Post on 27-May-2020
1
EU Donor Atlas 2006Framework Contract IB/AMS/451Framework Contract IB/AMS/451
EU Donor Atlas 2006Volume IMapping Official Development Assistance
February 2006
European Commission
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
www.dev-strategies.com
Prepared by
2
EU Donor Atlas 2006
A candid scrutiny of our development assistance is not only an obligation of transparency to the public opinion, but also an essential basis upon which to form our strategic thinking. Indeed, a constant review of our activities is an essential pre-condition for a knowledge-based analysis of our successes and failures, from which we can derive rational and optimal redeployment of our activities and methods.
This is why I wanted this second version of the EU Donor Atlas to support the EU in its commitment to improve the impact of its activities and help realise the qualitative jump needed to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.
Indeed, the fragmentation of aid has led to dispersion and duplication, reducing its impact through unnecessary costs and complications for our partners. Through the Paris Declaration and the European Consensus on Development, the EU donors have agreed to make full use of their comparative advantages to increase their complementarity while respecting the ownership of the partner countries of its own development.
This Atlas highlights lessons on the base of which I hope the Commission will help to obtain concrete decisions on how to launch a real division of labour between Europeans.
A first additional Volume II on Western Africa completes this edition 2006. Other volumes will be added region by region in the near future. I am convinced that these regional volumes will help us to further develop our analysis into operational principles on how to better organise ourselves.
The maps and charts show the scale and geographic spread of the EU’s aid activities, the particular focus of each Member’s aid programme and the countries and sectors assisted.
In 2005, EU donors both committed themselves to increasing the volume of their aid and joined the international consensus enshrined in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. The Declaration is a landmark commitment whereby EU donors agreed, with other countries, to improve the way they coordinate and deliver their aid, to align it with partner country priorities and focus on achieving concrete results. It also sets targets for measuring these improvements. Future editions of this Atlas will therefore be able to reflect trends in both the quantity and the quality of aid using data from the DAC used to monitor the implementation of the Declaration.
The Atlas is, therefore, an innovative and timely tool to illustrate the relative weight of the EU in international official development assistance and to trace emerging trends. It shows, for example, that EU members currently account for 54% of the total aid from the 22 countries that comprise the DAC. Following recent commitments to increase aid to at least 0.51% of each EU member’s gross national income by 2010, the DAC Secretariat has estimated that total EU aid will increase from US$ 43 billion in 2004 to US$ 81 billion in 2010, which we estimate will represent some 63% of total DAC aid in that year. Questions about where the current aid is going, the degree to which it is focused on the poorest people and countries, and comparisons with other sources of finance such as trade, foreign direct investment and remittances are all addressed in the Atlas.
I join Commissioner Michel in commending this Atlas to you as a useful and innovative instrument to illustrate the EU’s contribution to the global effort to halve poverty by 2015
EU
DO
NO
R
AT
LAS
2006Foreword
This Atlas provides clear geographical insights into the European Union’s development co-operation activities, illustrated in an attractive and accessible way. It vividly presents the usefulness of the data that OECD Members regularly provide to our Development Assistance Committee (DAC) to enable it to perform its important task of monitoring aid flows and informing development policy and practice.
Donald JohnstonSecretary GeneralOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Louis MichelCommissioner for Development and Humanitarian AidEuropean Commission
3
EU Donor Atlas 2006ContentsE
U D
ON
OR
A
TLA
S 2006
Foreword 2
I.
II.
III.
IV.
EU Aid and Armed Conflicts 36
EU Aid and Corruption indicators 37
V. Private Flows, Trade and MigrationTotal Net Flows to Developing Countries 39
EU Private Flows to Developing Countries 40
EU: Trade, Private Flows and Aid 41
Trade: Developing Countries Exports to the EU 42
Migration: Foreign Born Population from Developing Countries in the EU 43
Contents 3EU Aid: At a Glance 4
European Union Aid to Developing CountriesEU Donors: Share of GNI 6EU Donors: Total Aid 7EU Donors: Aid per capita 8Aid Indicators for EU and Other Donors 9Multilateral aid: shares and channels 10How large is Untied Aid to Least Developed Countries 11
Donor Priority CountriesDonors and their key recipient countries 13Priority Countries: EU 14Priority Countries: Other DAC donors 15Total Aid per capita by recipient 16EU Aid per capita by recipient 17
EU Aid by RegionRegional allocation of Aid 19EU Aid by Region 20EU Aid to Sub-Saharan Africa 21EU Aid to Europe 22EU Aid to Middle East and North Africa 23EU Aid to Latin America and the Caribbean 24EU Aid to Asia and Oceania 25Top 20 Recipients of EU Aid 26Top 20 Recipients of EC Aid 27Top 20 Recipients of non-EU Aid 28
EU Aid and Development IndicatorsAid by Income Groups 30EU Aid and Low Income Countries 31EU Aid and Countries with low Aid per Poor 32EU Aid and Human Development 33EU Aid and Aid Dependency 34EU Aid, Political Rights and Civil Liberties 35
Migration: Worker Remittances per capita 44
VI.
EU Aid and Gender 52EU Aid and Development Staff 53
VII.
Portugal 74
Slovak Republic 75
Slovenia 76
Spain 77
Sweden 78
United Kingdom 79
European Commision 80
VIII. Note to the ReaderAcknowledgements 82
Explanatory note: Donor Profile 83
Abbreviations 87
Commitment to Development Index 45Global Programmes and Initiatives 46
Aid by SectorEU Aid by Type 48EU Aid by Sector 49EU Aid by Sector: 30 years 50EU Aid and the Environment 51
EU Donor ProfilesAustria 55Belgium 56Cyprus 57Czech Republic 58Denmark 59Estonia 60Finland 61France 62Germany 63Greece 64Hungary 65Ireland 66Italy 67Latvia 68Lithuania 69Luxembourg 70Malta 71Netherlands 72Poland 73
4
EU Donor Atlas 2006
Top recipients of EU bilateral Aid (MS and EC), Millions US$, 2004
(*) Other non DAC donors excludes all EU countries. (**) Total ODA, including non DAC donors.Source: IDS Online- DAC Database - Destination of Official Development Assistance and Official Aid - Disbursements (Table 2a). Cyprus, Malta and Slovenia data collected by the European Commission (DG Development).
1st to 10th 11th to 20th Ranking of countries: 21st to 30th 31st to 40th
EU Share of ODA in 2004 **Total Aid (bilateral and multilateral)
52%
EU Aid: At a Glance
*
43,264
19,705
8,906 8,015
3,395
EU United States Japan Other DAC donors Other non DACdonors
5
EU Donor Atlas 2006
I. European Union Aid to Developing Countries
EU DONOR ATLAS 2006
6
EU Donor Atlas 2006EU Donors: Share of GNI
Source: DAC Development Co-operation Report 2005(Table 4 and Table 33). Cyprus, Malta and Slovenia data collected by the European Commission (DG Development).
EU net ODA to developing countries and multilateral organisations as a share of GNI
(%, 2004)
0.23Austria
0.41Belgium
0.04
0.11Czech Republic
0.85Denmark
0.05
0.35Finland
0.41France
0.28 Germany
0.22
0.06Hungary
0.39Ireland
0.15Italy
0.04
0.06
0.18Malta
0.73Netherlands
0.05Poland
0.63Portugal
0.07Slovak Republic
0.10Slovenia
0.24Spain
0.78Sweden
0.36United Kingdom
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Greece
Cyprus
0.83Luxembourg
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.07
0.1
0.11
0.15
0.18
0.22
0.23
0.24
0.28
0.35
0.36
0.39
0.41
0.41
0.63
0.73
0.78
0.83
0.85
Cyprus
Lithuania
Estonia
Poland
Hungary
Latvia
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Czech Republic
Italy
Malta
Greece
Austria
Spain
Germany
Finland
United Kingdom
Ireland
Belgium
France
Portugal
Netherlands
Sweden
Luxembourg
Denmark
7
EU Donor Atlas 2006
5
5
8
9
10
28
31
55
108
118
236
465
607
655
678
1,031
1,463
2,037
2,437
2,462
2,722
4,204
7,534
7,883
8,473
Cyprus
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Malta
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Hungary
Czech Republic
Poland
Luxembourg
Greece
Ireland
Finland
Austria
Portugal
Belgium
Denmark
Spain
Italy
Sweden
Netherlands
Germany
United Kingdom
France
EU Donors: Aid Amounts
Source: DAC Development Co-operation Report 2005(Table 4 and Table 33). Cyprus, Malta and Slovenia data collected by the European Commission (DG Development).
EU net ODA to developing countries and multilateral organisations
(Millions of US$, 2004)
678Austria
1,463Belgium
5Cyprus
108Czech Republic
2,037Denmark
5Estonia
655 Finland
8,473France
7,534Germany
465Greece
55 Hungary
607Ireland
2,462Italy
9Lithuania
8Latvia
236Luxembourg
10Malta
4,204Netherlands 118
Poland
1,031 Portugal
28Slovak Republic
31Slovenia
2,437Spain
2,722 Sweden
7,883United Kingdom
8
EU Donor Atlas 2006
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
11
16
24
42
43
56
83
91
100
126
131
137
141
152
258
302
377
524
Lithuania
Poland
Latvia
Estonia
Slovak Republic
Hungary
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Slovenia
Malta
Greece
Italy
Spain
Austria
Germany
Portugal
Finland
United Kingdom
France
Belgium
Ireland
Netherlands
Sweden
Denmark
Luxembourg
EU Donors: Aid per capita
Source: IDS Online – DAC Database, Table 1. Cyprus, Malta and Slovenia data collected by the European Commission (DG Development).
EU net ODA per capita to developing countries and multilateral organisations
(US$, 2004)
83Austria
141Belgium
6Cyprus
11Czech Republic
377Denmark
4Estonia
126Finland
137France
91Germany
42Greece
5Hungary
152Ireland
43Italy
3Lithuania
4Latvia
24Malta
258 3Poland
100
5Slovak Republic
16Slovenia
56
302Sweden
131United Kingdom
Netherlands
PortugalSpain
524Luxembourg
9
EU Donor Atlas 2006Aid Indicators for EU and Other Donors
Source: IDS Online – DAC Database, Table 1. Cyprus, Malta and Slovenia data collected by the European Commission (DG Development). Note: EU Aid includes non-DAC EU Member States.
Net ODA per capita 2004
US$
ODA/GNI 2004
%
Net ODA 2004
US$ million
0.23
0.17
0.19
0.25
0.27
0.34
0.41
0.87
New Zealand
United States
Japan
Australia
Canada
EU
Switzerland
Norway
212
19,705
8,906
1,460
2,599
43,264
1,545
2,199
New Zealand
United States
Japan
Australia
Canada
EU
Switzerland
Norway
52
67
70
73
81
113
210
477
New Zealand
United States
Japan
Australia
Canada
EU
Switzerland
Norway
10
EU Donor Atlas 2006Multilateral Aid: Shares and Channels(EU Member States, net disbursements )
Share multilateral ODA/Total ODA Share of each multilateral channel
%, 2004 %, 2004
Source: IDS Online- DAC Database (Table 1) Note: Data on Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Malta and Slovenia are not available.
34%
15%
24%
27%
32%
33%
34%
35%
36%
38%
41%
41%
43%
45%
48%
49%
62%
63%
71%
79%
91%
EU Average
Portugal
Sweden
Luxembourg
United Kingdom
Ireland
France
Greece
Netherlands
Belgium
Denmark
Czech Republic
Spain
Finland
Austria
Germany
Slovak Republic
Hungary
Italy
Poland
Lithuania
% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
EC World Bank UN agencies Regional Banks Others
11
EU Donor Atlas 2006How large is Untied Aid to Least Developed CountriesPercentage of Untied Aid in bilateral ODA commitments to LDCs, 2003
Source: OECD DAC 2005 Progress Report – Implementing the 2001 DAC Recommendation on ODA to LDCs, June 2005. No data available on some EU Member States.
29
65
70
47
57
76
78
84
89
90
95
96
97
99
99
100
100
United States
Japan
DAC Average
Luxembourg
Spain
Austria
Germany
Italy
Denmark
France
Greece
Netherlands
Sweden
Portugal
Belgium
Finland
Ireland
United Kingdom
1999 – 2001 average
62
100
71
51
45
92
91
N/A
49
78
30
43
34
25
55
1
76
N/A
0 - 100
12
EU Donor Atlas 2006
II. Donor Priority Countries
EU DONOR ATLAS 2006
13
EU Donor Atlas 2006Donors and their key recipient countries Recipient countries that receive more than 50% of their total ODA from EU, USA or Japan
(*) Palau, Marshall Islands and Micronesia also receive more than 50% of their total ODA from the USA. Source: IDS Online - DAC Database - Destination of Official Development Assistance and Official Aid - Disbursements (Table 2a). For each recipient country, the shares are calculated only among donors with positive net ODA flows to the country. However, similar results are obtained, for 90% of developing countries, when using gross disbursement data.
JapanChina, Malaysia
USAColombia, Iraq, Jordan
EU Japan USA
Donor witha large share of total ODA to the country of at least 50%:
EU55 countries
*
14
EU Donor Atlas 2006Priority Countries: EUEU Member States Top 10 recipients – average rankings, 2003-2004
Source: DAC Aid at a Glance Charts. Top 10 recipients for EU15 MS and Commission (score from 10 (top) to 1 (bottom) recipient. Very High - 35 or higher, High 25 – 34, Medium 10 – 24, Low 1 – 9.
Very High High Medium Scores:
Afghanistan
Mozambique
DR Congo
Tanzania
Low
15
EU Donor Atlas 2006
Source: DAC Aid at a Glance Charts. Top 10 recipients for each donor (score from 10 (top) to 1 (bottom) recipient. Official Aid (OA) recipients were not considered. Very High - 20 or higher, High 15 – 19, Medium 5 – 14, Low 1 – 4.
Priority Countries: other DAC DonorsOther DAC members Top 10 recipients – average ranking, 2003-2004
Very High High Medium Scores:
Iraq
Afghanistan
Low
DR Congo Indonesia
16
EU Donor Atlas 2006Total Aid per Capita by RecipientNet disbursement by all donors, US$, 2004
Source: IDS Online- DAC Database - Destination of Official Development Assistance and Official Aid - Disbursements (Table 2a) and Reference Section. Population for Afghanistan from World Bank Development Indicators.
Map refers to countries, i.e. excludes territories in the DAC list of ODA recipients.
US$0 to US$25 US$25 to US$50 US$50 to US$100 US$ 100 or higher No data
Aid per capita within the following ranges:
Niue 4,680 Bosnia and Herzegovina 175Palau 978 Samoa 172Nauru 977 Kiribati 171Marshall Islands 852 Timor-Leste 165Micronesia 680 Grenada 145Tuvalu 668 Serbia and Montenegro 144Dominica 406 Bahrain 143Cook Islands 398 Seychelles 122Palestinian Adm. Areas 324 FYR Macedonia 120Cape Verde 290 Albania 114Solomon Islands 259 Jordan 107Nicaragua 220 Barbados 107Sao Tome and Principe 208 Mongolia 104Tonga 189 Swaziland 104Guyana 187 Zambia 102Iraq 184 Senegal 101Vanuatu 176
Countries with ODA per capita above US$100
17
EU Donor Atlas 2006EU Aid per Capita by Recipient Net disbursement by EU Member States, US$, 2004
US$0 to US$15 US$15 to US$25 US$25 to US$50 US$ 50 or higher No data
Aid per capita within the following ranges:
Countries with EU ODA per capita above US$50
Niue 237 Seychelles 76 Tuvalu 219 Guyana 68 Cape Verde 213 Zambia 67 Nicaragua 139 Senegal 66 Sao Tome and Principe 134 Angola 65 Palestinian Adm. Areas 117 Albania 65 Barbados 104 Timor-Leste 63 Swaziland 96 Equatoria l Guinea 52 Serbia and Montenegro 83 Namibia 52 Bosnia and Herzegovina 81 Cook Islands 50 FYR Macedonia 77
Source: IDS Online-DAC Database - Destination of Official Development Assistance and Official Aid - Disbursements (Table 2a) and Reference Section. Population for Afghanistan from World Bank Development Indicators.Map refers to countries, i.e. excludes territories in the DAC list of countries.
18
EU Donor Atlas 2006
III. EU Aid by Region
EU DONOR ATLAS 2006
19
EU Donor Atlas 2006
5%
15%8% 6% 5%
10%
10%
10% 16%
18%14%
8%
5%
7%
26%42%
4%
12%8%
11%
10%
7%
13%
53%43%
51%
34% 14%
28%
12%20%
14%7%
19%
36%
1%
EU Member States EuropeanCommission
EU MS + EC Other DACCountries
Japan United States
Middle East N.AfricaAfrica - South of SaharaLatin America & CaribbeanOther Asia and OceaniaSouth & Central AsiaEurope
Source: IDS Online-DAC Database - Destination of Official Development Assistance and Official Aid - Disbursements (Table 2a). ODA exludes amounts not allocated by region.
Regional allocation of AidEU Bilateral ODA (net disbursements), as a percentage of net total ODA, 2004.
Non-EU DAC Donors
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1975-84 44% 17% 13% 12% 10% 4%
1985-94 49% 10% 13% 12% 11% 5%
1995-2004 45% 9% 11% 13% 13% 10%
Africa - South of Sahara
South & Central Asia Far East Asia and Oceania
Middle East and North Africa
Latin America and the Caribbean
Europe
Memo item: Evolution of Regional Allocation of Aid (1975-2004) European Union
Middle East N.Africa
Africa - South of Sahara
Latin America & Caribbean
Other Asia and Oceania
South & Central Asia
Europe
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
1975-84 15% 10% 26% 19% 28% 2%
1985-94 19% 13% 26% 14% 26% 1%
1995-2004 23% 12% 28% 16% 16% 5%
Africa - South of Sahara
Latin America and Caribbean
Far East Asia and Oceania
South & Central AsiaMiddle East and
North AfricaEurope
20
EU Donor Atlas 2006EU Aid by RegionEU Bilateral ODA (net disbursements), millions US$, 2004 and EU share (%) of total ODA to the region –2004)
Source: IDS Online -DAC Database - Destination of Official Development Assistance and Official Aid - Disbursements (Table 2a). EU Aid includes European Commission and all EU Member States except Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Malta, and Slovenia.
Total EU ODA to the region EU Share of total ODA to the region5
3,788
2,138
3,02114,062
55%
36%
47%
Africa - South of Sahara 51%
Middle East and North Africa14%
Latin America and the Caribbean
11%
South & Central Asia 9%
Europe8%
Far East Asia and Oceania
7%
Latin America and Caribbean
Africa –South of Sahara
Middle East and North Africa
Europe
Regional distribution of EU ODA
59%60%
South & Central Asia
Far East Asia and Oceania
2,47227%
29%1,942
21
EU Donor Atlas 2006
535
613
632
686
705
706
709
909
929
1,133
Cameroon
Ethiopia
Mozambique
Senegal
Madagascar
Ghana
Zambia
Angola
Tanzania
Congo, Dem Rep
EU Aid to Sub-Saharan Africa
Mozambique
Senegal
Tanzania
Madagascar
Ethiopia
Cameroon
Ghana
Congo DR
EU Member States and EC AidUS$m, 2004
Top ODA donors to the regionTop Recipients - Total and per capita ODAEU Bilateral ODA, net disbursements, millions US$, 2004 and EU share (%) of total net ODA (2004)
Source: IDS Online- DAC Database - Destination of Official Development Assistance and Official Aid - Disbursements (Table 2a). For each recipient country, shares are calculated only among donors with positive net ODA flows to the country.Use of gross disbursement yields similar results (+2% or –2% or less) with 5 exceptions in this region: Gabon, Ghana, Mauritania, Mauritius and Zambia.
Angola Zambia
No.
Total EU ODAUS$ million
No.No. EU ODA per capitaUS$66% EU share of total ODA
%
709
705
632
929
613
1133
909
706
535686
34
33
6766
65%63
52%52
70%68
68
21
6765
62%62
79% 66%6579
57%
2625
3433
4241
53%52
51%51
57
9
34%34
Donor US$ m (2004) % of total ODA
World Bank (IDA) 3,822 15% United States 3,504 14% France 2,964 12% EC 2,915 11% United Kingdom 2,265 9% EU MS + EC 14,062 55%
22
EU Donor Atlas 2006EU Aid to Europe
Albania
Bosnia Herzegovina
Croatia
Serbia Montenegro
FYRMacedonia
Moldova
Turkey*
EU Member States and EC AidUS$m, 2004
Top ODA donors to the Region
(*) EU share of total gross ODA.Source: IDS Online-DAC Database - Destination of Official Development Assistance and Official Aid - Disbursements (Table 2a). For each recipient country, shares are calculated only among donors with positive net ODA flows to the country.Use of gross disbursement yields similar results (+2% or –2% or less) with the exception, in this region, of Turkey.
48
49
159
207
311
313
675
Moldova
Croatia
FYROM Macedonia
Albania
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Turkey
Serbia and Montenegro
49 11
311
675
207
48
159
313
81
83
65
11
77
4
58%58
57%57
41%41
46%46
40%40
64%62
No.
Total EU ODAUS$ million
No.No. EU ODA per capitaUS$66% EU share of total ODA
%
Top Recipients - Total and per capita ODAEU Bilateral ODA, net disbursements, millions US$, 2004 and EU share (%) of total net ODA (2004)
Donor US$ m (2004)
% of total ODA
EC 1,006 28% United States 568 16% World Bank (IDA) 455 13% France 180 5% Germany 167 5% EU MS + EC 2,140 59%
78%75
23
EU Donor Atlas 2006
110
115
116
149
275
299
417
551
573
736
Iran
Yemen
Syria
Lebanon
Tunisia
Algeria
Palestinian Admin. Territories
Morocco
Egypt
Iraq
EU Member States and EC AidUS$m, 2004
EU Aid to Middle East and North Africa
Egypt
Lebanon
YemenIran
Algeria
Iraq
Morocco
Tunisia
Palestinian Admin. Areas
Syria
Top ODA donors to the region
Source: IDS Online- DAC Database - Destination of Official Development Assistance and Official Aid - Disbursements (Table 2a). For each recipient country, shares are calculated only among donors with positive net ODA flows to the country.Use of gross disbursement yields similar results (+2% or –2% or less) with the exception of Syria.
2115
116 7
14933
275
2999
417
55118
573
8
736 16%1639%3978%77
37%37
56%55
96%95
84%80
110
3029
2827
124119
86
58%58
No.
Total EU ODAUS$ million
No.No. EU ODA per capitaUS$66% EU share of total ODA
%
46%40
72
Top Recipients - Total and per capita ODAEU Bilateral ODA, net disbursements, millions US$, 2004 and EU share (%) of total net ODA (2004)
Donor US$ m (2004)
% of total ODA
EC 1,006 28% United States 568 16% World Bank (IDA) 455 13% France 180 5% Germany 167 5% EU MS + EC 2,140 59%
24
EU Donor Atlas 2006EU Aid to Latin America and the Caribbean
Brazil
Guatemala
El Salvador
Peru
Haiti
Colombia
Nicaragua
Bolivia
Honduras
Dominican Republic
Top ODA donors to the Region
Source: IDS Online- DAC Database - Destination of Official Development Assistance and Official Aid - Disbursements (Table 2a). For each recipient country, shares are calculated only among donors with positive net ODA flows to the country.Use of gross disbursement yields similar results (+2% or –2% or less) with the exception, in this region, of Jamaica.
87
99
104
119
125
154
171
220
370
778
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Haiti
Colombia
Guatemala
Brazil
Peru
Honduras
Bolivia
Nicaragua
EU Member States and EC AidUS$m, 2004
Donor US$ m (2004)
% of total ODA
United States 1,645 26% Germany 625 10% Spain 583 9% EC 570 9% France 343 5% EU MS + EC 3,021 47%
154 1
370
171 6
119 3
87 10
220778
104 12
125 10
99 15
34%34
54%54
23%22
63%63
4241
1421393231
No.
Total EU ODAUS$ million
No.No. EU ODA per capitaUS$66% EU share of total ODA
%
48%46
35%34
57%53
47%423678%76
Top Recipients - Total and per capita ODAEU Bilateral ODA, net disbursements, millions US$, 2004 and EU share (%) of total net ODA (2004)
25
EU Donor Atlas 2006EU Aid to Asia and Oceania
Georgia
China
Sri Lanka
Pakistan
Bangladesh
Afghanistan
Nepal
Cambodia
Vietnam
Philippines
EU Member States and EC AidUS$m, 2004
Top ODA donors to the Region
Source: IDS Online- DAC Database - Destination of Official Development Assistance and Official Aid - Disbursements (Table 2a). For each recipient country, shares are calculated only among donors with positive net ODA flows to the country.Use of gross disbursement yields similar results (+2% or –2% or less).
108
117
131
132
174
197
459
480
557
793
Philippines
Sri Lanka
Georgia
Cambodia
Pakistan
Nepal
Vietnam
Bangladesh
China
Afghanistan
13129
793
27
557
174 1
197 8
459
6
108 1
6117
4803
132 10
34%
12%12
36%36
46%46
34
No.
Total EU ODAUS$ million
No.No. EU ODA per capitaUS$66% EU share of total ODA
%
41%39
34%32
28%27
25%24
23%24
Top Recipients - Total and per capita ODAEU Bilateral ODA, net disbursements, millions US$, 2004 and EU share (%) of total net ODA (2004)
0.4
23%22
Donor US$ m (2004) % of total ODA
Japan 2,786 18% World Bank (IDA) 2,582 16% United States 2,218 14% United Kingdom 1,244 8% EC 981 6% EU MS + EC 4,414 28%
26
EU Donor Atlas 2006
EU bilateral ODA, net disbursements, Millions US$, 2004
Top 20 Recipients of EU Aid
Source: IDS Online-DAC Database - Destination of Official Development Assistance and Official Aid - Disbursements (Table 2a)
1st to 6th 7th to 13th
Ranking of countries:
14th to 20th
459
480
520
535
551
557
573
613
632
675
686
705
706
709
736
778
793
909
929
1,133
Vietnam
Bangladesh
Uganda
Cameroon
Morocco
China
Egypt
Ethiopia
Mozambique
Serbia and Montenegro
Senegal
Madagascar
Ghana
Zambia
Iraq
Nicaragua
Afghanistan
Angola
Tanzania
Congo, Dem Rep
27
EU Donor Atlas 2006
EC bilateral ODA, net disbursements, Millions US$, 2004
Top 20 Recipients of EC Aid
1st to 6th 7th to 13th Ranking of countries:
14th to 20th
89
90
113
113
117
124
125
129
138
140
143
151
162
184
187
212
220
250
303
366
Benin
Tunisia
Ethiopia
Uganda
Mali
Zambia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Madagascar
Iraq
India
South Africa
Mozambique
Tanzania
Egypt
Palestinian Admin Territories
Afghanistan
Morocco
Congo, Dem Rep
Turkey
Serbia and Montenegro
Source: IDS Online-DAC Database - Destination of Official Development Assistance and Official Aid - Disbursements (Table 2a)
28
EU Donor Atlas 2006
Bilateral ODA, net disbursements, by non EU donors, Millions US$, 2004
Top 20 Recipients of non-EU Aid
Source: IDS Online- DAC Database - Destination of Official Development Assistance and Official Aid - Disbursements (Table 2a)
Ranking of countries:
1st to 6th 7th to 13th 14th to 20th
455
473
495
531
558
586
597
639
651
682
720
817
884
924
1,104
1,210
1,247
1,371
1,396
3,921
Nicaragua
Jordan
Serbia and Montenegro
Madagascar
Sudan
India
Mozambique
Uganda
Ghana
Congo, Dem Rep
Palestinian Admin Territories
Tanzania
Egypt
Bangladesh
China
Ethiopia
Pakistan
Vietnam
Afghanistan
Iraq
29
EU Donor Atlas 2006
IV. EU Aid and Development Indicators
EU DONOR ATLAS 2006
30
EU Donor Atlas 2006Aid by Income GroupsBilateral ODA, net disbursements, 2004
Income groups: 100%
Total bilateral ODA *
Million of US$, 2004, Disbursements
(*) Excluding bilateral ODA unallocated by income group.Source: IDS Online-DAC Database - Destination of Official Development Assistance and Official Aid - (Table 2a).
UMICs (Upper Middle Income)
LMICs (Low Middle Income)
OLICs (Other Low Income)
LDCs (Least Developed)
EuropeanCommission
EU Member States
United States
Japan
6,236 4,638 10,91419,382
DAC Members
38,703
50%42%
20%
31%
41%
18%
13%
18%
11%
17%
28%
41%
55%
57%
39%
4% 4%7%
3%1%4% 4% 7%1% 7%
41%
28%
55%57%
39%
17%
11%
18%
13%
18%
41%31%
20%
42%50%
31
EU Donor Atlas 2006
Albania
Algeria
Angola
Anguilla
BarbadosBenin
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Cape Verde Islands
Central African Republic
Comoros
Congo Dem Rep
Cote d'Ivoire
Dominican Republic
Equatorial Guinea
FYROMMacedonia
Gabon
Ghana
Guatemala Guinea Bissau
Jamaica
Lebanon
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Mauritius
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Nicaragua
Niger
Sao Tome and Principe
Senegal
Serbia and Montenegro
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
SomaliaSuriname
Swaziland
Syria
Tanzania
Togo
Tunisia
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Congo
Income Groups (DAC Definition) Share of EU Aid/ Total Aid
Least Developed CountryOther Low IncomeLow - middle IncomeUpper - middle Income
EU Share (blue) of 50% or higher and ODA/GNI greater than 0.3%.
EU Aid and Low Income CountriesNet bilateral EU ODA – disbursements, 2004
Sources: Disbursements: IDS Online -DAC Database - Destination of Official Development Assistance and Official Aid - Disbursements (Table 2a). DAC List of Aid Recipients- As at 1 January 2003 for Income Groups. For each recipient, shares are calculated only among donors with positive net ODA flows to the country. Similar results are obtained (+2% or –2% or less), when using gross disbursements, except in Dominican Republic, Gabon, Ghana, Jamaica, Mauritania, Mauritius, Syria, Turkey and Zambia.
Low Income Countries where EU share is less than 50%:
AfghanistanArmeniaAzerbaijanBangladeshBhutanCambodiaChadDjiboutiEritreaEthiopiaGambia
LiberiaMaldivesMoldovaMongoliaMyanmarNepalNigeriaPakistanPapua New GuineaRwandaSamoa
Solomon IslandsSudanTajikistanTimor LesteTuvaluUgandaUzbekistanVanuatuVietnamYemen
GeorgiaGuineaHaitiIndiaIndonesiaKenyaKiribatiKorea, Dem RepKyrgyz RepublicLaosLesotho
32
EU Donor Atlas 2006
Albania
Algeria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Central African Republic
Cote d'Ivoire
Dominican Republic
FYROMMacedonia
Ghana
Guatemala
Jamaica
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Morocco
MozambiqueNamibia
Nicaragua
Niger
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Tanzania
Tunisia
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Aid per poor Share of EU Aid/ Total Aid
Low (US$1-70)
Medium-low (US$70-140)
Medium-high (US$140-500)
High (over US$500)
EU Share (blue) of 50% or higher and ODA/GNI greater than 0.3%.
(*) Brazil, Ecuador and Venezuela have low aid per poor and a share of EU Aid/Total Aid of at least 50%. They are not included in the table because their ODA receipts are not greater than 0.4%. Sources: Disbursements: DAC Database - Destination of Official Development Assistance and Official Aid - Disbursements (Table 2a). Aid per poor: total ODA to the country divided by population below US$1 (PPP) day from World Bank Development Indicators (last year available for number of poor, not necessarily 2004) Note: Share of EU Aid is not shown for countries without Aid per Poor data.For each recipient, shares are calculated only among donors with positive net ODA flows to the country. Similar results are obtained (+2% or –2% or less), when using gross disbursements, except in Dominican Republic, Gabon, Ghana, Jamaica, Mauritania, Mauritius, Syria, Turkey and Zambia.
EU Aid and Countries with low Aid per PoorNet bilateral EU ODA–disbursements 2004
Countries with low aid per poor and a share of EU Aid below 50%*
Bangladesh, China, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines, Turkmenistan, Uganda and Uzbekistan
33
EU Donor Atlas 2006
Guinea Bissau
Albania
Algeria
Angola
Anguilla
Benin
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Cape Verde Islands
Central AfricanRepublic
Comoros
Congo, Dem Rep
Cote d'Ivoire
Dominican Republic
Equatorial Guinea
FYROMMacedonia
Gabon
Ghana
Guatemala
Guinea
Jamaica
Lebanon
Madagascar
Malawi
MaliMauritania
Mauritius
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Nicaragua Niger
Sao Tome and Principe
Senegal
Serbia andMontenegro
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
SomaliaSuriname
Swaziland
Syria
Tanzania
Togo
Tunisia
Zambia
Congo
Human Devt. Index Share of EU Aid/ Total Aid
Low
Medium-low
Medium-high
High
EU Share (blue) of 50% or higher and ODA/GNI greater than 0.3%.
EU Aid and Human Development Net bilateral EU ODA – disbursements, 2004
Source: Disbursements: IDS Online- DAC Database. Destination of Official Development Assistance and Official Aid - Disbursements (Table 2a). Human Development Index 2003: Human Development Report 2005, UN. Countries have been allocated to 4 categories, each of which has a similar number of countries, low = 0.28 to <0.51, medium-low = 0.51 to <0.69, medium-high = 0.69 to <0.76, high = 0.76 to <0.89.For each recipient, shares are calculated only among donors with positive net ODA flows to the country. Similar results are obtained (+2% or –2% or less), when using gross disbursements, except in Dominican Republic, Gabon, Ghana, Jamaica, Mauritania, Mauritius, Syria, Turkey and Zambia.
Low HDI countries with a share of EU Aid below 50%
Chad, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Haiti, Kenya, Lesotho, Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda and Yemen
34
EU Donor Atlas 2006EU Aid and Aid DependencyNet bilateral EU ODA – disbursements 2004, as a share of GNI
Source: IDS Online- DACDatabase - Destination of Official Development Assistance and Official Aid - Disbursements (Table 2a). For each recipient, shares are calculated only among donors with positive net ODA flows to the country. Similar results are obtained (+2% or –2% or less), when using gross disbursements, except in Dominican Republic, Gabon, Ghana, Jamaica, Mauritania, Mauritius, Syria, Turkey and Zambia.
Highly aid dependent countries with a share of EU Aid below 50%
Afghanistan, Liberia, Rwanda and Timor Leste
Albania
Algeria
Angola
Benin
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Cape Verde Islands
Central African Republic
Comoros
Congo, Dem Rep
Cote d'Ivoire
Dominican Republic
FYROMMacedonia
Gabon
GhanaGuatemala Guinea Bissau
Jamaica
Lebanon
Madagascar
Malawi
MaliMauritania
Mauritius
Morocco
MozambiqueNamibia
Nicaragua
Niger
Sao Tome and Principe
Senegal
Serbia andMontenegro
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Suriname
Swaziland
Syria
Tanzania
Togo
Tunisia
Zambia
Congo
Timor Leste
Afghanistan
Aid Dependency Index (ODA/GNI)
Share of EU Aid/ Total Aid
Low (< 2%)Medium (2 – 10%)High (>10%)
EU Share (blue) of 50% or higher and ODA/GNI greater than 0.3%.
-
35
EU Donor Atlas 2006
Albania
Algeria
Angola
Anguilla
BeninBurkina
Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Cape Verde Islands
Central African Republic
Comoros
Congo, Dem Rep
Cote d'Ivoire
Dominican Republic
Equatorial Guinea
FYROMMacedonia
Gabon
Ghana
Guatemala
Guinea Bissau
Jamaica
Lebanon
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Mauritius
Morocco
MozambiqueNamibia
Nicaragua
Niger
Sao Tome and Principe
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Somalia
Suriname
Swaziland
Syria
Tanzania
Togo
Tunisia
Venezuela
ZambiaZimbabwe
Congo
EU Aid, Political Rights and Civil LibertiesNet bilateral EU ODA – disbursements 2004
Sources: Disbursements: IDS Online DAC Database - Destination of Official Development Assistance and Official Aid - Disbursements (Table 2a). Freedom Indicators: Freedom in the World, 2005. Freedom HouseFor each recipient, shares are calculated only among donors with positive net ODA flows to the country. Similar results are obtained (+2% or –2% or less), when using gross disbursements, except in Dominican Republic, Gabon, Ghana, Jamaica, Mauritania, Mauritius, Syria, Turkey and Zambia.
Freedom Indicators Share of EU Aid/ Total Aid
FreePartially FreeNot Free
EU Share (blue) of 50% or higher and ODA/GNI greater than 0.3%.
Not Free countries with a share of EU Aid over 50%
Algeria, Angola, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo DR, Cote d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Lebanon, Somalia, Syria, Swaziland, Togo, Tunisia, Zimbabwe.
36
EU Donor Atlas 2006
Albania
Algeria
Angola
Anguilla
BarbadosBenin
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Cape Verde Islands
Central African Republic
Comoros
Congo Dem Rep
Cote d'Ivoire
Dominican Republic
FYROMMacedonia
Gabon
Ghana
Guatemala Guinea Bissau
Jamaica
Lebanon
MadagascarMalawi
Mali
Mauritania
Mauritius
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Nicaragua
Niger
Sao Tome and Principe
Senegal
Serbia and Montenegro
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
SomaliaSuriname
Swaziland
Syria
Tanzania
Togo
Tunisia
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Congo
EU Aid and Armed ConflictsNet bilateral EU ODA – disbursements, 2004
Sources: Disbursements: DAC Database - Destination of Official Development Assistance and Official Aid - Disbursements (Table 2a). Uppsala Conflict Database for Armed Conflicts (and intensity). In this map, we rank countries as having a high level of armed conflict if they have had at least one year at war (at least 1,000 battle related deaths in one calendar year) or at least two years of intermediate armed conflict (at least 25 deaths in a calendar year and an accumulated total death toll of at least 1,000 a year but fewer than 1,000 in a given year) in the 2000-2004 period. We rank countries as having a low level of armed conflict if they have not had armed conflicts of any intensity (less than 25 deaths in a calendar year) since 1989. For each recipient, shares are calculated only among donors with positive net ODA flows to the country. Similar results are obtained (+2% or –2% or less), when using gross disbursements, except in Dominican Republic, Gabon, Ghana, Jamaica, Mauritania, Mauritius, Syria, Turkey and Zambia.
Countries with high level of armed conflicts and EU share of less than 50%:
Afghanistan, Colombia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Liberia, Myanmar, Nepal, PakistanPalestinian Admin. Area, Philippines, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Uganda.
Share of EU Aid/ Total AidLevel of Armed Conflict
EU Share (blue) of 50% or higher and ODA/GNI greater than 0.3%.
LowMediumHigh
37
EU Donor Atlas 2006EU Aid and Corruption indicatorsNet bilateral EU ODA – disbursements 2004
Source: Disbursements: IDS Online- DAC Database - Destination of Official Development Assistance and Official Aid - Disbursements (Table 2a). Corruption Perception Index 2004: Transparency International. Countries have been allocated to 3 categories, each of which has a similar number of countries. High:1.5-2.3, medium: 2.4-3.3 and low: 3.4-7.3. For each recipient, shares are calculated only among donors with positive net ODA flows to the country. Similar results are obtained (+2% or –2% or less), when using gross disbursements, except in Dominican Republic, Gabon, Ghana, Jamaica, Mauritania, Mauritius, Syria, Turkey and Zambia.
High corruption countries with a share of EU Aid over 50%
Angola, Cameroon, Congo, Congo DR, Cote d’Ivoire, Guatemala, Niger, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe
Albania
Algeria
Angola
Barbados
Benin
Cameroon
Congo, Dem Rep
Coted'Ivoire
Dominican Republic
FYROMMacedonia
Gabon
Ghana
Guatemala
Jamaica
Lebanon
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritius
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Nicaragua
Niger
Senegal
Serbia and Montenegro
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Suriname
Syria
Tanzania
Tunisia
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Congo
Corruption Indicators Share of EUAid/ Total Aid
Low MediumHigh
EU Share (blue) of 50% or higher and ODA/GNI greater than 0.3%.
38
EU Donor Atlas 2006
V. Private Flows, Trade and Migration
EU DONOR ATLAS 2006
39
EU Donor Atlas 2006Total Net Resource Flows to Developing CountriesNet flows by donor country (US$ millions, 2004)
Source: IDS Online – DAC Database, Table 1
EU Share of Total Net Flows
63%
8,906
19,705
43,213
4,392
6,465
51,400
6,792
2,618
Japan
USA
EU
ODA Private flows Grants by NGO's Other official flows
no data up to 300 million 300 to 3,000 million over 3,000 million
Total Net Resource Flows to Developing Countries
Distribution by type of flow (US$ millions)
ODA Private flows Grants by NGO's Other official flows
US $ :
40
EU Donor Atlas 2006EU Private Flows to Developing CountriesNet EU private flows by recipient country (US$ millions, 2004)
Source: IDS Online - DAC Database. Note: Map includes countries, i.e. excluding territories in the DAC list of ODA. Private flows include direct investment, portfolio investment and export credits.
less than 0 0 to 500 500 to 2,000 over 2,000Countries with negative private flows:
Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Bolivia, Burundi, Cambodia, Comoros, Congo (Dem Rep), Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Cuba, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, FYR Macedonia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Haiti, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kyrgyz Republic, Laos, Lebanon, Lesotho, Malawi, Mali, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Niue, Palestinian Admin. Areas, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, St Kitts and Nevis, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Vanuatu, Zambia, and Zimbabwe .
ChinaIran
Mexico
Mauritius
US Dollars (millions)
41
EU Donor Atlas 2006EU: Trade, Private Flows and AidWhat is the largest source of financial flows: EU trade, EU private flows or EU Aid? (2004)
Source: Eurostat for Trade (trade balance) and IDS online- DACDatabase for net ODA and net private flows
EU Trade is larger than EU Private Flows and EU aid in the following 36 countries:Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Belize, Brazil, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Guyana, Indonesia, Iraq, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Zimbabwe.
EU Private Flows is larger than EU Trade and EU Aid in the following 36 countries:Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Barbados, Colombia, Congo, Croatia, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Gabon, Grenada, India, Iran, North Korea, Liberia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Nauru, Nigeria, Oman, Panama, Serbia and Montenegro, Timor Leste, South Africa, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Tokelau, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uruguay, Venezuela.
Trade Private flows Aid
EU Aid is larger than EU trade and EU Private flows in 77 countries
42
EU Donor Atlas 2006Trade: Developing Countries Exports to the EUShare of Exports to EU over total exports (2004)
Source for Share of Exports to the EU: IMF, Direction of Trade Statistics.
Countries with a share >75%Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Cape Verde, Serbia and Montenegro, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Tunisia, and Tuvalu.
Countries with a share between 50% and 75%Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, Central African Republic, DR Congo, Croatia, Gambia, Guinea, Kiribati, Liberia, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Sao Tome and Principe, Syria, Tajikistan, and Turkey.
0% to 25% 25% to 50% 50% to 75% 75% to 100% No data
Cotonou Agreement (ACP)GSP Plus
Trade Development Cooperation Agreement
Association Agreement
Everything-but-arms
Trade Agreements *
* The Trade Agreements map identifies EU agreements that provide countries with lower tariffs than the standard Generalised System of Preferences on at least some of its exports to the EU. See Trade and Aid (2006), edited by S. Page.
43
EU Donor Atlas 2006
- to 500,000
500,000 to 1,000,000
1,000,000 to 2,000,000
2,000,000 to 4,000,000
Migration: Foreign Born Population from Developing Countries in the EU as of 2004
Source: OECD (excluding Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta and Slovenia) Data refers to stocks as of end of 2004.
Germany45%
Greece12%
Austria11%
Italy8%
France6%
Others18%
United Kingdom35%
France24%
Portugal16%
Italy6%
Belgium5%
Others14%
France59%
Spain9%
Italy7%
Netherlands6%
Sweden4%
Others15%
Spain49%
Netherlands15%
Italy15%
Portugal5%
United Kingdom5%
Others11%
United Kingdom50%
Spain27%
Italy8%
France7%
Others5%
Netherlands3%
United Kingdom47%
France13%
Netherlands11%
Italy7%
Greece5%
Others17%
Middle East and North Africa4,037,000
- to 500 thous. 500 thous. to 1 mill. 1 mill to 2 mill 2 mill to 4 mill
EU 15.4 3.5%USA 24.2 8.6%
Japan 0.7 0.5%
No of foreign born (mill)
% of total population
North and Central America491,000
South America1,454,000
Europe: 4,103,000
South, Central Far East Asia2,615,000
Sub-Saharan Africa2,180,000
To
From
From
From From
From
From
To
ToTo
To
To
44
EU Donor Atlas 2006Migration: Worker Remittances per capita Remittances per capita from all other countries (EU and non EU), US$, 2004
0 to 5 5 to 35 36 to 650
Source: IMF and World Bank (World Development Indicators). Adjustments for some countries based on IMF Working Paper 05/234 data.
ODA>Remittances Remittances>ODA No data
Worker Remittances and Aid Ratio total worker remittances and ODA
45
EU Donor Atlas 2006Commitment to Development Index 2004
Source: Center for Global Development: The CDI ranks 21 of the worlds richest countries on their commitment to policies that benefit developing countries, rating countries on quality and quantity of foreign aid, openness to developing country exports, policies that influence investment, migration policies, environmental policies, security policies and support for creation and dissemination of new technologies.
14.3
12.0
8.9
5.5
5.4
5.1
4.4
4.3
3.5
3.1
3.0
2.7
2.5
1.6
5.0
2.9
2.1
Denmark
Sw eden
Netherlands
Belgium
Ireland
Finland
France
United Kingdom
Portugal
Spain
Germany
Austria
Greece
Italy
DAC Average
Japan
United States
Performance of Aid Policies
Overall Commitment to Development Index
Denmark
Netherlands
Sweden
Finland
Austria
Germany
Canada
Portugal
United Kingdom
France
Belgium
Ireland
Spain
Italy
Greece
DAC Average
United States
Japan
Aid Trade Investment Migration Environment Security TechnologyAid
Trade
Investment
Migration
Environment
Security
Technology
47.8
46.9
43.3
37.1
37.1
37.0
35.5
33.7
33.0
32.5
31.2
31.2
31.0
29.7
28.0
35.5
34.5
19.9
46
EU Donor Atlas 2006Global Programmes and Initiatives
Global ProgrammesExpendituresFY 04/CY 03, US$ million HQ Montreal
HQ Washington DC
131416
388395
Cities AllianceWater and SanitationProgramme
PPIAFGEFCGIAR
CGIAR – Consultative Group for International and Agricultural Research GAVI – Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization GEF – Global Environment Facility
GFTAM – The Global Fund for Tuberculosis AIDS and Malaria
MLF – Multilateral Fund for Implementation of the Montreal Protocol
PPIAF – Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility Stop TB – Stop TB PartnershipTDR – WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases UNAIDS – Joint UN Programme on HIV / AIDS
EU Disbursements to Selected Global ProgrammesFY 04/CY 04 - US$ million
833 87 46
401 151 32
6
43
Production
Economic Infrastructure andServices
Education
Environment & Agriculture
Health
GEFCGIAR
GAVIUNAIDS
MLF
GFATM
9
1
12 412 4
HQ Geneva
2148
95124
Stop TBTDRUNAIDSGAVI
232
GFTAM
20
Critical EcosystemsPartnership
159
MF Implement Montreal Protocol
EU Contributions to Selected Global Programmes
EuropeanCommission: US$ 292 million
0 to 50 50 to 100 100 to 200 200 to 300
US$ million:
Source: Independent Evaluation of the World Bank Approach to Global Programs World Bank, OED – 2004. Also Review of Global Programmes, Development Strategies, commissioned by DFID, February 2005.
Source: Annual Reports of each Global Programme. Notes: CGAP: Consultative Group to Assist the Poor, ESMAP: Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme IF: Integrated Framework for Trade Related Technical Assistance FIRST Initiative: Financial Sector Reform and Strengthening Initiatives
47
EU Donor Atlas 2006
VI. EU Aid by Sector
EU DONOR ATLAS 2006
48
EU Donor Atlas 2006
Support to NGOs 1 836
Other 3 972
Actions on Debt 4 564
Programme Aid5 342
Investment Project Aid 6 447
Technical Co-operation8 437
Emergency/Distress Relief
3 554
25%
19%
16%
13%
12%
10%
5%
EU Aid by TypeEU bilateral ODA, net disbursements, millions of US$, 2004
Source: IDS Online- DAC Database - Disbursements and Commitments of Official and Private Flows (Table 1). Investment project aid may also include some sector programme aid. Note: Other includes administrative costs of donors, promotion of development awareness, contributions to PPPs and other grant and non-grant ODA.
320
239
355
409
439
510
639
3,535
Others
Italy
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Denmark
France
Germany
EC
1,866
1,205 1,042
391 389 171 154 124
EC Sweden United
Kingdom
Denmark Netherlands Ireland Others France
962
340
414
479
663
751
2,340
2,486
Others
Spain
Belgium
EC
Netherlands
United Kingdom
France
Germany
159
117
211
231
277
794
814
1,961
Others
Austria
Belgium
Netherlands
Spain
United Kingdom
Germany
France
417
100
207
339
384
523
563
960
Others
Belgium
Germany
Netherlands
Sweden
United Kingdom
France
EC
693 665
140 138 95 93 50 45
United
Kingdom
Netherlands Sweden Ireland Denmark Others France Italy
49
EU Donor Atlas 2006EU Aid by SectorCommitments by sector, millions of US$, 2004
Source: IDS Online – DAC Database. Official Commitments (or Disbursements) by Sector (Table 5). Note: this table differs from table 48 as it refers to commitments rather than disbursements and to sectors rather than type of assistance
1,224 1,054455 430 409 267 240 147 77 33 25 10 8 8 6 4 4
German
y ECUnit
ed K
ingdo
m
France
Netherl
ands
Spain
Denmark
Sweden
Belgium Ita
ly
Finlan
d
Irelan
d
Greece
Portug
al
Austria
Czech
Rep
ublic
Lu
xembo
urg
721
714
561
298
240
141
114
98
93
56
37
20
18
17
12
10
7
Germany
EC
France
Netherlands
Italy
Spain
Sweden
Denmark
United Kingdom
Finland
Belgium
Austria
Ireland
Luxembourg
Greece
Portugal
Czech Republic
4,034
2,465
2,438
2,094
1,184
746
704
554
364
247
244
215
168
161
114
79
25
EC
Germany
France
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Sweden
Denmark
Spain
Belgium
Ireland
Greece
Italy
Finland
Austria
Portugal
Luxembourg
Czech Republic
742273 266 254 217 160 122 64 59 54 22 15 15 14 4 4 2
ECUnit
ed K
ingdo
m
German
y
France
Denmark
Netherl
ands
Spain
Belgium
Sweden Italy
Irelan
d
Austria
Finlan
dLu
xembo
urg
Portug
alCze
ch R
epub
lic
Greece
Unallocated1 096
Production1 542
Administrative costs 1 659
Multisector 2 436
Emergency Assistance 2 592
Economic Infrastructure 3 344
Action on debt 5 207
Social infrastructure 11 776
Programme Assistance 813Support to NGO's
934
37%
17%11%
8%
8%
5%
5%
50
EU Donor Atlas 2006
1975-84 19% 6% 8% 17% 25% 2% 5% 4% 1% 0% 0% 12%
1985-94 15% 4% 11% 19% 17% 5% 8% 7% 4% 3% 2% 6%
1995-2004 13% 5% 17% 11% 8% 8% 5% 13% 7% 5% 3% 5%
Education Health Other socialEconomic
infrastructure and services
Production Sectors
Multisector (e.g., Environment, Democracy)
Programme assistance
Action relating to Debt
Emergency Assistance
Administrative Costs of Donors
Support to NGOs
Unallocated
1975-84 4% 4% 5% 16% 21% 3% 23% 2% 1% 0% 0% 19%
1985-94 6% 4% 10% 20% 14% 2% 25% 8% 2% 4% 2% 4%
1995-2004 6% 4% 19% 23% 10% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 1% 3%
Education Health Other socialEconomic
infrastructure and services
Production Sectors
Multisector (e.g., Environment, Democracy)
Programme assistance
Action relating to Debt
Emergency Assistance
Administrative Costs of Donors Support to NGOs Unallocated
Non-EU DAC Members* Aid by Sector: 30 yearsCommitments by sector as a share of total ODA, 1975-2004
EU Aid by Sector: 30 yearsCommitments by sector as a share of total EU ODA, 1975-2004
Source: IDS Online – DAC Database. Official Commitments (or Disbursements) by Sector (Table 5)
* Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, and USA
51
EU Donor Atlas 2006EU Aid and the Environment
Source: IDS Online- CRS Database - Commitments. Aid with an environmental marker of 1 (significant) or 2 (principal) over all commitments (including those without an environmental marker)
3%
7%
9%
11%
13%
13%
15%
18%
22%
23%
35%
45%
Greece
Belgium
France
EC
Austria
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Spain
Germany
Finland
Denmark
Sweden
1-2 2 to 12 12 to 50 over 50
US$ million (2004) % of total commitments by EU
donor (2004)
Commitments with significant or principal environmental focus, millions of US$, 2004
52
EU Donor Atlas 2006EU Aid and GenderCommitments with significant or principal gender focus, millions of US$, 2004
Source: IDS Online- CRS Database - Commitments. Aid with a gender marker of 1 (significant) or 2 (principal) over all commitments (including those without an environmental marker)
1-2 2 to 12 12 to 50 over 50
US$ million (2004)
7%
9%
11%
12%
14%
16%
18%
21%
25%
43%
46%
67%
Greece
France
EC
Austria
Netherlands
Belgium
Denmark
EU Average
Germany
Finland
United Kingdom
Sweden
% of total commitments by EU
donor (2004)
53
EU Donor Atlas 2006EU Development Staff Number of full time staff managing ODA
Source: Questionnaires distributed to all EU Member States and the Commission by the EU Donor Atlas team. Note: EC excludes ALAT
125 Austria
270 Belgium
Cyprus
Czech Republic
2,324 Denmark
6 Estonia
255
Finland
2,070 France
6,550
Germany
131
Greece
17 Hungary
409
Ireland
448 Italy
5 Latvia
3 Lithuania
103 Luxembourg
1,365
Netherlands
14
Poland
171 Portugal
7 Slovak Republic
Slovenia
1,159 Spain
937 Sweden
2,938
United Kingdom
European Commission
3,539
EU Member HQ Field Expatriate
Field Local Total
Germany 1,900 1,300 3,350 6,550EC 959 559 2,021 3,539United Kingdom 1,565 453 920 2,938Denmark 847 503 974 2,324France 1,460 610 2,070 Netherlands 645 395 325 1,365Spain 493 200 466 1,159Sweden 664 185 88 937Italy 427 21 - 448Ireland 125 34 250 409Belgium 193 68 9 270Finland 164 69 22 255Portugal 160 11 - 171Greece 130 1 - 131Austria 93 21 11 125Luxembourg 84 16 3 103
Hungary 17 - - 17
Slovak Republic 7 - - 7Poland 14 - - 14
Estonia 6 - - 6Latvia 5 - - 5
Cyprus 4 - 4
Lithuania 3 - - 3Malta 4 - 0 4
Total 10004 4446 8439 22889
Slovenia 5 - - 5
30
5
4
Malta
4
Czech Republic 30 - - 30
-
54
EU Donor Atlas 2006
VII. EU Donor Profiles
The EU Donor Profiles are based on self-reporting by Member States through a questionnaire prepared by the EU Donor Atlas Team in December 2005. The Profiles also include key figures At a Glance all from OECD DAC data. See the Explanatory Note for the Donor Profiles in chapter VIII.
EU DONOR ATLAS 2006
55
EU Donor Atlas 2006
Austria Overall objective sustainable development poverty reduction, peace and human security Development policy statement 2005 Legislation 2003 Minister in Cabinet no Annual report yes
A. Institutional Framework Policy ministry with separate implementation agency Total staff 125 HQ 93* Field expatriate staff 21 Field local staff 11 B. Degree of decentralisation Programming HQ Project appraisal and approval HQ approval Tenders HQ Commitments and payments HQ Monitoring and evaluation … C. Programming Use of formal methodology no Programming documents used 3 year programme csp Common EU format yes Role of recipient government central Coordination with EU MS strong D. Monitoring and Evaluation Evaluation unit reports to: policy departments Full time evaluation staff 2 Common monitoring system yes
E. Programming priorities Regions Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, Europe (South West Balkans)
Countries Nicaragua, Cape Verde, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Uganda,
Mozambique, Bhutan, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, FYR Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro, Palestinian Authority and Moldavia
F. Preferred approaches Commitment to budget support low Support to sector approach yes Financing modality for sector app. parallel financing
(own procedures) Role of civil society/NGOs: strong G. Aid Procedures and Tying Own aid procedures are a strength yes Use of stand-alone PMUs frequently Tying investment projects very low Tying technical cooperation low Tying programme aid (excl food) very low Tying food aid low Tying support to NGOs very low Tying emergency assistance very low
Austrian Aid at a Glance (2004) Net ODA/EU ODA 1.6% ODA/GNI 0.23% ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral ODA 16% Multilateral ODA/ODA 48% Technical Coop./Bilateral ODA 37.7% Support to NGOs/Bilateral ODA 0.4% Untied ODA to LDCs/Bilateral LDC ODA (2003) 57% Sector distribution 42% social sectors, debt 22%, emergency
15% Regional distribution 48% Africa, 27% Europe Top 5 recipients (2003-2004) Cameroon, Serbia Montenegro, Turkey,
Egypt, Bosnia and Herzegovina
(*) Headquarters staff includes 26 staff for ministry and 67 from ADA
EU
DO
NO
R P
RO
FILES
56
EU Donor Atlas 2006
Belgium * Overall objective poverty reduction** Development. policy statement 2005 Legislation 1999 Minister in Cabinet yes Annual report yes http://www.dgdc.be/en/dgdc/annual_report/ A. Institutional Framework Policy ministry with separate implementation agency Total staff 270 HQ 193 Field expatriate staff 68 Field local staff 9 B. Degree of decentralisation Programming HQ Project appraisal and approval HQ Tenders Field Commitments and payments HQ Monitoring and evaluation HQ (eval) Field (monitoring) C. Programming Use of formal methodology no Programming documents used country strategy papers Common EU format no Role of recipient government central Coordination with EU MS strong D. Monitoring and Evaluation Evaluation unit reports to: Principal Adm./DG *** Full time evaluation staff 5 Common monitoring system yes
E. Programming priorities Regions Sub-Saharan Africa Countries: Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Benin,
Mali, Senegal, Niger, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, South Africa, Morocco, Algeria, Palestinian Adm., Vietnam, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia.
F. Preferred approaches Commitment to budget support … (increasing) Support to sector approach yes Financing modality for sector app. Cofinancing and basket funding Role of civil society/NGOs: strong G. Aid Procedures and Tying Own aid procedures are a strength no Use of stand-alone PMUs … (diminishing) Tying investment projects very low Tying technical cooperation low Tying programme aid (excl food) very low Tying food aid very low Tying support to NGOs very high Tying emergency assistance low
Belgian Aid at a Glance (2004) Net ODA/EU ODA 3.4% ODA/GNI 0.41% ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral ODA 51% Multilateral ODA/ODA 38% Technical Coop./ Bilateral ODA 45.9% Support to NGOs/ Bilateral ODA 3.3% **** Untied ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral LDC ODA (2003) 99% Sector distribution 37% social sectors, 21% debt relief,
10% emergency Regional distribution 81% Africa Top 5 recipients (2003-2004) DR Congo, Cameroon, Burundi,
Rwanda, Burkina Faso
(*) Replies apply to the DG of Development Cooperation only. (**) Sustainable human development through poverty alleviation (***) External Evaluation unit in the MFA reports to the federal parliament, and covers all ODA activities. (****) In addition, there is a share of 14.2 of Belgium bilateral ODA through NGOs, IDS Online-DAC Database, Table 1.
EU
DO
NO
R P
RO
FILES
57
EU Donor Atlas 2006
Cyprus Overall objective poverty reduction Development policy statement 2005 Legislation no Minister in Cabinet no Annual report no
A. Institutional Framework Policy ministry with separate implementation agency Total staff 4 HQ 4 Field expatriate staff Field local staff B. Degree of decentralisation Programming HQ Project appraisal and approval HQ Tenders HQ Commitments and payments HQ Monitoring and evaluation HQ C. Programming Use of formal methodology no Programming documents used … Common EU format no Role of recipient government central Coordination with EU MS strong D. Monitoring and Evaluation Evaluation unit reports to: implementation dept./agency Full time evaluation staff 0 Common monitoring system no
E. Programming priorities Regions Sub-Saharan Africa Countries: Palestinian Auth., Egypt, Yemen,
Lesotho, Mali. F. Preferred approaches Commitment to budget support high Support to sector approach yes Financing modality for sector app. pool funding with donor proceduresRole of civil society/NGOs: limited G. Aid Procedures and Tying Own aid procedures are a strength no Use of stand-alone PMUs frequently Tying investment projects very low Tying technical cooperation very low Tying programme aid (excl food) very low Tying food aid low Tying support to NGOs very low Tying emergency assistance very high
Cyprus Aid at a Glance (2004) Net ODA/EU ODA 0.01% ODA/GNI 0.04% ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral ODA 60% Multilateral ODA/ODA 70% Technical Coop./ Bilateral ODA 40% Support to NGOs/ Bilateral ODA 0% Untied ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral LDC ODA (2003) Sector distribution Regional distribution … Top 5 recipients (2003-2004) …
EU
DO
NO
R P
RO
FILES
58
EU Donor Atlas 2006
Czech Republic Overall objective poverty reduction
sustainable development
Development policy statement 2004 Legislation no Minister in Cabinet no Annual report no
A. Institutional Framework Multiple ministries with separate implementation agencies Total staff 30 HQ 30 Field expatriate staff Field local staff B. Degree of decentralisation Programming HQ Project appraisal and approval HQ Tenders HQ Commitments and payments HQ Monitoring and evaluation HQ C. Programming Use of formal methodology no Programming documents used cooperation programmes Common EU format no Role of recipient government limited Coordination with EU MS weak D. Monitoring and Evaluation Evaluation unit reports to: principal administrator/DG Full time evaluation staff 1 Common monitoring system no
E. Programming priorities Regions South-East Europe Countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Moldova,
Serbia and Montenegro, Mongolia, Yemen, Angola, Zambia, Vietnam
F. Preferred approaches Commitment to budget support low Support to sector approach yes Financing modality for sector app. parallel financing on procedures Role of civil society/NGOs: strong G. Aid Procedures and Tying Own aid procedures are a strength no Use of stand-alone PMUs … Tying investment projects very high Tying technical cooperation very high Tying programme aid (excl food) … Tying food aid … Tying support to NGOs very high Tying emergency assistance low
Czech Aid at a Glance (2004) Net ODA/EU ODA 0.3% ODA/GNI 0.11% ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral ODA 15% Multilateral ODA/ODA 41% Technical Coop./ Bilateral ODA 17.2% Support to NGOs/ Bilateral ODA … Untied ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral LDC ODA (2003) n.a. Sector distribution 39% social sectors, 17%
debt relief, 14% emergencyRegional distribution … Top 5 recipients (2003-2004) Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia and
Montenegro, Vietnam and Bosnia Herzegovina.
EU
DO
NO
R P
RO
FILES
59
EU Donor Atlas 2006
Denmark Overall objective poverty reduction Development. policy statement 2005 Legislation 1998 Minister in Cabinet yes Annual report yes http://www.netpublikationer.dk/um/6051/
A. Institutional Framework Integrated Ministry of Foreign Affairs Total staff 2,324 * HQ 847 Field expatriate staff 503 Field local staff 974 B. Degree of decentralisation Programming HQ/field Project appraisal and approval HQ/field Tenders HQ/field Commitments and payments HQ/field Monitoring and evaluation Monitoring (field)/Eval.(HQ) C. Programming Use of formal methodology yes Programming documents used country strategies (short) web Common EU format no ** Role of recipient government central Coordination with EU MS strong D. Monitoring and Evaluation Evaluation unit reports to: Minister Full time evaluation staff 6 Common monitoring system yes
E. Programming priorities Regions Sub-Saharan Africa Countries: Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan,
Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Tanzania, Uganda, Vietnam, Zambia.
F. Preferred approaches Commitment to budget support high Support to sector approach yes Financing modality for sector app. pool funding with government procedures Role of civil society/NGOs: strong/framework agreements G. Aid Procedures and Tying Own aid procedures are a strength yes Use of stand-alone PMUs rarely Tying investment projects very low Tying technical cooperation very low Tying programme aid (excl food) very low Tying food aid very low Tying support to NGOs low Tying emergency assistance very low
Danish Aid at a Glance (2004) Net ODA/EU ODA 4.7% ODA/GNI 0.85% ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral ODA 41% Multilateral ODA/ODA 41% Technical Coop./ Bilateral ODA 9.3% Support to NGOs/ Bilateral ODA 0.9% Untied ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral LDC ODA (2003) 84% Sector distribution 43% social sectors, 15% infrastructure Regional distribution 57% Africa, 31% Asia Top 5 recipients (2003-2004) Tanzania, Vietnam,
Mozambique, Uganda Ghana
(*) Staff numbers are not comparable with information provided by other Member States as it includes total numbers and not just those dealing with official development assistance. (**) Denmark notes that it supports Joint Assesment Strategies.
EU
DO
NO
R P
RO
FILES
60
EU Donor Atlas 2006
Estonia Overall objective poverty reduction democracy
sustainable development Development policy statement 2003 Legislation no Minister in Cabinet no Annual report no
A. Institutional Framework Development Cooperation Directorate within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Total staff 6 HQ 6 Field expatriate staff Field local staff B. Degree of decentralisation Programming HQ Project appraisal and approval HQ Tenders HQ Commitments and payments HQ Monitoring and evaluation HQ C. Programming Use of formal methodology no Programming documents used no Common EU format no Role of recipient government central Coordination with EU MS weak
D. Monitoring and Evaluation Evaluation unit reports to: minister with broader mandate Full time evaluation staff 0 Common monitoring system no E. Programming priorities Regions South East Europe Countries: Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, Afghanistan F. Preferred approaches Commitment to budget support low Support to sector approach yes Financing modality for sector app. … Role of civil society/NGOs: strong G. Aid Procedures and Tying Own aid procedures are a strength yes Use of stand-alone PMUs no Tying investment projects Tying technical cooperation very low Tying programme aid (excl food) Tying food aid Tying support to NGOs Tying emergency assistance very low
Estonian Aid at a Glance (2004) Net ODA/EU ODA 0.01% ODA/GNI 0.05% ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral ODA 6.6% Multilateral ODA/ODA 87% Technical Coop./ Bilateral ODA 88% Support to NGOs/ Bilateral ODA 15% Untied ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral LDC ODA (2003) n.a. Sector distribution 80% multisector Regional distribution 74% Asia Top 5 recipients (2003-2004) Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Iraq
EU
DO
NO
R P
RO
FILES
61
EU Donor Atlas 2006
Finland Overall objective poverty reduction Development. policy statement 2004 Legislation no Minister in Cabinet yes Annual report yes http://global.finland.fi/english/publications/annual/2004 A. Institutional Framework Integrated Ministry of Foreign Affairs * Total staff 255 HQ 164 Field expatriate staff 69 Field local staff 22 B. Degree of decentralisation Programming HQ Project appraisal and approval HQ Tenders HQ Commitments and payments HQ Monitoring and evaluation HQ/field C. Programming Use of formal methodology yes Programming documents used no (no country strategies) Common EU format no Role of recipient government central Coordination with EU MS strong D. Monitoring and Evaluation Evaluation unit reports to: principal administrator/DG Full time evaluation staff 3 Common monitoring system yes
E. Programming priorities Regions Sub-Saharan Africa Countries: Ethiopia, Kenya, Mozambique,
Tanzania, Zambia, Nepal, Vietnam, Nicaragua.
F. Preferred approaches Commitment to budget support high Support to sector approach yes Financing modality for sector app. pool funding with government
procedures Role of civil society/NGOs: strong/co-financing G. Aid Procedures and Tying Aid procedures are a strength yes Use of stand-alone PMUs frequently Tying investment projects low Tying technical cooperation very low Tying programme aid (excl food) very low Tying food aid very low Tying support to NGOs very low Tying emergency assistance very low
Finnish Aid at a Glance (2004) Net ODA/EU ODA 1.5% ODA/GNI 0.35% ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral ODA 30% Multilateral ODA/ODA 45% Technical Coop./ Bilateral ODA 56.1% Support to NGOs/ Bilateral ODA 3.9% Untied ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral LDC ODA (2003) 99% Sector distribution 46% social sectors, 15% multisector Regional distribution 50% Africa, 30% Asia Top 5 recipients (2003-2004) Mozambique, Tanzania, Afghanistan,
South Africa, Namibia
* Integration only for implementation. This is not the “pure” Model 1 as a separate Directorate is in charge of policy (Development Cooperation Policy).
EU
DO
NO
R P
RO
FILES
62
EU Donor Atlas 2006
France Overall objective sustainable development poverty reduction cultural diversity Development policy statement 2002 Legislation no Minister in Cabinet yes Annual report yes
A. Institutional Framework Multiple ministries with separate implementing agencies Total staff 2070 HQ 1460 Field expatriate staff 610 Field local staff … B. Degree of decentralisation Programming HQ Project appraisal and approval HQ Tenders field Commitments and payments field Monitoring and evaluation HQ C. Programming Use of formal methodology yes Programming documents used country strategy documents Common EU format no Role of recipient government … * Coordination with EU MS … D. Monitoring and Evaluation Evaluation unit reports to: principal administrator/DG Full time evaluation staff 21 Common monitoring system no
E. Programming priorities Regions Sub-Saharan Africa, Middle
East, North Africa Countries Morocco, Algeria, Tunis, Lebanon, Senegal, Cameroon,
Mali, Burkina Faso, Benin, Guinea, Madagascar, Niger, Chad, Djibouti, DR Congo, Congo, Ivory Coast, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Brazil
F. Preferred approaches Commitment to budget support high Support to sector approach yes Financing modality for sector app. co-financing Role of civil society/NGOs: limited G. Aid Procedures and Tying Own aid procedures are a strength yes Use of stand-alone PMUs rarely Tying investment projects very low Tying technical cooperation very high Tying programme aid (excl food) very low Tying food aid very low Tying support to NGOs very low Tying emergency assistance very low
French Aid at a Glance (2004) Net ODA/EU ODA 19.6% ODA/GNI 0.41% ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral ODA 41% Multilateral ODA/ODA 34% Technical Coop./ Bilateral ODA 42% Support to NGOs/ Bilateral ODA 0.9% Untied ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral LDCODA 2003 89% Sector distribution 35% social sectors, 30% debt Regional distribution 75% Africa Top 5 recipients (2003-2004) DR Congo, Senegal, Cameroon,
Madagascar, Morocco
* Sign the CSD
EU
DO
NO
R P
RO
FILES
63
EU Donor Atlas 2006
Germany Overall objective poverty reduction *
safeguarding peace making globalization equitable
Development policy statement 2005 ** Legislation no Minister in Cabinet yes Annual report yes A. Institutional Framework Policy ministry with separate implementation agency Total staff 6550 HQ 1900 Field expatriate staff 1300 Field local staff 3350 B. Degree of decentralisation Programming HQ Project appraisal and approval HQ Tenders … Commitments and payments HQ Monitoring and evaluation HQ C. Programming Use of formal methodology yes Programming documents used country papers/priority strategy papers Common EU format no Role of recipient government central Coordination with EU MS weak (partial) D. Monitoring and Evaluation Evaluation unit reports to: permanent secretary Full time evaluation staff 22.5 Common monitoring system no
E. Programming priorities Regions … Countries: MED-NME: (Egypt, Morocco, Palestinian adm., Turkey, Yemen
SSA: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia; As-Oc: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Vietnam; LA: Bolivia, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Peru
F. Preferred approaches Commitment to budget support … (strengthening) Support to sector approach yes Financing modality for sector app. pool funding with donor procedures Role of civil society/NGOs: strong G. Aid Procedures and Tying Own aid procedures are a strength yes Use of stand-alone PMUs rarely Tying investment projects very low Tying technical cooperation low Tying programme aid (excl food) very low Tying food aid very low Tying support to NGOs very low Tying emergency assistance very low
German Aid at a Glance (2004) Net ODA/EU ODA 17.4% ODA/GNI 0.28% ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral ODA 25% Multilateral ODA/ODA 49% Technical Coop./ Bilateral ODA 65% Support to NGOs/ Bilateral ODA 0.3% *** Untied ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral LDC ODA (2003) 76% Sector distribution 40% social sectors, 20%
infrastructure, 13% debt relief Regional distribution 44% Africa, 31% Asia Top 5 recipients (2003-2004) China, DR Congo, Nicaragua,
Cameroon, Indonesia ****
* Reducing global poverty and contributing to common international efforts towards fulfillment of the MDGs. ** Programme of Action 2015 for Poverty Reduction – The German Government’s 12th Development Policy Report (2005), Government’s Coalition Statement (2005) . *** For this profile, Germany reports that 513 m. US$ (13% of bilateral ODA) are channeled through German NGOs. **** Germany notes that the ranking in this period is affected by the effects of debt relief.
EU
DO
NO
R P
RO
FILES
64
EU Donor Atlas 2006
Greece Overall objective poverty reduction Development policy statement 2002 Legislation 1999 Minister in Cabinet yes Annual report yes A. Institutional Framework Policy ministry with separate implementation agency Total staff 131 HQ 130 Field expatriate staff 1 Field local staff … B. Degree of decentralisation Programming HQ Project appraisal and approval HQ Tenders HQ Commitments and payments HQ Monitoring and evaluation HQ C. Programming Use of formal methodology yes Programming documents used country strategies Common EU format yes Role of recipient government limited Coordination with EU MS weak D. Monitoring and Evaluation Evaluation unit reports to: development minister Full time evaluation staff 1 Common monitoring system yes
E. Programming priorities Regions South and Eastern Europe Countries: Afghanistan, Albania, Armenia,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cote d’Ivoire, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, FYR Macedonia, Palestinian adm., Syria, Turkey, FR Yugoslavia.
F. Preferred approaches Commitment to budget support … Support to sector approach yes Financing modality for sector app. parallel financing (own procedures) Role of civil society/NGOs: strong G. Aid Procedures and Tying Aid procedures are a strength yes Use of stand-alone PMUs rarely Tying investment projects … Tying technical cooperation low Tying programme aid (excl food) … Tying food aid low Tying support to NGOs low Tying emergency assistance low
Greek Aid at a Glance (2004) Net ODA/EU ODA 1.1% ODA/GNI 0.23% ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral ODA 4.7% Multilateral ODA/ODA 35% Technical Coop./ Bilateral ODA 64.5% Support to NGOs/ Bilateral ODA … * Untied ODA/ Bilateral ODA (exc. TC) (2004) 23% Untied ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral LDC ODA (2003) 90% Sector distribution 80% social sectors Regional distribution 74% Europe Top 5 recipients (2003-2004) Albania, Serbia & Montenegro, Afghanistan,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iraq
(*) A share of 4.1% of bilateral ODA is through NGOs for 2004.
EU
DO
NO
R P
RO
FILES
65
EU Donor Atlas 2006
Hungary Overall objective poverty reduction Development. policy statement 2003 Legislation no Minister in Cabinet no Annual report yes A. Institutional Framework Policy Ministry with Separate Implementation Agency Total staff 17 HQ 17 Field expatriate staff Field local staff B. Degree of decentralisation Programming HQ Project appraisal and approval field and HQ (approval) Tenders HQ Commitments and payments HQ Monitoring and evaluation HQ C. Programming Use of formal methodology yes Programming documents used no Common EU format no Role of recipient government limited Coordination with EU MS weak D. Monitoring and Evaluation Evaluation unit reports to: … Full time evaluation staff … Common monitoring system …
E. Programming priorities Regions South East Europe, South East Asia, Central Asia Countries: Serbia and Montenegro, Bosnia
and Herzegovina, FYR Macedonia, Moldova, Ukraine, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kyrgyz rep, Mongolia, Palestinian Adm. , Ethiopia.
F. Preferred approaches Commitment to budget support low Support to sector approach yes Financing modality for sector app. co-financing Role of civil society/NGOs: strong G. Aid Procedures and Tying Own aid procedures are a strength no Use of stand-alone PMUs never Tying investment projects very low Tying technical cooperation low Tying programme aid (excl food) low Tying food aid very low Tying support to NGOs low Tying emergency assistance very high
Hungarian Aid at a Glance (2004) Net ODA/EU ODA 0.1% ODA/GNI 0.06% ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral ODA 10% Multilateral ODA/ODA 63% Technical Coop./ Bilateral ODA n.a. Support to NGOs/ Bilateral ODA n.a. Untied ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral LDC ODA (2003) n.a. Sector distribution 75% debt relief Regional distribution 38% Europe, 33% Asia Top 5 recipients (2003-2004) Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia
and Montenegro, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam
EU
DO
NO
R P
RO
FILES
66
EU Donor Atlas 2006
Ireland Overall objective poverty reduction sustainable development Development policy statement 2002 * Legislation no Minister in Cabinet no Annual report yes http://www.irishaid.gov.ie/article.asp?article=559 A. Institutional Framework Development Cooperation Directorate within the MFA Total staff 409 HQ 125 Field expatriate staff 34 Field local staff 250 B. Degree of decentralisation Programming HQ Project appraisal and approval HQ (approval) Tenders HQ/field Commitments and payments … Monitoring and evaluation HQ/field C. Programming Use of formal methodology yes Programming documents used country strategies Common EU format no Role of recipient government central Coordination with EU MS strong D. Monitoring and Evaluation Evaluation unit reports to: principal administrator/DG
E. Programming priorities Regions Sub-Saharan Africa Countries: Ethiopia, Lesotho, Mozambique,
Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia; Timor Leste, Vietnam
F. Preferred approaches Commitment to budget support high Support to sector approach yes Financing modality for sector app. pool funding with government
procedures Role of civil society/NGOs: strong G. Aid Procedures and Tying Own aid procedures are a strength yes Use of stand-alone PMUs never Tying investment projects very low Tying technical cooperation very low Tying programme aid (excl food) very low Tying food aid very low Tying support to NGOs very low Tying emergency assistance very low
Full time evaluation staff 3 Common monitoring system no
Irish Aid at a Glance (2004) Net ODA/EU ODA 1.4% ODA/GNI 0.39% ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral ODA 66% Multilateral ODA/ODA 33% Technical Coop./ Bilateral ODA 2.9% Support to NGOs/ Bilateral ODA 33.8% Untied ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral LDC ODA (2003) 100% Sector distribution 60% social sectors Regional distribution 86% Africa Top 5 recipients (2003-2004) Uganda, Mozambique, Ethiopia,
Tanzania, Zambia
(*) White Paper forthcoming in summer 2006
EU
DO
NO
R P
RO
FILES
67
EU Donor Atlas 2006
Italy
Overall objective sustainable development poverty reduction Development policy statement 1999 Legislation 1987 Minister in Cabinet no Annual report yes http://www.esteri.it/ita/4_28_66_79.asp A. Institutional Framework Development Cooperation Directorate within the MFA Total staff 448 HQ 427 Field expatriate staff 21 Field local staff B. Degree of decentralisation Programming HQ Project appraisal and approval HQ (approval) Tenders HQ/field Commitments and payments HQ Monitoring and evaluation HQ/field C. Programming Use of formal methodology no Programming documents used country strategies Common EU format yes Role of recipient government central Coordination with EU MS … (increasing) D. Monitoring and Evaluation Evaluation unit reports to: principal administrator/DG Full time evaluation staff 5 Common monitoring system yes
E. Programming priorities Regions Africa, Middle East, South-East Europe. Countries: Burundi, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Mozambique, Ruanda,
Uganda, Somalia, Sudan, Egypt, Tunisia, Iraq, Palestinian Authority, Albania, Serbia and Montenegro.
F. Preferred approaches Commitment to budget support low Support to sector approach yes Financing modality for sector app. pool funding with gov’t
procedures Role of civil society/NGOs: …(increasing) G. Aid Procedures and Tying Aid procedures are a strength no Use of stand-alone PMUs frequently Tying investment projects … Tying technical cooperation high Tying programme aid (excl food) low Tying food aid very low Tying support to NGOs high Tying emergency assistance low
Italian Aid at a Glance (2004) Net ODA/EU ODA 5.7% ODA/GNI 0.15% ODA to LDCs/Bilateral ODA 41% Multilateral ODA/ODA 71% Technical Coop./ Bilateral ODA 19.9% Support to NGOs/ Bilateral ODA 6.4% Untied ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral LDC ODA (2003) n.a. Sector distribution 24% multisector, 22% social
sectors, 12% debt relief Regional distribution 70% Africa Top 5 recipients (2003-2004) DR Congo, China, Tunisia,
Afghanistan, Guinea-BIssau
EU
DO
NO
R P
RO
FILES
68
EU Donor Atlas 2006
Latvia Overall objective smooth integration
into world economy Development policy statement 2005 Legislation no Minister in Cabinet no Annual report no
A. Institutional Framework Development Cooperation Directorate within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Total staff 5 HQ 5 Field expatriate staff Field local staff B. Degree of decentralisation Programming HQ Project appraisal and approval HQ Tenders HQ Commitments and payments HQ Monitoring and evaluation HQ C. Programming Use of formal methodology no Programming documents used … Common EU format no Role of recipient government limited Coordination with EU MS weak
D. Monitoring and Evaluation Evaluation unit reports to: Management Committee/Board Full time evaluation staff 0 Common monitoring system no E. Programming priorities Regions South and Eastern Europe Countries: … F. Preferred approaches Commitment to budget support low Support to sector approach yes Financing modality for sector app. cofinancing Role of civil society/NGOs: strong G. Aid Procedures and Tying Aid procedures are a strength no Use of stand-alone PMUs frequently Tying investment projects … Tying technical cooperation very high Tying programme aid (excl food) … Tying food aid … Tying support to NGOs … Tying emergency assistance …
Latvian Aid at a Glance (2004) Net ODA/EU ODA 0.02% ODA/GNI 0.06% ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral ODA n.a. Multilateral ODA/ODA n.a. Technical Coop./ Bilateral ODA n.a. Support to NGOs/ Bilateral ODA n.a. Untied ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral LDC ODA (2003) n.a. Sector distribution n.a. Regional distribution n.a. Top 5 recipients (2003-2004)
EU
DO
NO
R P
RO
FILES
69
EU Donor Atlas 2006
Lithuania
Overall objective democracy, rule of law , human rights and fundamental freedoms
Development. policy statement no Legislation … (yes) Minister in Cabinet Annual report no A. Institutional Framework Policy ministry with separate implementation agency Total staff 3 HQ 3 Field expatriate staff Field local staff B. Degree of decentralisation Programming HQ Project appraisal and approval HQ Tenders HQ Commitments and payments HQ Monitoring and evaluation HQ C. Programming Use of formal methodology no Programming documents used no Common EU format no Role of recipient government weak Coordination with EU MS weak D. Monitoring and Evaluation Evaluation unit reports to: Full time evaluation staff Common monitoring system no
E. Programming priorities Regions South-East Europe, Central Asia Countries: Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova,
Georgia, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Iraq.
F. Preferred approaches Commitment to budget support low Support to sector approach yes Financing modality for sector app. Parallel financing (own
procedures) Role of civil society/NGOs: limited G. Aid Procedures and Tying Own aid procedures are a strength no Use of stand-alone PMUs never Tying investment projects very high Tying technical cooperation very high Tying programme aid (excl food) Tying food aid Tying support to NGOs very high Tying emergency assistance very low
Lithuanian Aid at a Glance (2004) Net ODA/EU ODA 0.02% ODA/GNI 0.04% ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral ODA 14% Multilateral ODA/ODA 91% Technical Coop./ Bilateral ODA n.a. Support to NGOs/ Bilateral ODA n.a. Untied ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral LDC ODA (2003) n.a. Sector distribution 87% emergency Regional distribution 49% Asia, 44% Europe Top 5 recipients (2003-2004) Serbia and Montenegro, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Georgia, Afghanistan, Iran
EU
DO
NO
R P
RO
FILES
70
EU Donor Atlas 2006
Luxembourg Overall objective sustainable development poverty reduction democracy Development policy statement 2006 Legislation 1996 Minister in Cabinet yes Annual report yes http://www.mae.lu/mae.taf?Idnav=7&IdLang=FR A. Institutional Framework Development Cooperation Directorate within the MFA Total staff 103 HQ 84 Field expatriate staff 16 Field local staff 3 B. Degree of decentralisation Programming HQ Project appraisal and approval HQ Tenders Field/HQ Commitments and payments Field/HQ Monitoring and evaluation Field/HQ C. Programming Use of formal methodology yes Programming documents used multiannual programme Common EU format no Role of recipient government central Coordination with EU MS … D. Monitoring and Evaluation Evaluation unit reports to: development minister Full time evaluation staff 1 Common monitoring system no
E. Programming priorities Regions Sub-Saharan Africa, South and
East Asia, Latin America Countries: Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Mali,
Namibia, Niger, Senegal, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Laos, Vietnam.
F. Preferred approaches Commitment to budget support low (very low) Support to sector approach yes Financing modality for sector app. … Role of civil society/NGOs: strong G. Aid Procedures and Tying Aid procedures are a strength yes Use of stand-alone PMUs frequently Tying investment projects very low Tying technical cooperation very low Tying programme aid (excl food) very low Tying food aid very low Tying support to NGOs very low Tying emergency assistance very low
Luxembourg Aid at a Glance (2004) Net ODA/EU ODA 0.5% ODA/GNI 0.83% ODA to LDCs/Bilateral ODA 41% Multilateral ODA/ODA 27% Technical Coop./Bilateral ODA 2.5% Support to NGOs/Bilateral ODA 16.9% Untied ODA to LDCs/Bilateral LDC ODA (2003) n.a. Sector distribution 46% social sectors, 14%
support to NGOs Regional distribution 55% Africa, 23% Asia
Top 5 recipients (2003-2004) Cape Verde, Viet Nam,
Laos, Burkina Faso, Senegal
EU
DO
NO
R P
RO
FILES
71
EU Donor Atlas 2006
Malta Overall objective poverty reduction Development policy statement no Legislation no Minister in Cabinet no Annual report no A. Institutional Framework Development Cooperation Directorate within MFA Total staff 4 HQ 4 Field expatriate staff Field local staff B. Degree of decentralisation Programming HQ Project appraisal and approval HQ Tenders HQ Commitments and payments HQ Monitoring and evaluation HQ C. Programming Use of formal methodology yes Programming documents used no Common EU format no Role of recipient government limited Coordination with EU MS weak D. Monitoring and Evaluation Evaluation unit reports to: Principal Administrator/DG Full time evaluation staff 0
E. Programming priorities Regions Sub-Saharan Africa Countries: … F. Preferred approaches Commitment to budget support low Support to sector approach yes Financing modality for sector app. … Role of civil society/NGOs: strong G. Aid Procedures and Tying Aid procedures are a strength Use of stand-alone PMUs rarely (never) Tying investment projects very low Tying technical cooperation very low Tying programme aid (excl food) very low Tying food aid … Tying support to NGOs low Tying emergency assistance …
Common monitoring system no
Maltese Aid at a Glance (2004) * Net ODA/EU ODA 0.02% ODA/GNI 0.18% ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral ODA n.a. Multilateral ODA/ODA 31% Technical Coop./ Bilateral ODA 1.5% Support to NGOs/ Bilateral ODA 0.02% Untied ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral LDC ODA (2003) 3.3% Sector distribution n.a. Regional distribution n.a. Top 5 recipients (2003-2004) n.a.
(*) Data provided by Slovenia in response to the Atlas Questionaire
EU
DO
NO
R P
RO
FILES
72
EU Donor Atlas 2006
Netherlands Overall objective poverty reduction Development policy statement 2003 Legislation no Minister in Cabinet yes Annual report yes http://www.minbuza.nl/default.asp A. Institutional Framework Development Cooperation Directorate within the MFA Total staff 1365 HQ 645 Field expatriate staff 395 Field local staff 325 B. Degree of decentralisation Programming HQ/field Project appraisal and approval HQ/field Tenders HQ/field Commitments and payments HQ/field Monitoring and evaluation* HQ/field C. Programming Use of formal methodology yes Programming documents used yes ** Common EU format no Role of recipient government central*** Coordination with EU MS strong D. Monitoring and Evaluation Evaluation unit reports to: dev minister**** Full time evaluation staff 37 Common monitoring system yes
E. Programming priorities Regions Sub-Saharan Africa (Great Lakes and
Horn of Africa), South and East Europe (Western Balkans)
Countries 36 (Afghanistan, Albania, Armenia, Bangladesh, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Colombia, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Ghana, Guatemala, Indonesia, Kenya, Macedonia, Mali, Moldova, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Palestinian Administered Areas, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Surinam, Tanzania, Uganda, Vietnam, Yemen, and Zambia)
F. Preferred approaches Commitment to budget support high Support to sector approach yes Financing modality for sector app. pool funding with
government procedures Role of civil society/NGOs: strong/co-financing G. Aid Procedures and Tying Own aid procedures are a strength yes Use of stand-alone PMUs rarely Tying investment projects low Tying technical cooperation very low Tying programme aid (excl food) very low Tying food aid very low Tying support to NGOs very low Tying emergency assistance very low
Dutch Aid at a Glance (2004) Net ODA/EU ODA 9.7% ODA/GNI 0.73% ODA to LDCs/Bilateral ODA 36% Multilateral ODA/ODA 36% Technical Coop./Bilateral ODA 2.5% Support to NGOs/Bilateral ODA 24.9% Untied ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral LDC ODA (2003) 95% Sector distribution 42% social sectors, 16% emergency Regional distribution 64% Africa, 16% Central/South
America Top 5 recipients (2003-2004) DR Congo, Ghana, Iraq, Tanzania,
India*****
(*) Evaluation is implemented by all budget holders and, on overall policy and programme level, by an independent agency within the MFA. (**) Internal documents used: Assessments, Annual Budget and Policy Plans, More Year Strategic Plans. (***) Through PRSP and Country Policy Papers. (****)Minister presents evaluation reports to Parliament. (*****)The Netherlands notes that DR Congo and Iraq are included because of the large effect of debt relief. India, because of commitments in previous years.
EU
DO
NO
R P
RO
FILES
73
EU Donor Atlas 2006
Poland Overall objective democracy, rule of law, human
rights and fundamental freedoms
Development. policy statement 2003 Legislation no * Minister in Cabinet Annual report yes http://www.msz.gov.pl/files/docs/pomoc_pwr_en.pdf
A. Institutional Framework Development Cooperation Directorate within Ministry of Foreign Affairs Total staff 14 HQ 14 Field expatriate staff Field local staff B. Degree of decentralisation Programming HQ Project appraisal and approval HQ/field Tenders HQ Commitments and payments HQ Monitoring and evaluation HQ/field C. Programming Use of formal methodology no Programming documents used general framework plan Common EU format no Role of recipient government limited Coordination with EU MS weak D. Monitoring and Evaluation Evaluation unit reports to: minister with broader mandate Full time evaluation staff 3 Common monitoring system no
E. Programming priorities Regions South East Europe Countries: Moldova, Ukraine, Afghanistan,
georgia, Iraq, Palestine Admin., Angola, Vietnam.
F. Preferred approaches Commitment to budget support low Support to sector approach yes Financing modality for sector app. cofinancing Role of civil society/NGOs: strong G. Aid Procedures and Tying Own Aid procedures are a strength no Use of stand-alone PMUs never Tying investment projects very high Tying technical cooperation very low Tying programme aid (excl food) very low Tying food aid very low Tying support to NGOs very low Tying emergency assistance very low
Polish Aid at a Glance (2004) Net ODA/EU ODA 0.3% ODA/GNI 0.05% ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral ODA 39% Multilateral ODA/ODA 79% Technical Coop./ Bilateral ODA n.a. Support to NGOs/ Bilateral ODA 16% Untied ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral LDC ODA (2003) n.a. Sector distribution 39% social sectors, 21% debt relief, 21%
infrastructure Regional distribution 40% Africa, 36% Europe Top 5 recipients (2003-2004) Ethiopia, Serbia and Montenegro, China,
Kazakhstan, Vietnam
(*) Development Cooperation Act under preparation.
EU
DO
NO
R P
RO
FILES
74
EU Donor Atlas 2006
Portugal Overall objective poverty reduction Development policy statement 2005 Legislation 2003 Minister in Cabinet no Annual report yes http://www.ipad.mne.gov.pt/images/stories/Publicacoes/memo_coop_2003_ing.pdf A. Institutional Framework Multiple Ministries with Separate Implementation Agencies Total staff 171 HQ 160 Field expatriate staff 11 Field local staff … B. Degree of decentralisation Programming HQ Project appraisal and approval HQ Tenders HQ Commitments and payments HQ Monitoring and evaluation HQ C. Programming Formal methodology no Programming documents used indicative programmes/ plans Common EU format yes Role of recipient government central Coordination with EU MS weak D. Monitoring and Evaluation Evaluation unit reports to: managt. committee/board Full time evaluation staff 4 Common monitoring system yes
E. Programming priorities Regions Sub-Saharan Africa,
South Asia and East Asia Countries Angola, Cape Verde, Guinea
Bissau, Mozambique, Sao Tome and Principe and Timor Leste
F. Preferred approaches Commitment to budget support high Support to sector approach no Financing modality for sector app. pool funding with
government procedures Role of civil society/NGOs: limited G. Aid Procedures and Tying Own aid procedures are a strength no Use of stand-alone PMUs frequently Tying investment projects very low Tying technical cooperation very low Tying programme aid (excl food) very low Tying food aid … Tying support to NGOs very low Tying emergency assistance very low
Portuguese Aid at a Glance (2004) Net ODA/EU ODA 2.4% ODA/GNI 0.63% ODA to LDCs/Bilateral ODA 94% Multilateral ODA/ODA 15% Technical Coop./Bilateral ODA 13.1% Support to NGOs/Bilateral ODA 0.4% Untied ODA to LDCs/Bilateral LDC ODA (2003) 97% Sector distribution 80% debt relief Regional distribution 94% Africa Top 5 recipients (2003-2004) Angola, Cape Verde, Timor-
Leste, Mozambique, São Tome and Principe.
EU
DO
NO
R P
RO
FILES
75
EU Donor Atlas 2006
Slovak Republic Overall objective poverty reduction sustainable development*
democracy and rule of law Development. policy statement 2003 Legislation no Minister in Cabinet no Annual report yes A. Institutional Framework Policy ministry with separate implementation agency Total staff 7 ** HQ 7 Field expatriate staff Field local staff … B. Degree of decentralisation Programming HQ Project appraisal and approval HQ/field Tenders HQ Commitments and payments HQ Monitoring and evaluation HQ/field C. Programming Use of formal methodology yes Programming documents used … Common EU format yes Role of recipient government limited Coordination with EU MS weak D. Monitoring and Evaluation Evaluation unit reports to: … *** Full time evaluation staff 3-5 Common monitoring system yes
E. Programming priorities Regions South East Europe, Central Asia, East
Africa Countries: .Albania, Bosnia Herzegovina, Serbia and
Montenegro, FYR Macedonia, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kirghiz, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Sudan, Kenya, Mozambique
F. Preferred approaches Commitment to budget support low Support to sector approach yes Financing modality for sector app. co-financing Role of civil society/NGOs: strong G. Aid Procedures and Tying Own aid procedures are a strength yes Use of stand-alone PMUs frequently (always) Tying investment projects very low Tying technical cooperation very low Tying programme aid (excl food) very low Tying food aid very low Tying support to NGOs very low Tying emergency assistance very low
Slovak Aid at a Glance (2004) Net ODA/EU ODA 0.1% ODA/GNI 0.07% ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral ODA 12% Multilateral ODA/ODA 62% Technical Coop./ Bilateral ODA n.a. Support to NGOs/ Bilateral ODA n.a. Untied ODA/ Bilateral ODA (exc. TC) (2004) n.a. Untied ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral LDC ODA (2003) n.a. Sector distribution n.a. Regional distribution n.a. Top 5 recipients (2004) Serbia and Montenegro, India, Georgia,
Moldova and Afghanistan
(*)Landscaping, agriculture, food safety and use of raw materials (**) MFA only (***) Steering Committees for Trust Fund and Bratislava-Beograd Fund
EU
DO
NO
R P
RO
FILES
76
EU Donor Atlas 2006
Slovenia Overall objective Economic and Human
Development; Governance Development policy statement Legislation no * Minister in Cabinet no Annual report yes ** A. Institutional Framework Policy ministry with separate implementation agency Total staff 5 HQ 5 Field expatriate staff Field local staff B. Degree of decentralisation Programming HQ Project appraisal and approval HQ Tenders HQ Commitments and payments HQ Monitoring and evaluation HQ C. Programming Use of formal methodology yes Programming documents used … Common EU format no Role of recipient government limited Coordination with EU MS weak D. Monitoring and Evaluation Evaluation unit reports to: minister with broader mandate *** Full time evaluation staff no Common monitoring system yes
E. Programming priorities Regions South East Europe Countries: Boznia Herzegovina, Serbia and
Monet Negro, FYR Macedonia, Kosovo, Albania
F. Preferred approaches Commitment to budget support no Support to sector approach yes Financing modality for sector app. co-financing Role of civil society/NGOs: weak G. Aid Procedures and Tying Aid procedures are a strength yes Use of stand-alone PMUs frequently Tying investment projects high Tying technical cooperation high Tying programme aid (excl food) low Tying food aid very low Tying support to NGOs low Tying emergency assistance very low
Slovenian Aid at a Glance (2004) **** Net ODA/EU ODA 0.10% ODA/GNI 0.10% ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral ODA 36% Multilateral ODA/ODA n.a. Technical Coop./ Bilateral ODA n.a. Support to NGOs/ Bilateral ODA n.a. Untied ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral LDC ODA (2003) n.a. Sector distribution n.a. Regional distribution 38%, South East Europe 10%Africa Top 5 recipients (2003-2004) Boznia Herzegovina, FYR Macedonia,
Serbia and Monet Negro, Iraq, Croatia
(*) In Parliament (**) Report 2002 – 2004 (***) Interministerial Development Cooperation Commitee (****) Data provided by Slovenia in response to the Atlas Questionaire
EU
DO
NO
R P
RO
FILES
77
EU Donor Atlas 2006
(*) Fight against poverty. (**)The implementing agency (AECI) reports to the MFA Aid Directorate. (***) Other countries include in the list of “Paises con Atencion Especial” and “Paises Preferentes”
EU
DO
NO
R P
RO
FILES
Spain Overall objective poverty reduction * Development policy statement 2005 Legislation 1998 Minister in Cabinet yes Annual report yes A. Institutional Framework Development Cooperation Directorate within the MFA ** Total staff 1159 HQ 493 Field expatriate staff 200 Field local staff 466 B. Degree of decentralisation Programming HQ/field office Project appraisal and approval HQ Tenders HQ Commitments and payments HQ Monitoring and evaluation HQ/field office C. Programming Use of formal methodology yes Programming documents used country strategy, special plans Common EU format no Role of recipient government central Coordination with EU MS … D. Monitoring and Evaluation Evaluation unit reports to: implementation dpt. / agency Full time evaluation staff 3 Common monitoring system yes
E. Programming priorities Regions Latin America Countries *** Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Paraguay, Peru, Ecuador, Algeria, Morocco, Mauritania, Tunisia, Palestinian Authority, Mozambique, Angola, Cape Verde, Namibia, Senegal, Philippines, Vietnam.
F. Preferred approaches Commitment to budget support … (medium) Support to sector approach yes Financing modality for sector app. co-financing Role of civil society/NGOs: strong G. Aid Procedures and Tying Own aid procedures are a strength yes Use of stand-alone PMUs rarely Tying investment projects low Tying technical cooperation very low Tying programme aid (excl food) very low Tying food aid very low Tying support to NGOs very low Tying emergency assistance very low
Spanish Aid at a Glance (2004) Net ODA/EU ODA 5.6% ODA/GNI 0.24% ODA to LDCs/Bilateral ODA 12% Multilateral ODA/ODA 43% Technical Coop./Bilateral ODA 24.3% Support to NGOs/Bilateral ODA 0.6% Untied ODA to LDCs/Bilateral LDC ODA (2003) 47% Sector distribution 34% social sectors, 17% debt relief Regional distribution 50% Central and South America, 26%
Africa Top 5 recipients (2003-2004) Nicaragua, Bolivia, Morocco, China,
Honduras
78
EU Donor Atlas 2006
Sweden Overall objective poverty reduction Development policy statement 2003 Legislation yes Minister in Cabinet yes Annual report yes http://www.sida.se/?d=131&language=en_us A. Institutional Framework Policy ministry with separate implementation agency Total staff 937 HQ 664 Field expatriate staff 185 Field local staff 88 B. Degree of decentralisation Programming HQ/field Project appraisal and approval HQ/field Tenders HQ/field Commitments and payments HQ/field Monitoring and evaluation HQ/field C. Programming Use of formal methodology yes Programming documents used country strategy (web published) Common EU format no Role of recipient government central Coordination with EU MS strong D. Monitoring and Evaluation Evaluation unit reports to management committee/board Full time evaluation staff 7 Common monitoring system yes
E. Programming priorities Regions … Countries Angola, Burkina Faso, DR Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mali,
Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan,Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Timor Leste, India, Indonesia, Laos, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Peru, Honduras, West Bank Gaza, Iraq, Albania, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Moldavia, Serbia & Montenegro, Tajikistan, Ukraine.
F. Preferred approaches Commitment to budget support high Support to sector approach yes Financing modality for sector app. pool funding with
government procedures Role of civil society/NGOs: strong/ co-financing G. Aid Procedures and Tying Own aid procedures are a strength yes Use of stand-alone PMUs rarely Tying investment projects very low Tying technical cooperation very low Tying programme aid (excl food) very low Tying food aid very low Tying support to NGOs very low Tying emergency assistance very low
Swedish Aid at a Glance (2004) Net ODA/EU ODA 6.3% ODA/GNI 0.78% ODA to LDCs/Bilateral ODA 28% Multilateral ODA/ODA 24% Technical Coop./Bilateral ODA 5.4% Support to NGOs/Bilateral ODA 6.7% Untied ODA to LDCs/Bilateral LDC ODA (2003) 96% Sector distribution 36% social sectors, 18%
emergency Regional distribution 48% Africa, 28% Asia Top 5 recipients (2003-2004) DR Congo, Tanzania,
Mozambique, Afghanistan, Ethiopia.
EU
DO
NO
R P
RO
FILES
79
EU Donor Atlas 2006
United Kingdom Overall objective poverty reduction Development policy statement 2000 Legislation 2002 Minister in Cabinet yes Annual report yes http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/departmental-report/default.asp
A. Institutional Framework Autonomous Aid Agency Total staff 2938 HQ 1565 Field expatriate staff 453 Field local staff 920 B. Degree of decentralisation Programming HQ/ Field Project appraisal and approval field ** Tenders field Commitments and payments field Monitoring and evaluation field C. Programming Use of formal methodology no Programming documents used country assistance plans/ web Common EU format no Role of recipient government central Coordination with EU MS strong D. Monitoring and Evaluation Evaluation unit reports to principal administrator/DG Full time evaluation staff 20 Common monitoring system yes
E. Programming priorities Regions … Countries …*** F. Preferred approaches Commitment to budget support high Support to sector approach yes Financing modality for sector app. pool funding with government procedures Role of civil society/NGOs: limited G. Aid Procedures and Tying Own aid procedures are a strength yes Use of stand-alone PMUs rarely Tying investment projects very low Tying technical cooperation very low Tying programme aid (excl food) very low Tying food aid very low Tying support to NGOs very low Tying emergency assistance very low
British Aid at a Glance (2004) Net ODA/EU ODA 18.2% ODA/GNI 0.36% ODA to LDCs/Bilateral ODA * 41% Multilateral ODA/ODA 32% Technical Coop./Bilateral ODA 14.1% Support to NGOs/Bilateral ODA 13% Untied ODA to LDCs/Bilateral LDC ODA (2003) 100% Sector distribution 37% social sectors, 14% debt relief Regional distribution 58% Africa, 38% Asia Top 5 recipients (2003-2004) India, Bangladesh, Tanzania, Iraq,
Ghana.
(*) UK notes the share of ODA to LDCs on allocable ODA can also be considered as an indicator. (**) For projects up to £ 7.5 million. (***) Target of 90% of bilateral programmes to low income countries.
EU
DO
NO
R P
RO
FILES
80
EU Donor Atlas 2006
EU
DO
NO
R P
RO
FILES
European Commission Overall objective sustainable development
integration into the world economy poverty reduction democracy and rule of law
Development policy statement 2005 Legislation … Minister in Cabinet yes Annual report yes http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/reports/europeaid_ra2005_en.pdf
A. Institutional Framework Policy ministry with separate implementation agency Total staff 3539 HQ 959 Field expatriate staff 559 Field local staff 2021 B. Degree of decentralisation Programming HQ Project appraisal and approval HQ Tenders field Commitments and payments field (except primary comm.) Monitoring and evaluation field C. Programming Use of formal methodology yes Programming documents used country strategy papers/ web pub. Common EU format yes Role of recipient government central Coordination with EU MS strong D. Monitoring and Evaluation Evaluation unit reports to management committee/board Full time evaluation staff 12 Common monitoring system yes
E. Programming priorities Regions … Countries not applicable F. Preferred approaches Commitment to budget support high Support to sector approach yes Financing modality for sector app. pool funding with
government procedures Role of civil society/NGOs: strong/NGO co-financing G. Aid Procedures and Tying Own aid procedures are a strength no Use of stand-alone PMUs …(no) Tying investment projects high Tying technical cooperation very low Tying programme aid (excl food) low Tying food aid very low Tying support to NGOs high Tying emergency assistance high
EC Aid at a Glance (2004) Net ODA/EU ODA not applicable ODA/GNI not applicable ODA to LDCs/ Bilateral ODA 33% Multilateral ODA/ODA not applicable Technical Coop./Bilateral ODA 5.9% Support to NGOs/Bilateral ODA Untied ODA to LDCs/Bilateral ODA (2003) not applicable Sector distribution 44% social sectors, 12% infrastructure, 11%
programme assistance Regional distribution 53% Africa, 24% Asia Top 5 recipients (2003-2004) Serbia and Montenegro, Turkey, Afghanistan,
Palestinian Admin Areas, Morocco.
81
EU Donor Atlas 2006
VIII. Note to the Reader
EU DONOR ATLAS 2006
82
EU Donor Atlas 2006N
ote to the Reader
The authors of the EU Donor Atlas 2006 are Carlos Montes and StefanoMigliorisi. The authors were assisted by a team that included Rosanna Ania, Laura Neild, Kevin Cody, Marco Galmarini and Michael Guida.
The EU Donor Atlas was produced in collaboration with the OECD DAC. We would like to thank Brian Hammond and Yasmin Ahmad (DAC Statistics and Monitoring) for their valuable contributions. The authors would like to express their gratitude to Member States and the Commission for their generous participation in this Donor Atlas exercise.
The EU Donor Atlas is based on the data on ODA provided by the DAC International Development Statistics online: DAC online (for annual aggregates) and Creditor Reporting System online (for aid activities) as of December 2005 -covering data for the year 2004. All data is in US dollars. However, OECD-DAC does not provide ODA information for Cyprus, Estonia, Malta and Slovenia. Please note that in this Atlas, EU bilateral aid is defined to include both bilateral aid from the 25 Member States and European Community aid, managed by the European Commission.
The Atlas’ EU Donor Profiles are based on the responses generously provided by EU Member States to a standard questionnaire sent by the Development Strategies team in December 2005.
Carlos Montes and Stefano Migliorisi
Acknowledgements
www.dev-strategies.com
83
EU Donor Atlas 2006
Explanatory note: Donor Profile The Donor Profiles present the results of a questionnaire/update form sent by Development Strategies to the 25 EU Member States in December 2005. The Donor Profiles were revised by Member States in February 2006. We have compiled Donor Profiles for the 25 Member States. The Donor Profiles also present 10 aid indicators based on DAC data. See box – Aid at a Glance. Overall Objective (question 9) ODA objectives options are sustainable economic and social development environment;
smooth and gradual integration in the world economy; poverty reduction/elimination; democracy, rule of law, human rights and fundamental freedoms; Others (specify). Note that the options follow Title XVI/XX Development Cooperation Article 130U/177 (Maastricht/Nice Treaty)
Development Policy Statement (question 2) Highest level and most recent. Legislation (question 1) Legislation on Development Cooperation, Development Cooperation Act, if any. Minister in Cabinet Is the Development Minister a member of the Cabinet? Annual Report (question 6) Does the donor produce an annual report on overall ODA activities? Is it published? URL?
EU Donor Table of Aid at a Glance (2004): Sources Net ODA/EU ODA net ODA (disbursements) for each member state as
a share of ODA . DAC on-line and Commission report on Monterrey
ODA/GNI: DAC on Line ODA to LDCs/ODA bilateral ODA allocated to less developing countries
DAC on-line. Excludes amounts unspecified by region.
Multilateral ODA/ODA DAC on-line Technical Coop./ODA TC over bilateral ODA . DAC on-line Support to NGOs/ODA Support to NGOs over bilateral ODA
(commitments), DAC on-line. * Untied ODA to LDC/ODA untied ODA to less developed countries as a share
of total bilateral ODA (commitments). OECD DAC 2005 Progress Report, June 2005
Sector distribution gross bilateral ODA, main sector. DAC on line Regional distribution gross bilateral ODA, main region. DAC on line Top 5 recipients top recipients of gross bilateral ODA (2003-2004).
OECD Aid Statistics, Donor Aid Charts
(*) Note that this figure does not include ODA channeled through NGOs, which is reported in IDS Online-DAC Database.
Note to the R
eader
84
EU Donor Atlas 2006
A.Institutional Framework Institutional Model (question 3) Management system for ODA (see box below)
Total staff (question 8)
HQ (question 8) Estimate of full time staff working exclusively on the ODA programme.
Field expatriate staff (question 8) Estimate of full time staff working exclusively on the ODA programme.
Field local staff (question 8) Field staff appointed locally. Estimate of full time staff working exclusively on the ODA programme, excluding support staff (e.g. secretaries, security, drivers, etc.)
Possible Management Systems for Development Cooperation
B. Degree of decentralisation (question 7). Who has the final decision on each stage of the ODA process (on the
donor side)? How much of decision- making has been transferred to the field offices of the donor (i.e. devolution in Commission terminology). a) Headquarters b) Field
Initially we also asked for the role of recipient governments but the replies were different to compare. For this reason, we have not included this part of the responses in the Donor Profiles.
Programming country allocation, preparation of country strategy and approval of country strategy.
Project appraisal and approval identification; appraisal and approval of projects and programmes
Tenders approval of tenders; issue of tenders; and evaluation of tenders and selection of contractors
Commitments and payments sign contracts and riders, approval of commitments and approval of payments
Monitoring and evaluation monitoring and evaluation of projects and programmes
Model 4: Autonomous Aid Agency (e.g., Development Ministry or Agency responsible for policy and implementation).2002 Model 5: Multiple Ministries with Separate Implementing Agencies (e.g., Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Trade and Industry have separate implementing agencies reporting to them and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs). Source: OECD DAC, Comparison of Management Systems for Development Co-operation in OECD/DAC Members.1999.)
Model 1: Integrated Ministry of Foreign Affairs (each geographical department has a development cooperation division). Model 2: Development Cooperation Directorate within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (e.g., Trade Directorate, Foreign Policy Directorate, Development Cooperation Directorate, etc.). Model 3: Policy Ministry with Separate Implementing Agency (the Ministry of Foreign Affairs sets policies, while the agency handles the project cycle).
Explanatory note: Donor ProfileN
ote to the Reader
85
EU Donor Atlas 2006
C. Programming
Common EU format Use of the donor of the EU common format for country strategy papers. Yes/No
Formal methodology to allocate resources (question 17) Do you use any formal methodology to allocate your global aid resources to recipient countries? i.e. formal mathematical model.
Programming documents used (question 18) Which are your main programming documents and are they published on the Internet? (e.g. country strategy papers, etc).
Role of recipient government (question 19) What is the role of the recipient Government in your programming process? a) central b) limited
Coordination with EU member states (question 22) How effective is coordination of (your) programming with other EU member states? a) strong b) weak
D. Monitoring and Evaluation
Evaluation unit reports to: (question 5a) Who does your central evaluation office reports to: a) body not involved with implementation/Parliament b) minister with broader mandate than aid c)development minister d) management committee/Board e) principal administrator/director general f) policy departments g) implementation departments/agency
Full time evaluation staff (question 5b) How many staff works exclusively on evaluations?
Common monitoring system (question 5d) Do you have a common monitoring system? (i.e. IT system common to all ODA activities and regions) a) yes b) no
E. Programming priorities
Regions (question 11) Highest priority (1) for regions according to overall policy statement (not to actual practice).
Countries (question 11) Priority countries according to overall policy statement.
F. Preferred approaches
Commitment to budget support (question 26) Are your willingness and ability to provide budget support, considering risks and benefits, generally? a) High b) Low
Support to sector approach (question 26) Are you generally in favour of supporting “sector approaches”? a) Yes b) No
Financing modality for sector approach (question 27) What is your preferred financing modality for the sector approach? a) pool funding with government procedures; b) pool funding with donor procedures; c) co-financing or parallel financing (own procedures)
Role of civil society/NGOs: (question 15) What role do civil society/NGOs play in the design or implementation of your ODA? a) Strong b) Limited
Explanatory note: Donor ProfileN
ote to the Reader
86
EU Donor Atlas 2006
G. Aid procedures and tying
Aid procedures are a strength (question 24) Do you consider that your aid implementation procedures are one of your relative strengths? A) Yes b) No
Use of stand-alone PMUs (question 25) Do you use stand- alone project/programme management units in your interventions? a) frequently b) rarely. Note: PMUs are often used by individual donors to implement their own projects when normal government systems are considered not sufficiently reliable. Budget support and sector approaches attempt to avoid PMUs.
Tying investment projects (question 23) Choices are: a) very low (less than 25%), b) low (between 25% and 50%), c) high (between 51% and 75%) and d) very high (more than 75%). Please note that 0 untying was not offered as an option in this questionnaire. Also note that the responses here are derived from the donor responses to the EU Atlas questionnaire. However, the Aid at Glance box also provides DAC statistics.
Tying technical cooperation as above
Tying programme aid (excl food) as above
Tying food aid as above
Tying support to NGOs as above
Tying emergency assistance as above
Explanatory Note: Donor ProfileN
ote to the Reader
87
EU Donor Atlas 2006
ALAT Administrative and Technical Local AgentCRS Creditor Reporting SystemDAC Development Assistance Committee. DAC Members are Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada,
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States, and the Commission of the European Communities.
DG Director GeneralEC European CommunityEU Aid Bilateral ODA from EU Member States and EC ODAGNI Gross National IncomeHDI Human Development IndicatorsHIC High Income Countries (2001 per capita GNI higher than US$9,206)HQ HeadquartersIDA International Development Association (World Bank Group)LDC Least Developed Countries (list prepared by the Economic and Social Council of the UN based on low
income, human resource weakness and economic vulnerability. LMIC Low Middle Income Countries (2001 per capita GNI between US$746 and US$2,975)MFA Ministry of Foreign AffairsMS Member StatesNGO Non Governmental OrganisationOA Official AidODA Official Development AssistanceOECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentOLIC Other Low Income Countries (2001 per capita GNI lower than US$745 but not an LDC)PMU Project Management UnitUMIC Upper Middle Income Countries (2001 per capita GNI between US$2,976 and US$9,205)US$m Millions of United States Dollars
AbbreviationsN
ote to the Reader