DAC

Interview: Brian Atwood reflects on 50 years of the OECD

May 25th, 2011 12:58 PM UTC
By Friederike Röder

Brian Atwood, chair of the DAC-OECD and former head of USAID, looks back at five decades of international development in honor of the OECD’s 50th anniversary in this exclusive interview with ONE.

What is the one thing with which the DAC has changed the face of development over the last 50 years?

The DAC has been a part of the evolution of development thinking over those fifty years and there have been many paradigm shifts during that period. One was the report “Shaping the 21st Century” written by the DAC in the 1990s. With that, the DAC moved from just exclusively looking at volume issues –- the 0.7 percent and other volume targets -– to goals. The development goals were then adopted by the G8 and eventually by the UN.

With the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Action Agenda, we have engraved in stone principles such as local ownership, being more predictable and transparent and trying to harmonize our activities. All of these principles define “development cooperation.” The DAC is no longer responsible for a one-dimensional relationship called aid, which in my mind smacks of charity and gives the impression that developing countries are the ailing partner and need help. We’re in this together.

The Millennium Development Goals are meant to be reached by 2015, but the G8 Gleneagles commitments ran out in 2010. What is going to happen between now and 2015?

A few weeks ago, we announced the largest ODA level of all time, $130 billion. Partially, this was the result of the Gleneagles commitment, but it was also the result of many countries establishing policies that put them on a path to achieve the 0.7 percent UN goal.

Today the projections are that aid from DAC countries are going to flatten out because of budget crises. That does not include the contributions made by the emerging economies and private donors. Some private donors are providing very large amounts — the Gates foundation, about $2.8 billion.

But the issue is not just the quantity, it is also the quality of the partnership. Increasingly, you see the developing countries taking on more responsibility for their own development and raising more tax revenues. So it is policies, institutions and human development that all add up to progress, it is not just volume that is necessary.

The DAC has developed a set of “pledging guidelines” –- can you tell us about them and how they might influence donors’ development commitments?

We have adopted them in March. They force the donors to abide by procedures for making pledges that are more predictable, more measurable, more comparable, more realistic and accountable and transparent. It is ironic, but we just had a controversy over the G8 who decided to ignore the OECD guidelines and not to include constant dollars in their estimate. I think that was a mistake on their part.

Some people criticize the OECD for being an elite members’ club. What do you respond?

It is fashionable to call us elite. Given what we have been doing in recent years in reaching out to the developing world –- creating the Working Party on Aid Effectiveness that is half made up of countries from the developing world — it is not a fair perception.

More than any other organization we want the views of developing countries. The last three meetings we held, including the senior level meeting, China, Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa and Russia participated. We issued a statement that welcomed a dialogue with the new providers of assistance and basically said that a country could be a provider and a recipient of assistance at the same time. In DAC terms at least this was an historic statement that shows the direction we are heading.

These emerging economies like China, Brazil and India are becoming increasingly important development partners for Africa. If you had two minutes to convince the BRICS to start adhering to OECD principles, what would you say?

I wouldn’t try to convince them to join the OECD. They should decide that on their own. We have a common ground and a convergence of interests that should make it important to share more information, to understand each other better, and to understand how they see their obligation to the MDGs as we see ours. At least until we have a meeting of minds, it is not time to twist arms to convince people to join the DAC.

What are your objectives for the High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan? How many more High Level Forums do you think we will need until aid is truly effective?

Busan is going to be much more important than its title suggests: the 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness. It has the potential to attract more than 150 countries. What we hope for is broader and deeper partnership and to contribute to rationalizing the international system.
If we are able to reach agreement with the BRICS, the private sector, the developing countries we’ll have something special, bigger than Paris or Accra.

Aid transparency is critical for developing countries’ ability to plan. What can the DAC do to make data more accessible to developing countries?
It’s a political will question. There has been some progress made, but there is no question that there are still problems like double counting. When a developing country sets up a coordination unit they have a hard time figuring out what everyone is doing in their country. We need to get at that problem and fix it. Civil society groups are having a good influence here.

How would you wish that the DAC looks like in 50 years?

My hope would be that there would be no need for a DAC in 50 years time.

German development assistance receives a check-up

Nov 8th, 2010 12:50 PM UTC
By Andreas Huebers

Approximately every five years the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) puts its member states’ development assistance practices to the test. And this year it was Germany’s turn to receive the DAC Peer Review. Starting in early spring experts from Australia, UK and the OECD have studied German development policies, talked to decision makers, and interviewed aid recipients in Zambia and Morocco. Then they sat down with the development ministry to compile a final report including concrete suggestions on how to improve German development assistance.

First up the good news: Eckhard Deutscher, head of the OECD-DAC, confirmed that Germany had indeed started a critical reform process: The number of partner countries had been reduced from 84 to 57 to allow for better division of labor and focus. And the plan to merge the implementing agencies InWEnt, GTZ and DED in a new entity was a “step in the right direction”.

However, the report also notes that of Germany’s bilateral aid only 40% went to the 57 partner countries. The peer review is therefore critical of the continued strong support of large emerging countries such as China or India. Africa in particular had barely benefited from increases in bilateral funds – out of the 50% that were promised only a fraction had actually reached the continent. ONE had come to the same conclusion in the 2010 DATA Report.

And the OECD is worried that Germany might not reach the target of aid as 0.7% of Gross National Income by 2015. So they’re suggesting Germany commit to a timetable to still reach the goal. The UK could serve as a model here. Only this year the new British government announced how – despite the current financial situation – they intend to reach the 0.7% goal by 2013.

The government in Berlin has itself maintained that increased aid effectiveness was among the issues they wanted to focus on during their term of office. In 2011 donors will be meeting in South Korea to discuss whether development assistance had in fact improved enough since the Paris Declaration was signed in 2005. Until then the German government should prove that increased effectiveness is indeed dear to its heart. With the new DAC Peer Review they have now been provided with a blue print.

Development assistance figures a mixed bag for Africa

Apr 19th, 2010 4:30 PM UTC
By Jessica Gomez-Duran

Over the last few days ONE has been busy analysing new findings of 2009 development aid levels, which were released last week by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

The figures present a mixed bag for development in Africa. Here’s a little summary of where we’re at:

The US, UK, France and Scandinavian and Benelux countries were top performers in a steady, if not spectacular, rise in development assistance. Italy continued its dismal record, while Canada cut assistance both globally and to sub-Saharan Africa in 2009.

ONE’s Europe Direcor, Oliver Buston, summed things up:

“Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi should be thrown out of the G8. There are plenty of other leaders who could make a strong case for being at the table.  There’s no point in having someone at these summits who shows up, shakes hands, eats the banquet, signs the communiqué and then makes absolutely no effort to deliver on his commitments.  Step aside and give someone serious a turn”

and:

“Canada also enters its year as host of the G8 and G20 with its ability to lead seriously undermined by its weak performance.”

I’m not great with numbers but here are some figures provided by our policy team:

Overall, official development assistance (ODA) from members of the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee continued to rise in 2009. Once bilateral debt relief is excluded, the net increase was 6.7 percent, from $109 billion to $116.8 billion. Assistance to sub-Saharan Africa, excluding debt relief, increased from $36.1 billion to $38.2 billion, a 5.8 percent increase.

• ONE found that the US increased assistance to Africa by $1.12 billion (13.9%), constituting a large portion of its global ODA increase in 2009, $1.5 billion (5.6%).
• The UK increased global ODA to $1.9 billion (19.7%), with an increase of $375 million for Africa.
• France increased global ODA by 20.5% and assistance to Africa by 30.8%.
• Canada, the upcoming host of the G8 and G20, cut assistance both globally and to sub-Saharan Africa in 2009. Its global ODA (excluding bilateral debt cancellation) fell $336 million and aid for sub-Saharan Africa fell $294 million or 16% in 2009. Interestingly 88% of the net global cut came from Africa.
• Italy’s global ODA dropped $812 million (20.7%) and assistance for Africa dropped $331 million (22.3%).

[All analysis is in 2009 prices]

New figures show Africa is worst hit by failed aid promises

Feb 17th, 2010 4:02 PM UTC
By Helen Palmer

According to new projections from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Africa will be badly hit by unfulfilled aid promises this year.

The OECD reports that the continent is likely to get only about US$12bn of the US$25bn annual aid increase envisaged at the Gleneagles Summit in 2005. The main culprits singled out as responsible for the deficit are France, Germany and Italy, whilst the UK, Scandinavian and Benelux countries are the top performers.

African countries have been buffeted by the global economic crisis and need smart, well-targeted aid more than ever. But the performance of Italy, France, and more recently Germany is undermining hard work by others. Yet the fact that some donor countries are honouring their commitments shows it can and must be done.

Over the past decade in Africa, effective aid and debt relief have helped put 42 million children into school and more than three million people onto AIDS treatment. Failure to scale up these programmes can be measured in lost opportunities for children and lost lives from diseases that are preventable and treatable.

The UK is among the group of good performers in the 2010 projections. It has surpassed the promise by EU countries to spend 0.51% of Gross National Income on development assistance by this year, and is keeping its commitment to Africa. The USA has greatly exceeded its more modest promise, whilst Canada has also met its pledge.

South Korea joins the DAC

Dec 3rd, 2009 11:32 AM UTC
By Pooja Gupta

South Korea is often praised for making the successful transition from aid recipient to donor country. Last Wednesday, South Korea solidified their role as an international donor by gaining membership in the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

The DAC, which includes 23 member countries in addition to South Korea, acts as a unique global forum in which donor governments and multilateral organizations, such as the World Bank and the United Nations help countries reduce poverty and achieve the Millennium Development Goals. South Korea’s acceptance into the DAC is the first new membership since Greece’s membership in 1999.

According to Oh Joon, Deputy Minister for Multilateral and Global Affairs, South Korea’s membership in the DAC, effective January 1, 2010, will also serve an example for successful development. For almost fifty years, South Korea was heavily dependent on international aid; now, the country has not only seen drastic economic growth, but has become a significant donor as well. Joon noted that South Korea intends to keep increasing their international aid: “We offered aid worth $800 million last year, about 0.09 percent of gross national income, and this year’s amount is estimated to reach $900 million.’’ The government plans to increase its aid from 0.09 to 0.25% of GDP by 2015, he said.

The Committee Chair of the DAC, Eckhard Deutscher lauded South Korea’s impressive progress, noting: “We have had many opportunities to observe Korea’s great progress, as a nation, as an economy and as a provider of aid to the world’s poorest countries. Korea’s joining us today has paved the way for a more open and inclusive Development Assistance Committee.”

Breaking News: DAC Releases Annual Report

Mar 30th, 2009 12:34 PM UTC
By Josh Lozman

Each year in early April, the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) releases preliminary figures for what each large donor country spent on official development assistance the year before. This morning, the DAC released the figures for 2008. There is some good and bad news in there. Though we will post much more analysis later in the day, here is a quick summary of ODA for sub-Saharan Africa.

A few notes for accountants, seasoned advocates and others who follow the DAC and their processes. These are preliminary figures for 2008 ODA. They are net of debt relief, reported in 2008 US dollars, and do impute contributions through multilateral organizations to sub-Saharan Africa. SSA below means sub-Saharan Africa.

• OVERALL DAC donors: ODA to SSA was $36.661 billion, an increase of 11% over 2007
• G7: ODA to SSA was $25.165 billion, an increase of 14% over 2007
• Canada: Significant increases in bilateral ODA (47% over 2007) multilateral ODA (up by 63% over 2007) drove ODA to SSA up to $1.911 billion, up by 52% over 2007
• France: A decline in bilateral ODA to SSA drive decreases in ODA to SSA to $3.54 billion in 2008, down by 15% from 2007
• Germany: Germany’s ODA to SSA was $3.897 billion, up by 15% – $513 million – over 2007
• Italy: ODA to SSA in 2008 is $1.43 billion, down by 4% or $55 million largely due to falls in Italy’s multilateral contribution
• Japan: 2008 ODA to SSA is $2.6 billion, an increase of 56%, up by $938 million including large increases in multilateral (up 89% over 2007) and bilateral (up 31% over 2007) ODA
• United States: Large increases in bilateral ODA sent total ODA to SSA up by 26% over 2007 figures to $7.75 billion in 2008
• United Kingdom: ODA to SSA was $4.02 billion, a increase of 3% – or $100 million – over 2007 figures

More reactions to come shortly.

-Josh Lozman, Deputy Policy Director