Canadian Council for International Co-operation (CCIC)Statistical Analysis of Official Development Assistance

International Development FinancingDVM3140

Philippe RegnierSchool of International Development and Globalization

Laurisse Noel, Aislynn Row and Sebastian WinsorApril 17th, 2013

The object of the research is to look at trends for the amount of funding given to Official

Development Assistance (ODA) within Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development (OECD) countries, including a specific analysis of how Canada compares to other

OECD donors. We look at ODA data, which can be defined as:

“Flows of official financing administered with the promotion of the

economic development and welfare of developing countries as the

main objective, and which are concessional in character with a grant

element of at least 25 percent (using a fixed 10 percent rate of

discount). By convention, ODA flows comprise contributions of donor

government agencies, at all levels, to developing countries (“bilateral

ODA”) and to multilateral institutions. ODA receipts comprise

disbursements by bilateral donors and multilateral institutions.”

(OECD, 2012)

We compare, year by year, in both constant and current prices. If current prices are examined,

this will show that aid has increased overall. However, when looking at constant prices, which

adjusts for inflation, we can see a real comparison in the changes over time.

The first section of the research is intended to be a historical analysis of ODA as spent by

Development Assistance Committee (DAC) countries in the OECD. The OECD has 34 member

countries, which have joined together “with the mission to promote policies that will improve the

economic and social well-being of people around the world” (OECD, 2012), however only 25 of

them are members of the DAC. In our research, we analyze the changes in ODA over time, and

more specifically since the 1960s. The second section focuses on ODA from Canada, in the form

of bilateral and multilateral aid. Bilateral aid is the official transfer of ODA from one country to

another, while multilateral aid is development aid given by governments through multilateral

institutions such as the World Bank, the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund.

Finally, the third section will examine spending by sector. In this section we will be looking at

CIDA spending and how it has changed over time and as a percentage of overall spending.

Spending by thematic focus, and by cross cutting focus is examined in detail. By comparing the

results from the aforementioned sections, the research will help to give a deeper understanding of

international development funding on a local and global scale. We have learned that donors have

made commitments regarding their spending on international development, and we will delve

into the actual trends and results of these commitments. Looking into the Canadian context is

also important, because the repercussions of local actions can be seen as a result of, and a factor

in, the bigger picture.

Overview

This topic is of interest to the Canadian Council for International Co-operation and to us

because of the recent changes in ODA worldwide. ODA has had its largest increase ever in the

decade between 2000 and 2010, reaching 0.32% globally. However, since 2010 there has been a

decrease worldwide due to the global financial crisis (OECD 2012a). Partly due to the global

recession, many governments made budget cuts that affected their spending, which took a toll on

development assistance. This means that total ODA from DAC donors decreased by 2.7%

between 2010 and 2011. This is the first time there has been an overall decrease in ODA since

1997. More specifically, bilateral aid took an even bigger dip, falling by 4.5%. Net bilateral

ODA to the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) fell the most, by 8.9% (OECD 2012b). Country

Programmable Aid (CPA), which is a subsection of ODA that excludes food aid and

administrative costs, is estimated to fall by 3% between 2011 and 2013. This decline in CPA and

ODA in general is dangerous for the achievement of the MDGs (WBG 2012).

Also, CCIC is interested in looking into how the context of Canadian government

changes has affected the development sector. The federal government has made major budget

changes in recent years, affecting many sectors such as health-care, old age security and, most

importantly to this research, foreign aid. The International Assistance Envelope, which

encompasses most of Canada’s foreign aid, was capped at $5 billion in 2010. This meant that

Canada’s ODA fell 5.3% in 2011 (OECD 2012b). All aid institutions – with the exception of

Finance Canada - are losing funds; however, CIDA is taking an even bigger hit. According to the

CCIC, the decline in CIDA’s budget is the equivalent of getting rid of all aid for basic education

programs, water and sanitation (CCIC 2012).

In 2010, the Canadian government cut previously established annual aid increases of 8%,

and plans on reducing ODA by another $1.2 billion before 2015. This means that as a percentage

of the GNI, ODA will only represent 0.24% in 2015, as compared to the current 0.34% (2011??

2012?? – Sorry I forget). More specifically, CIDA is losing $663.5 million of funding as a result

of these budget cuts, representing 84.5% of the total cuts. (CCIC 2012).

SECTION A

Statistics on Development Financing: OECD donor ODA

Sebastien Winsor

As we can see from Figure 1, there is a clear overall upward trend in current prices since

1968. Despite this, in the early 1990s, aid flows decreased significantly, going against the

upward trend that dominated aid flows for almost 25 years. During this time, from its then

current peak of 62,435.11 million USD in 1992, there is a clear downward trend for the next five

years, reaching a low of 48,650.17 million USD in 1997. This represents a loss of over 22% from

1992 to 1997. After this, for another 5 years, aid flows remained relatively consistent, although

the 2002 levels were still lower than in 1992. The high of 1992 would not be reached again until

2003, where there is a clear upward trend again, with the exception of a slight dip from 2005 to

2007. These figures are interesting in that the 2008 financial crisis appears to have had little

effect on ODA.

Focusing on these trends since 1990 as in Figure 2 allows us to examine recent changes in

more detail. To begin, funding was significantly lower in 2000 than in 1995, and continued to

decrease slightly into 2001. Following this, however, we do see a clear upward trend until 2011

with the exception of two periods. Funding for ODA remained relatively consistent for two

straight years from 2005 to 2007 and, after a large increase in 2008, remained consistent until

19681971

19741977

19801983

19861989

19921995

19982001

20042007

20100

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

OECD Total ODA 1968-2011, Current and Constant 2010 USD

ODA Current USDODA Con-stant 2010 USD

Year

Mill

ions

USD

Figure 1

2009. There were several events during this decade that influenced OECD ODA in both

directions. In 2002, the UN Secretary-General commissioned the Millennium project in order to

achieve the Millennium Development Goals, increasing OECD ODA targets to reduce poverty

and promote development. The Monterrey-Consensus on Development Financing also occurred

during 2002. Where levels remained constant from 2005-2006, an OECD report from 2006 states

that

oil and other energy prices continued to rise rapidly in 2005, for the second year in a row [but the] adverse impact on real incomes and activity in the OECD economies was offset to some extent…Hence, there remained room for monetary policy to support demand where needed (OECD, 2006, p. 18).

In 2008, Doha Declaration on Financing for Development widely reaffirmed the

agreements of the Monterrey-Consensus, which implied increases in OECD ODA. Although

funding decreased slightly during this time, the financial crisis that resulted in a global recession

in 2008 does not appear to create significant variations, at least in these figures, to overall ODA.

In fact, despite the fact the 2008 financial crisis continued to have worldwide impacts for several

years after-the-fact, ODA funding continued to increase into 2011. The US comprises

approximately 22% of the OECD budget, and variations within this country could have

significant impacts on ODA (OECD, 2012). There existed within this decade major fluctuations

in the United States’ economic affairs, and the impacts on ODA should be investigated.

The outcomes, when comparing current and constant USD, are similar to the trend

witnessed for current USD. As expected, there is convergence of these two lines up until the

19901995

20002001

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

20102011

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

Total and Real OECD ODA 1990, 1995, 2000-2011 (Current and Constant 2010 USD)

a. Current USD

b. Constant USD

c. Real ODA Current USD

d. Real ODA Constant USD

Year

Mill

ions

USD

Figure 2

point of 2010, where the constant USD figures are equal. The following year shows something

interesting, however. Despite the fact that from 2010 to 2011, there is an increase in current

dollars from 128,465.92 to 134,038.29 million USD, this increase is not large enough to account

for constant dollar conversions. This results in a decrease in constant dollars, from 128,465.92 to

125,524.83 million USD. Therefore, despite an increase of 4.3% in current dollars, the actual

change is a decrease of 2.3% in constant dollars, representing a loss of approximately 2%.

Since 2000, the trends in constant USD are very similar to the current USD trend. It is

worthwhile to note, however, that the stagnation of 2005-2007 in current USD now becomes a

significant drop, from 123,175.29 to 107,355.55 million constant 2010 USD representing a

decrease of approximately 14.7%. The 2008 financial crisis still seems to have had little to no

effect as ODA continued to increase even in Constant USD, while 2005 to 2007 saw such a

significant decrease, which may be attributed to large debt relief package.

As is evidenced by the OECD GNI Trend graph in Figure 3, Gross National Income for

OECD countries increased at a fairly consistent pace. Although we have relatively stagnant

levels on several occasions, such as in 1973, 1980-1982, and 2000-2002, the only real important

dip seems to have occurred in 2008, to which the most significant impact on OECD GNI was the

2008 financial crisis. Despite this consistent trend, OECD Total ODA as a percentage of GNI

shows no distinct pattern, with significant variations in actual funding and trends. Figure 4 shows

the instability of ODA funding as a percentage of GNI when compared to GNI growth.

19681970

19721974

19761978

19801982

19841986

19881990

19921994

19961998

20002002

20042006

200820100

5000000

10000000

15000000

20000000

25000000

30000000

35000000

40000000

45000000

OECD GNI Trend(Constant 2010 USD)

GNI

Year

Mill

ion

s U

SD

Figure 3

Nevertheless, levels of total ODA as a percentage was highest in 1968 at approximately

0.41%, when GNI was at its lowest point. Since we can see from Figure 1 that total ODA

increased significantly from 1968, it is apparent that these increases were not enough to maintain

the same percentage with regards to GNI. In other words, GNI increased at a faster rate than total

ODA. Figure 4 shows that ODA as a percentage of GNI decreased significantly from 1992 to

1997, and remained relatively consistent until 2004. The decrease in Total ODA in 1992 had

significant impacts on this trend. However, although total ODA increased significantly after

1992, far surpassing funding at that time, total ODA as a percentage of GNI has not followed the

same pattern. OECD countries have yet to reach the percentage of GNI ODA levels of 1992 at

approximately 0.335%, let alone the high of 1968 at 0.41%. In 2011, the percentage of ODA

stands at approximately 0.31%. These are clear indicators that Total ODA as a percentage of

GNI should be used to measure consistency in ODA funding. The targets set out by the UN of

0.7% of GDP are still a distant objective. The earliest data included in this project is from 1968,

and at no point has the UN target been close to being achieved.

This has valid and important implications for ODA funding. Although Total ODA

(especially in constant USD) is an important graph, Total ODA as a percentage of GNI is more

meaningful, as it will tell us if ODA is keeping up pace with GNI growth. The significant

fluctuations in this graph demonstrate the instability in ODA funding from OECD countries, and

these will be much more evident when looking as a percentage of GNI. A consistent graph for

Total ODA as a Percentage of GNI is important for ODA recipients, and shows a country’s true

capabilities and progress with regards to funding.

19681970

19721974

19761978

19801982

19841986

19881990

19921994

19961998

20002002

20042006

200820100

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

ODA % GNI

Year

Pe

rce

nta

ge O

EC

D T

ota

l GN

I OECD DAC Total ODA as a Percentage of GNI(Constant 2010 USD)

Figure 4

199019952000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020110

500000010000000

1500000020000000

2500000030000000

3500000040000000

45000000

50000000

GNI Trend OECD Countries 1990, 1995, and 2000-2011 (Current USD)

GNI

Year

Mill

ion

s U

SD

Figure 5

1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

ODA % GNI

Year

Perc

en

tage

To

tal G

NI

DAC Total ODA as a Percentage of OECD GNI (Current USD)

Figure 6

Once again, Figures 5 and 6 enable us to examine recent trends in much more detail. As

shown, GNI Trend OECD Countries shows a steady increase except during 2000-2001, where

we see a slight decrease. This may be attributed to the US recession and the dot.com bubble,

which had worldwide implications for GNI. There is a much lower decrease from 2008 to 2009,

no doubt as a result of the 2008 financial crisis. To examine this decrease in more detail allows

us to see the actual effect the financial crisis had on OECD GNI. In 2008 and 2009, OECD GNI

was 40,438,100 and 38,482,578 million USD respectively. This represents a loss of almost 5.1%.

Here, the effects of the 2008 financial crisis are clearly established, and resulted in a loss of over

5% of Total OECD GNI. This is a very significant figure. Despite this, Total ODA and Total

ODA as a Percentage of OECD GNI remained constant during this time. Another important

aspect of this graph is the significant decrease of Total ODA and Total ODA as a Percentage of

OECD GNI from 2005-2007 after a rapid increase from 2004 to 2005. From 2004 to 2005, Total

ODA as a Percentage of OECD GNI increased from 0.25% to 0.32%, an increase of 28%. After

this, the percentage decreased from 0.32% to 0.27% during 2005-2007, nearly eliminating this

large increase.

We can say with certainty, however, that Total ODA as a Percentage of OECD GNI does

not show any noticeable trend in more recent times than from 1968. Some periods show a

decrease, others are relatively consistent, while others still demonstrate an increase. The OECD

GNI Trend however does show a clear upward trend, with the exception of 2008, as previously

stated.

As for the costs associated with Figure 7, these also do not show any clear trend. As a

percentage of Total DAC ODA, student costs, debt relief, and refugees in donor countries change

considerably from 1990 to 2011, and we have a significant peak in 2005. In the late 1990’s, early

2000s, and late 2000s, most figures are below or near 10 percent, while we have a peak in 2005

of over 25 percent. This demonstrates the extreme variation in these costs from one year to the

next. It is possible the large peak in 2005 may be attributed to large debt relief packages.

1990

1995

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

20110

5

10

15

20

25

30

Student Costs, Debt, and Refugee as % of Total DAC ODA (Constant 2010 USD)

Student Costs, Debt, and Refugee as % Total DAC ODA (Current USD)

Year

% T

ota

l D

AC

OD

A

Student Costs, Debt, and Refugee (as % of Total DAC ODA)

Figure 7

19681970

19721974

19761978

19801982

19841986

19881990

19921994

19961998

20002002

20042006

20082010

0100002000030000400005000060000700008000090000

100000

Multilateral, Bilateral and Real Official Development Assistance (capital subscriptions are included with grants)

1968-2011 (Constant 2010 USD)

Bilateral ODA (Constant 2010 USD)

Real ODA (Constant 2010 USD)

Multilateral ODA (Con-stant 2010 USD)

Year

OEC

D M

ulti

late

ral O

DA

(in

mill

ions

USD

)

Figure 8

Figure 8 clearly demonstrates OECD countries favour bilateral aid over multilateral aid.

This implies countries favour ODA transfers directly from one country to another, rather than

through multilateral organizations such as the World Bank. While bilateral ODA may serve the

interest of the donor country, multilateral institutions are more likely to distribute funds where

they are needed the most. Even separating Real ODA from Bilateral ODA, Multilateral ODA is

still significantly less. The trends are interesting; due to the time period and for simplicity,

Constant 2010 USD conversions were used for all figures.

As we can see from Figure 8, support for multilateral ODA does demonstrate an upward

trend from 1968 to 2011 (where funding increased from 8,131.48 to 37,319.31 million USD,

respectively). The increases in Multilateral ODA are very significant, as funding increased by

approximately 450%, even after accounting for Constant USD conversions. For Bilateral ODA,

there is also a clear upward trend from 1968 to 2011 (where funding increased from 36,724.78 to

88,205.48 million USD), but the amounts are significantly higher than for Multilateral ODA.

Figure 8 clearly demonstrates the differences in each type of flow, as both types of flows

maintain an upward trend. However, multilateral flows increase at a relatively steady pace over

the 44 year period, Bilateral ODA experiences significant fluctuations.

199019952000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020110

100002000030000400005000060000700008000090000

100000

Bilateral and Real ODA1990, 1995, and 2000-2011

(Constant 2010 USD)

Multilateral ODA (Constant USD)

Bilateral ODA (Constant 2010 USD)

Real ODA (Con-stant 2010 USD)

Year

Fund

ing

(Mill

ions

USD

)

Figure 9

OECD funding clearly shows support for Bilateral over Multilateral ODA from 1990-

2011, as shown in Figure 9. During this time period, Multilateral ODA increases slightly and is

relatively constant, while Bilateral ODA experiences significant fluctuations and much greater

increases. When comparing Current and Constant USD conversions as in Figure 10, we have

similar conclusions, although multilateral funding increases significantly more when viewed in

Current rather than Constant USD. Bilateral ODA still increases significantly more, however.

19901995

20002001

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

20102011

0100002000030000400005000060000700008000090000

100000

Bilateral and Multilateral OECD ODA(Current and Constant 2010 USD)

Bilateral ODA (Constant 2010 USD)Bilateral ODA (Current USD)

Multilateral ODA (Constant USD)

Multilateral ODA (Current USD)

Year

Mill

ions

USD

Figure 10

19681970

19721974

19761978

19801982

19841986

19881990

19921994

19961998

20002002

20042006

20082010

0102030405060708090

100

OECD Multi/Bilateral Real Aid as a percentage of Total ODA(Constant 2010 USD)

% Bilateral ODA

% Real Bi-lateral ODA

% Multi-lateral ODA

Year

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f To

tal O

DA

Figure 11

When looking at funding during these time periods as a percentage of Total ODA, we can

see from Figure 11 that although Bilateral ODA dominates funding since 1968, there does exist

significant trend variations in both. For example in 1968, while Bilateral and Multilateral ODA

stood at approximately 82% and 18% respectively, by 1977 Multilateral ODA stood at almost

40%. From there, however, funding as a percentage of Total ODA seems to decrease slowly until

it remains relatively steady around 30% from the mid-2000s to 2011. This is confirmed in Figure

12, where Multilateral ODA remains constant around 30% for the entirety of 1990 to 2011.

1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

OECD Multi/Bilateral Aid as a percentage of total ODA(Constant 2010 USD)

Bilateral ODA

Multilateral ODA

Real Bi-lateral ODA

Year

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f To

tal O

DA

Figure 12

SECTION B

Statistics on development financing - Canadian Official Development Assistance

Laurisse Noel

This section explains the statistical analysis of Canadian Official Development

Assistance. Graphs are complemented with descriptions of influential factors that denote specific

trends or important aspects. The descriptions are based on guiding questions provided by the

Canadian Council for International Co-operation.

Comparison of OECD and Canadian ODA Spending

In an effort to contextualize Canadian ODA spending within the context of OECD

spending, we will revisit the trends exhibited within section A. This will allow for an

understanding of important trends at play.

Since 1968

1968

1971

1974

1977

1980

1983

1986

1989

1992

1995

1998

2001

2004

2007

20100

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

OECD Total ODA 1968-2011, Current and Constant 2010 USD

ODA Current USD

ODA Con-stant 2010 USD

Year

Mil

lio

ns

USD

1968

1971

1974

1977

1980

1983

1986

1989

1992

1995

1998

2001

2004

2007

20100

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Canadian Total ODA since 1968 (Net Disbursements)

Constant Prices (2010 USD Mil-lions)

Current Prices (USD Millions)

USD

$ M

illi

on

s

While the trend is mildly upward, the main similarity is the decrease in ODA in the late

1990’s, increasing again until 2005. Strangely, the 2008 financial crisis had less of an impact on

ODA from all OECD countries, it is much more apparent in Canadian ODA. The three peaks in

Canadian ODA spending before 2000, in 1974, 1978 and 1988 are not reflected on the OECD

scale. The beginning of the millennium demonstrates differences in ODA spending between

OECD nations and Canada, which will be described in further detail in the next section.

1990

1990

1995

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

20110

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

Total and Real OECD ODA 1990, 1995, 2000-2011 (Current and Constant 2010 USD)

a. Current USD

b. Constant USD

Year

Milli

on

s U

SD

1990

1995

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

20110

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Canadian Total ODA (Net DIsbursements)

Constant Prices for 2010Current Prices

USD

$ M

illio

ns

The differences are not as pronounced as they seem within the graph of trends from 1968,

both constant and current prices follow a different trend than can be perceived for the OECD

nations. Firstly, the prominent Canadian downward trend after 1990 is not reflected in OECD

ODA trends, instead it remains relatively constant throughout those years. The peak in spending

in 2002 is also uniquely Canadian. The 2005 peak in ODA spending, however, is common to

both OECD nations and Canadian ODA spending.

Canadian Total ODA

1968

1971

1974

1977

1980

1983

1986

1989

1992

1995

1998

2001

2004

2007

20100

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Canadian Total ODA since 1968 (Net Disbursements)

Constant Prices (2010 USD Mil-lions)Current Prices (USD Millions)

US

D$

Mil

lio

ns

Since 1968: Current Prices

Canadian Total ODA has progressively increased since 1968. From a current price

perspective, in 1992, aid significantly declined prior to resuming an upward trend in 2001. There

was also a decline in 2008, which may be attributed to the financial crisis. Since then however,

aid has been consistently moving upwards. Current prices present us with an initial amount in

1968 of 194 Million USD, whereas aid consumed 5,457 Million USD in 2010.

Since 1968: Constant Prices

Constant prices demonstrate a slightly different picture, while the upward trend is

present; we perceive the importance of ODA in 1968 with 1,270 Million dedicated to the cause.

Presently our ODA occupies 5,084 Million USD in constant prices. The trend is primarily

upward with brief downward trends in the 1980’s which may be due to the financial crisis and

subsequently in the late 1990’s. From 2005 onwards, we can perceive a seemingly indecisive,

varied trend.

1990: Constant Prices

Since 2000, constant

prices have increased by a little

over 2,000 2010 Million USD

starting at 3,150.41 to 5084.33

2010 Million USD over eleven

years. Looking back to the

1990’s, it is interesting to note

that prices were following a

downward trend throughout the

decade. Since 2001, the trend has

been primarily upward, with slight decreases in 2003, 2006 and 2009. This can perhaps be

attributed to the recent implementation of the Millennium Development Goals and associated

efforts to secure their initial success. Since 2010, however, total ODA has decreased, in line with

changing Canadian priorities, and the upward trend at the beginning of the 2000’s was less

pronounced near the end of the decade. In fact, Canadian ODA spending endured a freeze in

2011 and has since been the victim of spending cuts. When comparing to the constant trend since

1968, we can see that the 1990’s dipped below 3,000 2010 Million USD, similar to the 1970 total

ODA amounts. It is important to note that the graph focusing upon more recent trends begins

with five year jumps between the first three entries of data, thus only denoting a general trend for

the decade. When analyzing the data since 1968, we can understand the annual variability of the

decade, as well as perceive that the increase in the 2000’s was necessary in order to achieve

levels we were at in the 1980’s.

Real Canadian ODA

Real ODA refers to total ODA less costs attributed to students, debt and refugees, which

should arguably not be included in the Official Development Aid. These costs are either

unrelated to development (students), or should simple occur as a result of compassion and our

position as a wealthy state (debt and refugees).

19901995

20002001

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

20102011

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Canadian Total ODA (Net DIsbursements)

Constant Prices for 2010

Current Prices

USD$

Milli

ons

The graph demonstrates

less variability in Real ODA costs.

This means that highs in Total

ODA spending were heavily

dependent on students, refugees

and debt costs. Constant prices

demonstrate an increase from

2,965.37 to 4,552.62 2010 USD

Millions over eleven years. Current Prices denote a decrease in the early 2000’s after their initial

value of 1814.75, dropping to 1331.35 in 2001 and climbing up to 4925.45 in 2011. The impacts

of the financial crisis can be perceived in 2009 with a decrease to 3600 USD Millions. The

decrease in real ODA is less pronounced in current prices.

19901995

20002001

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

20102011

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

8.2 Refugees in donor coun-tries 5.2 Imputed student costs 6. Debt relief Total Costs

When comparing spending on Refugees, students and debt, there are many interesting

trends to note. Debt relief varies significantly and is responsible for the general trend of the total

cost of all three categories. Debt spending is dependent on need which varies tremendously.

Spending associated to refugees in donor countries became a reality post-1990 and remained

relatively constant since then, hovering around 270 Million 2010 USD. Student costs remain the

lowest of all spending, ranging between 145.77 and 189.69 Million 2010 USD. Student costs did

19901995

20002001

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

20102011

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Real Canadian ODA

Current Prices (USD Millions)

Constant Prices (2010 USD Millions)

Year

Milli

ons U

SD

increase however, in 2006, after having remained relatively low (around 100 Millions 2010

USD) from 2000-2005.

Total ODA to refugees,

students and debt has

decreased to 1/6 (10%) of its

predominance as a

percentage of ODA in 1990

(29%), in constant prices.

1990, 2002 and 2005 are

anomalies in this spending

however, at 29%, 23% and

20% respectively. Otherwise,

costs remain between 10 and 15%. The year 2007 is an exception, with the lowest spending on

students, refugees and debt at 9%.

Comparing OECD and Canadian ODA Spending as a % of GNI

19681970

19721974

19761978

19801982

19841986

19881990

19921994

19961998

20002002

20042006

20082010

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Canadian ODA as % GNI since 1968

Current Prices (USD Mil-lions)

19901995

20002001

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

20102011

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Refugees, Students & Debt as % of Total ODA

Constant Prices (2010 UDS Millions)

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

20100

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

ODA % GNI

Year

Pe

rce

nta

ge

OE

CD

To

tal

GN

IOECD DAC Total ODA as a Percentage of GNI

(Constant 2010 USD)

19901995

20002001

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

20102011

2012

00.05

0.10.15

0.20.25

0.30.35

0.40.45

0.5

Canadian ODA as % GNI since 1990

Current Prices (USD Mil-lions)

19901995

20002001

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

20102011

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

ODA % GNI

Year

Perce

ntage

Total

GNI

DAC Total ODA as a Percentage of OECD GNI (Current USD)

c

Canadian ODA as % of GNI

Defining trends in Canadian ODA as a % of GNI is particularly interesting due to the

goal of 0.7% for OECD nations. Achieving 0.7% of GNI towards ODA has become less of a

priority for Canada and the percentage has been declining since 1975, when we reached 0.54%,

increasing and decreasing until 2001, our lowest point at 0.25%. While our ODA percentage has

been increasing since that point, it is nowhere near the 0.7% goal, or our peak of 1975.

Comparison of Canadian and OECD ODA % of GNI

While the formats of the graphs are different, we can still perceive the main similarity: a

significant decrease in the percentage of GNI in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. This means

that while ODA as a % of GNI is rising in recent years, we have not yet caught up to the

percentage we were at prior to 1992.

Bilateral and Multilateral Funding

19681971

19741977

19801983

19861989

19921995

19982001

20042007

20100

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Canadian Multilateral and Bilateral ODA Flows

Bilateral ODA: Current Prices (USD Millions)Bilateral ODA: Constant Prices (2010 USD Millions)Multilateral ODA: Constant Prices (2010 USD Millions)Multilateral ODA: Current Prices (USD Millions)U

SD M

illio

ns

19901995

20002001

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

201020110

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Canadian Multilateral and Bilateral ODA Flows

Bilateral ODA: Current Prices (USD Millions)Bilateral ODA: Constant Prices (2010 USD Millions)Multilateral ODA: Current Prices (USD Millions)Multilateral: Constant Prices (2010 USD Millions)U

SD M

illio

ns

Bilateral ODA has been a priority for Canada, often consuming double when comparing

to Multilateral ODA spending in constant USD Millions. Multilateral spending has remained

relatively constant over the years, in 2011, Canada spent less on Multilateral ODA than in 1990.

Bilateral ODA spending has been climbing steadily over the years while following the same

trends as Total constant ODA, reaching its highest point in 2010. Canadian Multilateral flows

experienced highs and lows, notably in 2001, 2007 & 2009 (lows) and 2008 (high).

Comparison of Canadian and OECD Bilateral and Multilateral ODA Flows

1990

1995

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

20110100002000030000400005000060000700008000090000

100000

Bilateral and Multilateral OECD ODA(Current and Constant 2010 USD)

Bilateral ODA (Constant 2010 USD)Bilateral ODA (Current USD)

Multilateral ODA (Constant USD)

Multilateral ODA (Current USD)

Year

Mil

lio

ns

US

D

Bilateral ODA trends are very similar between Canada and OECD nations as a whole.

Canadian bilateral ODA experienced a peak, however, in 2002, that was not reflected by OECD

nations. Multilateral spending was not as consistent for Canada compared to OECD spending.

OECD spending started at 24208.48 in 1990 and maintained a constant increase to 37319.31

USD 2010 Millions in 2011.

Canadian Support to Agencies

Canadian support for agencies is primarily axed upon the total amounts dedicated to the

World Bank Group through the International Development Association, the International Bank

for Reconstruction and Development, International Finance Corporation and the Multilateral

Investment Guarantee Agency. United Nations Agencies and Regional Development Banks are

also important recipients of funding. The Global Environment Facility and the Montreal Protocol

receive the least amount of funding, accompanied by the Other World Bank Group Members

(IBRD, IFC & MIGA). A trend of note is the World Bank total amount in 2008, which peaked at

688.82 Million 2010 USD. It is particularly impressive due to the fall in World Bank support that

occurred in 2009, following the financial crisis. It made a quick recovery, however, and was

back to 422.71 Million 2010 USD in 2010.

19901995

20002001

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

20102011

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Canadian Support to Agencies 1.1 UN agencies

1.3 IDA

1.4 Other World Bank (IBRD,IFC,MIGA)

***Memo: World Bank, Total (1.3.+1.4.)

1.5 Regional development banks

1.6 Global Environment Facility (96%)

1.7 Montreal Protocol

1.8 Other agencies Year

Cons

tant

Dol

lars

(201

0 U

SD M

illio

ns)

19901995

20002001

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

20102011

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

OECD Annual Net Donor SupportConstant 2011 USD

1.1 UN agencies

1.2 EU institutions

1.3 IDA

1.4 Other World Bank (IBRD,IFC,MIGA)

1.5 Regional devel-opment banks

1.6 Global Environment Facility (96%)

1.7 Montreal Protocol

1.8 Other agencies Year

Mill

ions

USD

Comparison between Canadian and OECD Support to Agencies

The most notable difference is the lack of the predominant EU institution support in the

Canadian graph. The memo including the sum of World Bank institutions is not included in the

OECD graph, yet we can perceive similar trends between the spending on IDA and Other World

Bank Group Members. Regional Development Banks have recently become important to

Canadian Agency Support, whereas they have only increased slightly within the context of

OECD nation support as a whole. UN agency support interestingly has an opposing trend

between the Canadian and OECD graphs. Support for the Montreal Protocol and the Global

Environment Facility remained low in both cases. Other agency support is varied in the Canadian

Context while it experienced a much more consistent increase over the years for the OECD in its

entirety.

Statistics on development financing – Canadian aid specifics

Aislynn Row

By comparing CIDA spending over the past 20 years, an overall increase for both current

and constant prices can be observed. If we were to only look at current prices, it would seem that

there has been at least a tripling in programmatic support since 1990, and almost doubled

spending between 2005 and 2011 alone. However, in looking at constant prices which take into

account the effects of inflation on spending, the increase is less dramatic. More specifically, in

current prices the spending on real bilateral programmatic support (total support excluding

Imputed Student costs, Debt relief, Administrative costs and Refugees in donor countries)

increased from $1853.51 million USD, to $3441.38 USD between 2005 and 2011 – a difference

of $1587.87 million. In reality, when the changes in currency value are considered, the increase

is only $778.46 million, which is less than half of the increase in current prices.

In addition to seeing the overall change in spending, there are sizeable differences in

spending year by year. Again, looking at real programmatic support, the spending alternates

between increasing and decreasing amounts, with an overall upward trend. The biggest change is

between 2006 and 2007, going from $2353.17 million, to $3452.98 million. The year with the

largest spending was 2009, with a budget of $3546.37million, which has since decreased to

$3206.27 million in 2011.

CIDA spending by thematic focus

CIDA’s three priority areas are:

Food Security, Sustainable

Economic Growth (SEG) and

Securing the Future for Children

and Youth. The overall trends

depict CIDA’s commitments to

each focus, and which take

priority over one another. Except

for the 2007/2008 fiscal year,

Children and Youth has

consistently received more funds than the other themes since 2005. This area has remained a

priority, and spending has recently increased to over $1 billion in the 2010/2011 fiscal year.

Spending on SEG also peaked at just under $816 million, up just above 2008 levels after two

years of decline. Food Security has been the lowest priority in the past. However, there was a

jump from just over $400 million in 2007/2008, to over $918 million in 2009/2010. This is most

likely attributable to the 2008 food crisis, as spending sharply declined in 2010/2011 to around

$728 million.

Securing the Future for Children and Youth

2005/2006

2006/2007

2007/2008

2008/2009

2009/2010

2010/2011 $-

$200,000,000.00

$400,000,000.00

$600,000,000.00

$800,000,000.00

$1,000,000,000.00

$1,200,000,000.00

Spending by Thematic Focus

Food Security SEG Children/Youth

1990

1995

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

CIDA Programmatic Support in Current Dollars

1990

1995

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

CIDA Programmatic Support in Constant Dol-lars

More specifically, under each thematic focus there are trends and changes that are

indicative of CIDA’s changing priorities. Securing the Future for Children and Youth

encompasses spending in over 40 different sectors, with the main over-arching sections being

Education, Health, Water Supply and Sanitation, Government and Civil Society. The most

spending by far goes to the health sector, averaging at around $531 million per year, with a total

of over $3 billion spent since 2005. In 2005/2006, CIDA spent $615 million on health, an

amount which then dropped to $483 million the following year. Only recently, in 2010/2011,

have spending patterns increased again to reach $614 million. This is the result of the

commitment to the Muskoka initiative, in which Canada committed $2.85 billion over five

years to help save the lives of women, children and newborns in developing countries.

CIDA has officially disbursed $149 million under the Muskoka initiative, and the plan is

for CIDA to spend $1.1 billion over the next five years. 1 Education receives the next largest

amount, with an average of $296 million per year. Spending to education has steadily increased

since 2005, reaching its peak in 2010/2011 at $356,699,180. Under this sector, basic education

receives the most funding, which is split into Primary Education, Basic Life Skills for Youth and

Adults, and Early Childhood Education.

The most interesting

change in spending

occurred to the Prevention

and Demobilisation of

Child Soldiers sector. In

2005/2006, CIDA spent

only $433,967 in this

sector. It fluctuates year by

year, generally between $1

million and $3 million.

However, in 2009/2010,

spending increased to $14,997,784. This is a huge jump from the previous year’s $1.5 million,

and likely a result of Canada’s adherence “to the Paris Commitments and the Principles and

1 http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/ACDI-CIDA.nsf/eng/CAR-616141241-PD4

FY2005/06

FY2006/07

FY2007/08

FY2008/09

FY2009/10

FY 2010/11

$0

$200,000,000

$400,000,000

$600,000,000

$800,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,200,000,000

Spending on "Securing the Future for Children and Youth" by Fiscal Year

Guidelines on Children Associated with Armed Forces or Armed Groups, which provide

guidelines on the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of all categories of children

associated with armed groups”.2

After education, the most spending goes to STD control including HIV/AIDS, which

peaked in 2005/2006 at $290,802,346, and has remained around $100 million year by year ever

since. Therefore, it is clear that CIDA’s priorities for Securing the Future for Children and Youth

are eradicating HIV/AIDS and supporting Basic Education.

Sustainable Economic Growth

The second largest portion of CIDA funding goes to Sustainable Economic Growth (SEG),

which has accounted for between

24% and 28% of CIDA’s yearly

program support since 2005. The

sub-sections of this sector are:

Education, Water Supply and

Sanitation, Government and Civil

Society, Infrastructure and

Services, Transport and Storage,

Communications, Energy

Generation and Supply, Banking

and Financial Services, Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing, Industry, Trade and Environmental

Protection. The two sectors that receive the most aid are Government and Civil Society, as well

as Environmental Protection. The most interesting changes under Government and Civil Society

were the increases in funding to “Decentralisation and Support to Subnation Government”.

Decentralisation funding increased from $40,621 in 2005, to over $15 million in 2010/2011. This

is likely a result of OECD commitment to “administrative, fiscal and political decentralization”,

and thus Canada’s commitment as well.3 This term, as defined in the same OECD document, is

“the transfer of authority to plan, make decisions or manage public functions from the national

level to any organisation or agency at the sub-national level”.

2 http://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/our-work/paris-principles/ 3 http://www.oecd.org/development/evaluation/30395116.pdf

FY2005/06

FY2006/07

FY2007/08

FY2008/09

FY2009/10

FY 2010/11

$0$100,000,000$200,000,000$300,000,000$400,000,000$500,000,000$600,000,000$700,000,000$800,000,000$900,000,000

Spending on "Sustainable Economic Growth" by Fiscal Year

Overall, funding to Environmental Protection has remained fairly stable, but there has

been a dramatic decrease to the least funded section, Environmental Research. In 2005/2006,

$1,870,234 was allocated to this section, an amount that steadily declined to reach its low-point

of $218,047 in 2010/2011. Financing to Environmental Education/Training has deteriorated in

tandem with research funding, declining from $17 million to $8 million. This change in funding

reflects the federal government’s lack of commitment to the environment, as illustrated by their

withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol, and lack of support for scientific research. To illustrate this

point, the office of the Auditor General (a position that has recently been closed, causing much

controversy and scrutiny) has stated:

“The government stated that the economic cost of implementing measures to achieve the obligations made under the Kyoto Protocol was prohibitively high. We therefore anticipated that the federal government would have estimated the cost of its regulatory approach and identified the least-cost options. Yet we found that Environment Canada has not conducted a comprehensive analysis to estimate the combined cost of the sector-by-sector approach to regulating GHG emissions. Nor has it estimated the impact on or costs to the Canadian economy of aligning its approach with the United States, or examined whether this is the most cost-effective option. These analyses are important in order to establish whether Canada faces proportionally higher costs than the United States in adopting an aligned regulatory approach”.

Overall, no sector under Sustainable Economic Growth has seen an increase in funding, just a re-

allocation between sectors.

Food Security

Finally, Food Security is

the thematic focus that

experienced the most

perceivable change in

funding since 2005.

Increasing steadily through

2006-2008, spending on

Food Security peaked in

the 2009/2010 fiscal year at

$918,028,183. As has been FY2005/06

FY2006/07

FY2007/08

FY2008/09

FY2009/10

FY 2010/11

$0$100,000,000$200,000,000$300,000,000$400,000,000$500,000,000$600,000,000$700,000,000$800,000,000$900,000,000

$1,000,000,000

Spending on "Food Security" by Fiscal Year

aforementioned, this is most likely a result of the 2008 food crisis, as emergency food aid more

than doubled between 2007/2008 and 2008/2009. Also, spending on agriculture increased

immensely during the same timeframe, going from $240 million to $571 million the following

year. This is the year that Food Security almost overtook Securing the Future for Children and

Youth as the most funded thematic focus, with both sectors receiving around 28% of CIDA

program support. While levels of funding to Food Security are not being maintained at such a

high level, they are still higher than all previous years.

Spending by crosscutting focus: Governance

Within CIDA’s three thematic priorities, they have also identified three crosscutting

themes: Governance, Equality between Men and Women, and Environmental Sustainability. The

trends in spending for these areas can help to demonstrate CIDA’s changing mandate, in addition

to looking at CIDA’s priority themes. To begin, according to CIDA, governance is linked to their

three key objectives which are: “the promotion of prosperity, the protection of our security

within a stable global framework, and the projection of Canadian values of democracy

and the rule of law, and culture”4. Spending on Governance has not seen any significant changes

in the past six years. However, spending has recently experienced a slight uptake since a decline

in 2009/2010. Under governance, the main sub-themes are Education, Health, Water Supply and

Sanitation, Government and Civil Society, and Conflict Prevention and Resolution. Government

and Civil Society, which receives the

most funding, encompasses everything

from Public Finance Management, to

Media and Free Flow of Information.

Many sectors are included in the SEG

priority theme, as CIDA views good

governance as a way to promote economic

growth.

Environmental Sustainability

CIDA’s spending on Environmental Sustainability is focused on four main issues:

Climate Change, Land Degradation, Access to Clean Water and Sanitation, and Urbanization.

At the 2009 L'Aquila Commitment for Sustainable Agricultural Development, “Canada

4 http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/INET/IMAGES.NSF/vLUImages/HRDG2/$file/HRDG-Policy-nophoto-e.pdf

FY2005/06

FY2006/07

FY2007/08

FY2008/09

FY2009/10

FY 2010/11

$0

$100,000,000

$200,000,000

$300,000,000

$400,000,000

$500,000,000

$600,000,000

$700,000,000

$800,000,000

$900,000,000

Spending on "Governance" by Fiscal Year

announced … that it is doubling its investments in support of sustainable agricultural

development by committing an additional $600 million over three years, bringing the total to

$1.18 billion over the three-year period”5. Canada was the first G8 country to meet their

commitment in April 20116. Of this government spending, CIDA was allocated and spent $1.15

million on sustainable agricultural development. Also, in 2010, the minister of the Environment

announced a contribution of $238.4 million between 2010 and 2014, to go to the Global

Environment Facility, which increases their previous contributions of $158.94 million (2006 to

2010) by 50%7.

While these are indicators of good progress to Canada’s commitments, deficiencies in

their commitment to the environment are also present. In addition to the lack of support for

environmental research as mentioned above, the Canadian government has been criticized

recently for pulling out of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, despite

CIDA’s claims that land degradation is a key factor in environmental sustainability.8

Equality Between Men and Women

Equality as a crosscutting theme is framed in such a way that equality between men and

women is for the benefit of sustainable development. CIDA has stated that equality is considered

as part of all policies, programs and projects. As such, CIDA has recognized that their programs

affect men and women differently, and that their projects should address these differences. CIDA

created an action plan in 2010 that sets out its goals pertaining to gender equality, and specific

programs and goals to achieving this action plan by the end of 2013. In this action plan, their

two-pronged approach includes integration of gender equality in all CIDA initiatives, as well as

creating programming that targets gender inequality9.

Using the DAC sector codes as was done for the Thematic Priorities is unavailable for

Gender Equality, as there is not specific spending on this. However, CIDA currently funds over

125 projects and organisations with the main objective being to promote equality.10 This is up

5 http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/ACDI-CIDA.nsf/eng/NAD-426114720-LJ5 6 http://www.who.int/pmnch/media/news/2012/20120416_g8watch_2012/en/index4.html 7 http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/ACDI-CIDA.nsf/eng/NAD-52716129-RPP 8 http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/acdi-cida.nsf/eng/JUD-22021421-4FS 9 http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/INET/IMAGES.NSF/vLUImages/Equality/$file/10-141%20Gender%20Equality-E.pdf 10 http://les.acdi-cida.gc.ca/servlet/JKMSearchController

from the 76 projects that were open between 2001 and 2012, not including the 56 projects that

are currently in the process of being terminated.11

Conclusion

Although CIDA’s spending has seen a general increase since 2005, the changing nature

of their spending is indicative of smaller ideological changes and commitment to certain issues.

As can be drawn from the numbers, Environmental Sustainability, and Environmental Research

more specifically, is receiving less attention, despite the growing concern worldwide for

environmental issues. In all other areas, spending has increased accordingly to the increase in

CIDA funds, with the priorities of Securing the Future for Children and Youth remaining the

highest priority, followed by Sustainable Economic Growth. What will be interesting to see is

how spending patterns are altered due to the recent merger with DFAIT, and which specific

industries and countries receive more attention when Canada’s trade priorities become more

pertinent to the aid agenda.

References

Canadian Council for International Cooperation (CCIC). (2012). CCIC initial analysis of budget 2012. Retrieved 02/03, 2013, from http://www.ccic.ca/_files/en/what_we_do/2012_04_CCIC_Initial_Analysis_Budget.pdf

Canadian International Development Agency. (2012). International development assistance commitments. Retrieved 02/03, 2013, from http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/acdi-cida.nsf/eng/CAR-616141241-PD4

These commitments, along with the results of the statistical research, will be useful for the analysis of the evolution of government priorities and determining whether changes can be associated with strategy as opposed to the welfare of those who receive assistance.

Foster, A. (2012). CIDA closing regional offices to cut costs. Retrieved 02/03, 2013, from http://www.embassynews.ca/news/2012/09/26/cida-closes-regional-offices-to-cut-costs/42525

OECD (2006). OECD Annual Report 2006. Retrieved from

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/0106071e.pdf?

11 http://les.acdi-cida.gc.ca/servlet/JKMSearchController

expires=1366734842&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=9D5A446D83B909FF899CD7

9BF150AEEE

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2012a). Development aid drops for the first time in 15 years. Retrieved 02/03, 2013, from http://oecdinsights.org/2012/04/04/development-aid-drops-for-the-first-time-in-15-years/

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2012b). Development: Aid to developing countries falls because of global recession. Retrieved 02/03, 2013, from http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/developmentaidtodevelopingcountriesfallsbecauseofglobalrecession.htm

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2012c). OECD Stat Extracts. Retrieved 03/02, 2013, from http://stats.oecd.org/

This is the database we are using to acquire our statistical data. It allows us to manipulate the data to our specific needs and ensures consistency between all three parts of our project.

Paul, J., & Pistor, M. (2009). Official development assistance spending. Retrieved 02/04, 2013, from http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0710-e.htm

Reilly-King, F. (2013). Canadian Council for International Cooperation. For Laurisse Noel, Aislynn Row and Sebastian Winsor (Ed.), Statistics on development financing - international context

Fraser created a guiding document for us to ensure we touch upon the questions he is interested in. It has divided the work into 28 questions which we will respond to with tables and graphs as a result of the information acquired from the OECD and CIDA data. It is included as the annex to this paper.

Sanchez, J. (2012). Who will be the biggest losers from this budget? A question of priorities. Retrieved 02/03, 2013, from http://ccic-ccci.blogspot.ca/2012/03/who-will-be-biggest-losers-from-this_29.html

Sumner, A., & Tribe, M. (2011). The case for aid in fiscally constrained times: Morals, ethics and economics. Journal of International Development, 23(6), 782-801. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/905211261?accountid=14701

The World Bank Group (WBG). (2012). Global monitoring report 2012: Food prices, nutrition, and the millennium development goals (MDGs) Retrieved 02/03, 2013, from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPROSPECTS/Resources/334934-1327948020811/8401693-1327957211156/8402494-1334239337250/GMR2012_Brief_Aid.pdf

United Nations (2002). Retrieved from

http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/monterrey/MonterreyConsensus.pdf

United Nations (2008). International Conference on Financing for Development. Retrieved from

http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/doha

Appendix A:

The following are extraneous graphs that were not included in our analysis but nonetheless provide valuable information and insight.

1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Student Costs, Debt Relief and Refugees in Donor Countriesas Percentage of Bilateral ODA

(Constant 2010 USD)

Student, Debt, Refugees % (Current USD)

Student, Debt, Refugees % (Constant 2010 USD)

Year

Pe

rce

nta

ge B

ilate

ral O

DA

199019952000 2001200220032004 20052006 200720082009201020110

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

Bilateral and Real ODA1990, 1995, and 2000-2011

Bilateral ODA (Current USD)

Real ODA (Current USD)

Bilateral ODA (Constant 2010 USD)

Real ODA (Con-stant 2010 USD)

Year

Fund

ing

(Mill

ions

USD

)

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90Multilateral Funding Support as a Percentage of Total Multilateral

Funding

UN Agencies (% of total)

EU Institutions (% of total)

World Bank (% of total)

Regional Devel-opment Banks (% of total)

Year

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f To

tal

Mu

ltila

tera

l Fu

nd

ing

19901995

20002001

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

20102011

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

OECD Annual Net Donor SupportConstant 2011 USD

1.1 UN agencies 1.2 EU institutions 1.3 IDA 1.4 Other World Bank (IBRD,IFC,MIGA) 1.5 Regional development banks 1.6 Global Environment Facility (96%) 1.7 Montreal Protocol 1.8 Other agencies

Year

Mill

ions

USD

19681970

19721974

19761978

19801982

19841986

19881990

19921994

19961998

20002002

20042006

20082010

-15000

-10000

-5000

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

OECD DAC Other Official Flows1968-2011 (Current and Constant 2011 USD)

Other Official Flows (Current USD)

Other Official Flows (Constant 2011 USD)

Year

Mill

ions

USD

1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011-15000

-10000

-5000

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

OECD DAC Total Other Offical Flows1990, 1995, 2000-2011

Current and Constant 2010 USD

II. Other Official Flows (Current USD)

II. Other Official Flows (Constant 2011 USD)

Year

Mill

ions

USD

19681970

19721974

19761978

19801982

19841986

19881990

19921994

19961998

20002002

20042006

20082010

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

OECD DAC Total Bilateral Private Flows1968-2011 (Current and Constant 2011 USD)

Private Flows at Market Terms (Current USD)

Private Flows at Market Terms (Constant 2011 USD)

Year

Mill

ions

USD

19901995

20002001

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

20102011

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

OECD DAC Total Bilateral Private Flows1990, 1995, 2000-2011 (Current and Constant 2011 USD)

Private Flows at Market Terms (Current USD)

Private Flows at Market Terms (Constant 2011 USD)

Year

Mill

ions

USD

[SOURCE: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?datasetcode=TABLE1 – Total Flows by Donor]

Canadian ODA specificsReal Canadian ODA (ODA less student costs (5.2), debt (6.) and refugees (8.2)

19901995

20002001

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

20102011

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Real Canadian ODA (- Student, Refugee & Debt Costs)

Current Prices (USD Millions)

19901995

20002001

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

20102011

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Real Canadian ODA (- Student, Refugee & Debt Costs)

Constant Prices (2010 USD Mil-lions)

As a percentage of total Canadian ODA (either current or constant dollars)

19901995

20002001

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

20102011

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Refugees, Students & Debt as a % of Total Canadian ODA

Current Prices (USD Millions)

19901995

20002001

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

20102011

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Refugees, Students & Debt as % of Total ODA

Constant Prices (2010 UDS Mil-lions)

Canadian bilateral ODA flows (1. A.) Students (5.2), debt (6) and refugees (8.2))

19681971

19741977

19801983

19861989

19921995

19982001

20042007

20100

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Bilateral ODA Flows: Student, Debt & Refugees

8.2 Refugees in donor coun-tries

5.2 Imputed student costs

6. Debt relief

Year

Curre

nt Pr

ices (

USD M

illion

s)

19681971

19741977

19801983

19861989

19921995

19982001

20042007

20100

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Bilateral ODA Flows: Students, Debt & Refugees

8.2 Refugees in donor coun-tries 5.2 Imputed student costs 6. Debt relief

Year

Cons

tant P

rices

(201

0 USD

Milli

ons)

1990, 1995 and every year since 2000 (real ODA)

1990

1995

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

20110

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

1035.161126.01965.39998.151061.661051.38

1676.89

2135.232036.16

2824.472886.382740.9

3421.333579.5

1894.692205.59

1880.361995.862126.931819.22

2612.35

2999.07

2609.2

3320.493267.023365.533678.183579.5

Real Canadian Bilateral ODA Flows

Current Prices (USD Millions)Constant Prices (2010 USD Mil-lions)

Canadian multilateral (1.B) ODA flows since 1968 (in current, constant dollars)

19681971

19741977

19801983

19861989

19921995

19982001

20042007

20100

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Canadian Multilateral ODA

Current Prices (USD Millions)

19681971

19741977

19801983

19861989

19921995

19982001

20042007

2010

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Canadian Multilateral ODA

Constant Prices (2010 USD Mil-lions)

1990, 1995 and every year since 2000 (in current and constant dollars)

19901995

20002001

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

20102011

20120

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Canadian Multilateral ODA Flows

Current Prices (USD Millions)

19901995

20002001

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

20102011

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Canadian Multilateral ODA Flows

Constant Prices (2010 USD Mil-lions)

1990, 1995 and every year since 2000: UN (a.), EU (b.), World Bank (e.) and RDBs (f.) as a percentage of the total support for multilaterals (1. B.)

19901995

20002001

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

20102011

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

1.1 UN Agencies as a % ofMultilateral ODA

Constant Prices (2010 USD)

EU: No values for selected years

19901995

20002001

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

20102011

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

1.3+1.4 World Bank Total as a % of Multilateral ODA

Constant Prices (2010 USD)

19901995

20002001

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

20102011

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

1.5 Regional Development Banks as a % of Multilateral ODA

Constant Prices (2010 USD)

Canadian other official flows (II.) Since 1968 in current and constant dollars

19681971

19741977

19801983

19861989

19921995

19982001

20042007

2010

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Canadian Other Official Flows

Constant (2010 USD Millions)

19681971

19741977

19801983

19861989

19921995

19982001

20042007

2010

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Canadian Other Official Flows

Current Prices (USD Millions)

1990, 1995 and every year since 2000 in current and constant dollars

19901995

20002001

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

20102011

-2000

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Canadian Other Official Flows

Constant Prices (2010 USD Mil-lions)

19901995

20002001

20022003

20042005

20062007

20082009

20102011

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Canadian Other Official Flows

Current Prices (USD Millions)

Canadian total bilateral private flows (III. A) Since 1968 in current and constant dollars

19681971

19741977

19801983

19861989

19921995

19982001

20042007

20100

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Canadian Multilateral and Bilateral ODA Flows

Bilateral ODA: Current Prices (USD Millions)Bilateral ODA: Constant Prices (2010 USD Millions)Multilateral ODA: Constant Prices (2010 USD Millions)Multilateral ODA: Current Prices (USD Millions)US

D M

illion

s

Canadian aid specifics[SOURCE: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?datasetcode=TABLE1 – Aggregate Sector Level Data

19

90

19

95

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

110

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

CIDA Programmatic Support in Constant Dol-lars

Real Bilateral Aid in Constant Prices

19

90

19

95

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

110

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

CIDA Programmatic Support in Current Dollars

Real Canadian ODA in Current Prices

1. CIDA spending by thematic focus

FY2005/06

FY2006/07

FY2007/08

FY2008/09

FY2009/10

FY 2010/11

$0$100,000,000$200,000,000$300,000,000$400,000,000$500,000,000$600,000,000$700,000,000$800,000,000$900,000,000

Spending on "Sustainable Economic Growth" by Fiscal Year

FY2005/06

FY2006/07

FY2007/08

FY2008/09

FY2009/10

FY 2010/11

$0

$200,000,000

$400,000,000

$600,000,000

$800,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,200,000,000

Spending on "Securing the Future for Children and Youth" by Fiscal Year

FY2005/06

FY2006/07

FY2007/08

FY2008/09

FY2009/10

FY 2010/11

$0$100,000,000$200,000,000$300,000,000$400,000,000$500,000,000$600,000,000$700,000,000$800,000,000$900,000,000

$1,000,000,000

Spending on "Food Security" by Fiscal Year

Total CIDA Program Support Thematic Focus as % of CIDA Program SupportFood Security SEG Children/ Youth

FY2005/06 $2,784,756,457 15% 24% 32%FY2006/07 $2,780,403,140 17% 22% 29%FY2007/08 $2,884,925,810 15% 28% 27%FY2008/09 $3,168,604,199 20% 25% 30%FY2009/10 $3,326,667,019 28% 22% 29%FY 2010/11 $3,347,266,184 22% 24% 32%

2005/2006

2006/2007

2007/2008

2008/2009

2009/2010

2010/2011

$-

$200,000,000.00

$400,000,000.00

$600,000,000.00

$800,000,000.00

$1,000,000,000.00

$1,200,000,000.00

Spending by Thematic Focus

Food Security SEG Children/Youth

Spending by cross cutting focus (aggregate and sub elements) since 2005

FY2005/06

FY2006/07

FY2007/08

FY2008/09

FY2009/10

FY 2010/11

$0

$50,000,000

$100,000,000

$150,000,000

$200,000,000

$250,000,000

$300,000,000

Spending on "Advancing Democracy" by fiscal year

Appendix B: Guidelines provided by Fraser Reilly-King -- CCIC

Statistics on development financing – international context For each of the following, download the full data set. For each question, generate a worksheet of data within a single Excel spreadsheet and produce a corresponding table.

STUDENT A: OECD donor ODA[SOURCE: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?datasetcode=TABLE1 – Total Flows by Donor] This Table, and all OECD DAC tables, can be downloaded in Excel for work on your computer.

1. OECD DAC total donor Official Development Assistance (ODA) since 1968 (I in the Table) (Net disbursements)a. In current prices (USD$ Millions – less useful, but perhaps still interesting)b. Constant prices (2010 USD$ Millions – a more meaningful figure, given inflation would distort

size when comparing figures over the years)c. Real ODA in Current and Constant dollars for 1990[1], 1995, 2000 to present (ODA less student

costs (5.2), debt (6.) and refugees (8.2)

FY2005/06

FY2006/07

FY2007/08

FY2008/09

FY2009/10

FY 2010/11

$0

$20,000,000

$40,000,000

$60,000,000

$80,000,000

$100,000,000

$120,000,000

$140,000,000

Spending on "Security and Stability" by Fiscal Year

FY2005/06

FY2006/07

FY2007/08

FY2008/09

FY2009/10

FY 2010/11

$0

$100,000,000

$200,000,000

$300,000,000

$400,000,000

$500,000,000

$600,000,000

$700,000,000

$800,000,000

$900,000,000

Spending on "Governance" by Fiscal Year

2. Put in a separate Table from 1, OECD DAC total donor ODA , 1990, 1995 and every year since 2000 (I. A. + I. B)

(Net disbursements) (Here current and constant are both worthwhile since it is a shorter expanse of time)a. In current prices (USD$ Millions)b. Constant prices (2010 USD$ Millions)c. Real ODA (ODA less student costs (5.2), debt (6.) and refugees (8.2)

· What do the figures tell you about aid flows in terms of current prices? What has been the overall trend?

Are there other trends that the statistics reveal?· In particular in terms of constant prices over the past ten years, are the outcomes the same? What do you

notice that is different?· What about Canadian real ODA relative to the other calculations?

3. Calculate Student costs (5.2), debt (6) and refugees (8,2) as percentage of Total DAC ODA for 1990, 1995 and from

2000 to present.

4. OECD DAC Total ODA as a percentage of Gross National Income for every year since 1968 (bottom of DAC1 table)

5. Put in a separate Table from 4, OECD DAC Total ODA as a percentage of Gross National Income for 1990, 1995 and every year since 2000 (See also 17. and 18. below)

· What has been the overall trend during these two time periods? Are there any additional trends of note?

6. OECD DAC total annual net bilateral ODA flows (1. A.)a. since 1968 (in constant dollars and real ODA (separating out students, debt and refugees))b. for 1990, 1995 and every year since 2000 (in current, constant and real ODA)c. Student, debt and refugees as a percentage of total bilateral aid for 1990, 1995, and every year

since 2000.

7. OECD donor annual net multilateral (1.B) ODA flowsa. since 1968 (in constant dollars and real ODA)b. for 1990, 1995 and every year since 2000 (in current, constant and real ODA)

8. Using your figures from 1. and 2., as well as 6. and 7., calculate bilateral ODA and multilateral ODA as a percentage

of total ODA,a. since 1968 (using either constant or current dollars)b. since 1968 for real aid

c. Put in a separate table percentages for 1990, 1995 and every year from 2000 for current or

constant ODA and for real ODA.

· For 6. and 7. what do the charts tell you about support for bilateral ODA and multilateral ODA over the time periods? What trends do you observe in particular for the constant dollar, current dollar and real ODA comparisons for bilateral aid?

· How has support for bilateral funding over the years compared to multilateral funding? Are there any interesting general trends to note or recent trends?

· For 8. what do you observe when you compare bilateral and multilateral as a percentage of total? How does this compare with your conclusions to the questions above?

9. OECD annual net donor support to the following agencies (I.B.: 1.1 – 1.8) for 1990, 1995 and every year since 2000

(in constant dollars):

a. UN agenciesb. EU institutionsc. IDAd. Other World Banke. World Bank totalf. Regional Development Banksg. Global Environment Facilityh. Other UN Agencies

10. For each year since 2000, calculate the UN (a.), EU (b.), World Bank (e.) and RDBs (f.) net annual totals as a

percentage of the total support for multilaterals.

· What observations can you make in terms of general trends and funding for these different entities...? Have some multilateral agencies benefitted more than others?

11. OECD DAC total other official flows (II.)

a. since 1968 in current and constant dollarsb. in a separate table from a), calculate for 1990, 1995 and every year from 2000 in current and

constant dollars

12. OECD DAC total bilateral private flows (III. A)a. since 1968 in current and constant dollarsb. in a separate table from a), calculate for 1990, 1995 and every year from 2000 in current and

constant dollars

13. Compare the top level figures of the different types of flows from OECD donors since 2000 (data preceding 2000 is less reliable):

a. From your responses to 2. a, 11. b. and 12.b. in current dollars in a single chartb. for 2. b, 11. b. and 12.b. in constant dollars in a single chartc. for 2. c as a percentage of total official flows plus real ODA

· What trends do you observe around the different types of flows?· How do real ODA flows compare?

Statistics on development financing – international context For each of the following, download in excel from the DAC Table the full data set. For each question, generate a worksheet of data within a single Excel spreadsheet and produce a corresponding table.

STUDENT B: Canadian ODA[SOURCE: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?datasetcode=TABLE1 – Total Flows by Donor]

14. Canadian Total ODA since 1968 (I) (Net disbursements)a. In current prices (USD$ Millions)b. Constant prices (2010 USD$ Millions)

15. From 14 above separate out Canadian Total ODA for 1990, 1995 and each year from 2000 (I) (Net disbursements)

a. In current prices (USD$ Millions)b. Constant prices (2010 USD$ Millions)c. Real Canadian ODA (ODA less student costs (5.2), debt (6.) and refugees (8.2)

16. Refugees, students and debt (on one chart, but showing individual totals and aggregate total) as a percentage of total ODA for 1990, 1995 and every year since 2000.

a. In current prices (USD$ Millions)b. Constant prices (2010 USD$ Millions)c. As a percentage of total Canadian ODA (either current or constant dollars)

· What do the figures tell you about Canadian aid flows in terms of current prices? What has been the overall

trend? Are there other specific trends worth noting?· In particular in terms of constant prices since 2000, are the outcomes the same? What do you notice that is

different?· What about Canadian real ODA?· How does Canada compare (14. and 15.) to the OECD donor flows identified in 1. and 2. above?· Mark these OECD total DAC ODA figures on the respective charts you have created in 14. and 15.

17. Canadian ODA as a percentage of Gross National Income since 1968 (bottom of DAC1 table)

18. Put in separate sheet, Canadian ODA as a percentage of Gross National Income for 1990, 1995 and every

year since 2000.

· What do the figures tell you about overall ODA as a percentage of GNI? What has been the overall trend? Are there other specific trends worth noting?

· In particular in terms of constant prices over the past ten years, are the outcomes the same? What do you notice that is different?

· How does Canada compare to the OECD donor figures identified in 4. and 5. above? Are there other specific trends worth noting?

· Mark these OECD percentages on the respective charts you have created in 17. and 18.

19. Canadian bilateral ODA flows (1. A.)a. since 1968 (in current, constant and real ODA, separating out students (5.2), debt (6) and refugees

(8.2))b. Separate out 1990, 1995 and every year since 2000 (in current, constant and real ODA)

20. Canadian multilateral (1.B) ODA flows

a. since 1968 (in current, constant dollars)b. Separate out 1990, 1995 and every year since 2000 (in current and constant dollars)

21. Using your figures from 14. and 15., as well as 19. and 20., calculate bilateral ODA and multilateral ODA

as a percentage of total ODA,a. since 1968 compared to Total ODA (use either constant or current dollars)b. since 1968 compared to real ODAc. for 1990, 1995, and every year since 2000d. for 1990, 1995 and every year since 2000 in real ODA (use either constant or current dollars)

· How has support for bilateral funding over the years compared to multilateral funding? Are there any

interesting general trends to note or recent trends?· How does Canada compare to the OECD net trends identified in 6. and 7. above? Are there some

differences worth noting in doing the comparison? Are there other specific trends worth noting just for the Canadian results?

· Mark the corresponding OECD DAC total figures on the respective charts you have created in 19, 20 and 21.

22. Canadian support to the following agencies (1.B.: 1.1 – 1.8) for 1990, 1995 and every year since 2000 in constant dollars:

a. UN agenciesb. IDAc. Other World Bankd. World Bank totale. Regional Development Banksf. Global Environment Facilityg. Montreal Protocolh. Other UN Agencies

23. For 1990, 1995 and every year since 2000, calculate the UN (a.), EU (b.), World Bank (e.) and RDBs (f.) as a percentage of the total support for multilaterals (1. B.) for 1990, 1995 and every year since 2000.

· From 22. what observations can you make in terms of general trends and funding for these different

entities...?· How does Canada compare to the OECD donor figures identified in question 9. above?· For 23. what do you observe when you compare bilateral and multilateral as a percentage of total?

How does this compare with your conclusions to question 10 above?· Mark these OECD averages on the respective charts you have created in 22 and 23

24. Canadian other official flows (II.)

a. since 1968 in current and constant dollarsb. Separate out from a) 1990, 1995 and every year since 2000 in current and constant dollars

25. Canadian total bilateral private flows (III. A)

a. since 1968 in current and constant dollarsb. Separate out from a) 1990, 1995 and every year since 2000 in current and constant dollars

26. Compare the top level figures of the different types of flows from Canada for 1990, 1995 and every year

since 2000a. for 15. a, 24. b. and 25.b. in current dollars in a single chartb. for 15 b, 23. b. and 24.b. in constant dollars in a single chartc. for 15. c as a percentage of total official flows plus real Canadian ODA

Statistics on development financing – Canadian context For each of the following, download the full data set. For each question, generate a worksheet of data within a single Excel spreadsheet and produce a corresponding table.

STUDENT C: Canadian aid specifics[SOURCE: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?datasetcode=TABLE1 – Aggregate Sector Level Data [Customize the data selection by doing the following:

· select just Canada under “Donors” (Unselect “all” and then under donors select “Canada”; ]· select 2000 – 2011 under “Year” (Select data range from “2000” to “2011”)·

Use historical data set – total programme spending

DAC CRS – Sector spending...as percentage of sector allocate spending (Equivalent of programme funding is total sector allocated funds

1. From 1990 to 2011, calculate CIDA programmatic support for each yeara. In current dollarsb. In constant dollars

For example, Total CIDA less administration costs. E.g. 2005/06: 2862.37-215.39 = 2646.98. In some years you also have to subtract the loan repayments if they are not already netted out of the CIDA figure. E.g. 2009/10: 3571.62-248.34-24.02=3299.26.

· Are there any noticeable trends over the past six years?

2. From 2000 to 2011, calculate CIDA spending by thematic focus

a. In current dollarsb. In constant dollars

(See worksheets for an indication of which DAC sector codes are included under each respective theme)

· Food security (See “food security” worksheet)· Sustainable economic growth (See “SEG” worksheet)· Securing the future of children and youth (See “Children and Youth” worksheet)· (Maternal newborn and child health – perhaps in a separate slide since this is a portion of children

and youth)

· How has spending on each of these thematic areas shifted over the past six years? Is any one priority clearly more important than another? Can you link this to any political developments (See http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/ACDI-CIDA.nsf/eng/CAR-616141241-PD4)

3. From 2000 to 2011, calculate CIDA spending by thematic focus as a percentage of overall CIDA programmatic

supporta. Using current dollarsb. Using constant dollars

· Are there any noticeable trends over the past six years when the themes are situated within the context of

overall programmatic spending?

4. Calculate spending by cross cutting focus (aggregate and sub elements) since 2005a. In current dollarsb. In constant dollars

· Advancing democracy (see “Advancing democracy” worksheet)· Security and stability (see “Security and stability” worksheet)· Equality between men and women· Governance (See “Governance” worksheet)· Environmental sustainability

· How has spending on each of these thematic areas shifted over the past six years? Is any one priority

clearly more important than another?

5. Calculate spending by cross-cutting focus as a percentage of overall CIDA programmatic supporta. Using current dollarsb. Using constant dollars

· Are there any noticeable trends over the past six years when the cross-cutting foci are situated within the context of overall programmatic spending?

POSSIBLE EXTRA WORKAggregated and disaggregated spending on humanitarian assistance

6. Calculate the sector spending from 2000-2011 ona. Total humanitarian assistance (700)b. Emergency response (720) and its sub codesc. Reconstruction, relief and rehabilitation (730) and its sub codesd. Disaster prevention and preparedness (740) and its sub codes

7. Calculate the sector spending from 2000-11 for 7 above, disaggregated by Region

· East Asia and Pacific [2]· Europe and Central Asia[3]· Latin America and the Caribbean[4]· Middle East and North Africa[5]· South Asia[6]· Sub-Saharan Africa[7]

8. Calculate aggregate humanitarian assistance spending from 2000-11 by channel

a. Public sectorb. NGOs and Civil Societyc. Public-Private Partnershipsd. Multilateral organizationse. Other

9. Calculate total humanitarian assistance spending from 2000-11 disaggregated by channel and region (i.e. how much

through each channel in each region) Spending by sector

10. Using the OECD statistics, calculate the aggregate spending by each sector from 2000 - 2011· Social Infrastructure & Services· I.1. Education· I.1.b. Basic Education· I.2. Health · I.2.b. Basic Health· I.3. Population Pol./Progr. & Reproductive Health · I.4. Water Supply & Sanitation· I.5. Government & Civil Society · I.5.a. Government & Civil Society-general · I.5.b. Conflict, Peace & Security · I.6. Other Social Infrastructure & Services · Economic Infrastructure & Services· II.3. Energy · II.4. Banking & Financial Services· II.5. Business & Other Services · Production Sectors· III.1. Agriculture (not including Forestry and Fishing)· III.2. Industry, Mining, Construction · III.3.a. Trade Policies & Regulations

· Multi-Sector / Cross-Cutting· VI.1. General Budget Support[BT1]

Of further interest Spending by sector by branchGeographic branchPartnership branch Spending by region Spending by region by branch Spending by region by major sectors (Social, Economic, humanitarian assistance...) Spending by type of country Spending by major sectors in type of country Spending in fragile states (using the list of G7+ members[8]) Spending by sector in fragile states

[1] 1990 is an important year since it is the baseline year against which donor commitments on the MDGs are measured.[2] http://data.worldbank.org/region/EAP[3] http://data.worldbank.org/region/ECA[4] http://data.worldbank.org/region/LAC[5] http://data.worldbank.org/region/MNA[6] http://data.worldbank.org/region/SAS[7] http://data.worldbank.org/region/SSA[8] Afghanistan, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Haiti, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Papua New Guinea, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Sudan, Timor Leste, Togo.

[BT1]The historical project database has information on CIDA’s use of program approaches which is broader than general budget support in the DAC codes which misses out sector wide programming for example.