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