a significant role in shaping how international development assistance is defined, measured, and understood globally.
For decades, the DAC has effectively acted as the steward of Official Development Assistance (ODA): setting the rules around what counts as aid, producing the global data that tracks it, and establishing many of the norms and standards that underpin international development co-operation. While the DAC itself does not fund programmes or deliver assistance directly, its decisions influence governments, multilateral institutions, and donors around the world, including here in Aotearoa New Zealand.
The DAC is now undertaking a major review process which raises important questions about the future of development co-operation in an increasingly uncertain and rapidly changing world.
At the heart of the review is a recognition that the global environment has shifted significantly since many of the current systems and assumptions underpinning aid architecture were established; Geopolitical competition is intensifying, climate impacts are accelerating and humanitarian needs continue to rise. Debt pressures are constraining many countries’ fiscal space. At the same time, donor governments are facing growing domestic pressure to justify development spending and demonstrate impact.
Alongside this, the broader development finance landscape has become far more complex. ODA is now only one part of a much wider ecosystem that includes private investment, climate finance, remittances, philanthropy, sovereign lending, and blended finance mechanisms. The DAC review reflects an attempt to grapple with this reality and reconsider what role ODA should play within it.
One of the most significant shifts proposed in the review is a move away from viewing ODA as a standalone funding stream toward understanding it as part of a broader “development finance system”. Increasing emphasis is being placed on the “catalytic” role of ODA, in other words, how aid can be used to mobilise or leverage other forms of finance.
There is logic to this approach. Public concessional finance is limited, and there is growing recognition that achieving sustainable development goals will require resources far beyond traditional aid budgets alone. Better understanding how different forms of finance interact at country level could help improve planning and support more strategic use of scarce resources.
However, this shift also raises important questions.
If ODA increasingly becomes valued for its ability to attract private investment or unlock financial flows, there is a risk that development priorities become shaped by what is investable rather than what is necessary. Many of the areas where NGOs work, including humanitarian response, climate adaptation, localisation, community resilience, and work in fragile or conflict-affected contexts, are precisely the spaces where commercial finance is least likely to go.
The review also includes proposals to rethink how countries “graduate” from ODA eligibility. Traditionally, this has largely been determined by Gross National Income (GNI) per capita. Yet many countries, particularly small island developing states in the Pacific, continue to face profound vulnerability despite relatively higher income classifications. Climate exposure, economic fragility, debt burdens, remoteness, and susceptibility to external shocks are often poorly reflected in income metrics alone.
So, the DAC is now exploring whether additional indicators linked to vulnerability and fragility should complement existing income thresholds. For Pacific-focused organisations, this could prove particularly significant.
Another major theme running through the review is the question of inclusion and voice. The DAC has historically been criticised as a relatively closed donor club, with limited participation from partner countries and civil society actors. The review proposes greater openness, more consultation, and potentially new mechanisms for ongoing engagement.
That is a welcomed signal. However, consultation alone is not the same as influence. One of the key questions for civil society will be whether these reforms create genuinely more inclusive decision-making processes, or simply more opportunities to comment on decisions that have already largely been shaped elsewhere.
There are also positive and practical proposals within the review. Improvements to data transparency, usability, forecasting, and accessibility could support better planning and coordination. More forward-looking and country-responsive information systems could be valuable for both governments and operational actors alike, provided they remain grounded in practical realities and do not simply create additional reporting burdens.
Ultimately, this review needs to be more than technical reform. It needs to reflect a broader debate about the future purpose of aid and development co-operation itself. Is ODA primarily a tool for poverty reduction and solidarity? A mechanism for managing global instability and geopolitical competition? A catalyst for private investment? Increasingly, it is being asked to do all of these things simultaneously.
For NGOs working closely with communities across the Pacific and other vulnerable contexts, this presents an important opportunity to help shape the conversation. While much of the DAC review may appear distant from day-to-day programme delivery, the outcomes will likely influence how development assistance is prioritised, measured, and justified for years to come.
That makes this an important moment for civil society engagement, not simply to respond to technical proposals, but to contribute to the broader conversation about what principled, effective, and locally responsive development co-operation should look like in a changing world.
This article was written by Sam London, Humanitarian and Standards Manager at CID.