Development Assistance

In 2005 at Gleneagles, donors acknowledged the importance of development assistance and committed to a significant increase in both quantity and quality by 2010. Reaching the development outcomes agreed to by the international community will require scaled-up resources that are spent as effectively and efficiently
Share online Share on Twitter Share on Facebook

This chapter focuses on progress made on those aid commitments, realising that to achieve sectoral goals in trade, food security, health, education and water and sanitation, development assistance promises must be delivered and in a timely, accountable and transparent manner.

Progress since Gleneagles

THE G7 ARE ON TRACK TO DELIVER A $13.7 BILLION INCREASE, OR 61% OF THE DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE INCREASES PROMISED. THE PERFORMANCE OF OTHER COUNTRY GROUPINGS LAGS BEHIND

The G7 are on track to deliver 61% of their combined commitments to sub-Saharan Africa by 2010, with an expected delivery of $13.7 billion of the $22.6 billion increase promised. These figures are based on a projected increase of $3.8 billion from the G7 in 2010, an estimate that ONE derives from the most current budget documents as well as from discussions with G7 governments. By the end of 2009, the G7 had delivered a total of 44% of the total committed increases, with a total $9.9 billion increase over 2004 levels.

The G7 were not the only countries to make development assistance commitments around the time of Gleneagles. 2010 is a time to reflect on the performance of other country groupings as well.

  • In total, donor countries (the 22 countries reporting development assistance data for 2009 to the OECD) pledged a total increase in development assistance to sub-Saharan Africa of $28.5 billion. ONE estimates that they will deliver $17.1 billion of that total by 2010 – representing 60% of the total commitment.
  • If the G7 are excluded, non-G7 countries in total committed to increase development assistance to sub-Saharan Africa by $5.9 billion, and are on track to deliver $3.4 billion in additional assistance by 2010 – representing 57% of their total committed increases.
  • Finally, the EU (including four G7 members) committed to increase development assistance for sub-Saharan Africa by $22.9 billion. ONE estimates that the EU will deliver an $8.6 billion increase by 2010 – representing only 38% of its total committed increases. However, it is critical to note that several members of the EU are consistent performers in terms of global ODA. Four in particular – Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden – have met their target ODA/GNI ratios of 0.7%, in addition to Norway.

THE FINAL G7 ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY AMBITION, DELIVERY AND VISION BEYOND 2010

In the past, ONE has largely evaluated performance based on whether a country was 'on track' or 'off track' to deliver its 2010 total development assistance commitment. When reflecting upon the experience of the past five years, ONE believes that a robust assessment of donors’ Gleneagles commitments should evaluate performance along three balanced indices:

  • THE COMMITMENT, which judges the ambition of the donor’s original promise in terms of volume and relative to the size of its economy;
  • THE DELIVERY, based not just on what portion of the Gleneagles commitment will be delivered but on what the actual assistance delivered was between 2004 and 2010, both in volume terms and in terms of growth as a share of GNI;
  • PLANS GOING FORWARD, which evaluates each donors’ action plans for its future partnership with Africa and whether targets

Behind the 61% headline, the story is mixed. The US, Canada and Japan have delivered and surpassed their modest targets and the UK is on track to meet its much more ambitious target (although the data are inconclusive on how close it will come to full delivery in 2010). France and Germany both set ambitious targets but are only on course to deliver a quarter of them, while Italy exists in a category of its own as the only G8 country to have retreated on its commitments, actually cutting development assistance compared with 2004 levels and bringing the rest of the G7 average down with it.

In this section