April aid spending by Development Assistance Committee (DAC) donors in factsheet

Similar documents
January final ODA data for an initial analysis of key points. factsheet

Aid spending by Development Assistance Committee donors in 2015

UNDER EMBARGO UNTIL 9 APRIL 2018, 15:00 HOURS PARIS TIME

UNDER EMBARGO UNTIL 10 APRIL 2019, 15:00 HOURS PARIS TIME. Development aid drops in 2018, especially to neediest countries

global humanitarian assistance report 2018

China s Aid Approaches in the Changing International Aid Architecture

November ODA modernisation. an update following the October 2017 HLM. Rob Tew. briefing

How Does Aid Support Women s Economic Empowerment?

Aid to gender equality and women s empowerment AN OVERVIEW

July 2018 countries being left behind. tackling uneven progress to meet the SDGs. executive summary

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE GREEK BILATERAL AND MULTILATERAL OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION AND ASSISTANCE YEAR 2014

ISSUE BRIEF: U.S. Immigration Priorities in a Global Context

On aid orphans and darlings (Aid Effectiveness in aid allocation by respective donor type)

OECD Health Data 2009 comparing health statistics across OECD countries

How does education affect the economy?

chapter 3 donors: who gives assistance?

Widening of Inequality in Japan: Its Implications

How many students study abroad and where do they go?

Size and Development of the Shadow Economy of 31 European and 5 other OECD Countries from 2003 to 2013: A Further Decline

EDUCATION OUTCOMES EXPENDITURE ON EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL STUDENT ASSESSMENT TERTIARY ATTAINMENT

2017 Recurrent Discussion on Fundamental

Meeting of the OECD Council at Ministerial Level

WORLDWIDE DISTRIBUTION OF PRIVATE FINANCIAL ASSETS

SYRIA CRISIS FAIR SHARE ANALYSIS 2016

International investment resumes retreat

July data for development in Africa. ensuring commitments made at the High-level meeting in Kenya are met discussion paper Bernard Sabiti

GDP per capita was lowest in the Czech Republic and the Republic of Korea. For more details, see page 3.

Monthly Inbound Update June th August 2017

CO3.6: Percentage of immigrant children and their educational outcomes

INTEGRATION OF IMMIGRANTS INTO THE LABOUR MARKET IN EU AND OECD COUNTRIES

Is This Time Different? The Opportunities and Challenges of Artificial Intelligence

European patent filings

Russian Federation. OECD average. Portugal. United States. Estonia. New Zealand. Slovak Republic. Latvia. Poland

OECD/EU INDICATORS OF IMMIGRANT INTEGRATION: Findings and reflections

Civil and Political Rights

ISBN International Migration Outlook Sopemi 2007 Edition OECD Introduction

Belgium s foreign trade

The High Cost of Low Educational Performance. Eric A. Hanushek Ludger Woessmann

Trends in humanitarian and development assistance in a rapidly changing global context

Education Quality and Economic Development

INVESTING IN AN OPEN AND SECURE EUROPE Two Funds for the period

New Approaches to Measuring the Impacts of STI Policy

The Extraordinary Extent of Cultural Consumption in Iceland

BRIEFING. International Migration: The UK Compared with other OECD Countries.

BUILDING RESILIENT REGIONS FOR STRONGER ECONOMIES OECD

USING, DEVELOPING, AND ACTIVATING THE SKILLS OF IMMIGRANTS AND THEIR CHILDREN

OECD expert meeting hosted by the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research Oslo, Norway 2-3 June 2008 ICTs and Gender Pierre Montagnier

TRIPS OF BULGARIAN RESIDENTS ABROAD AND ARRIVALS OF VISITORS FROM ABROAD TO BULGARIA IN SEPTEMBER 2015

Taiwan s Development Strategy for the Next Phase. Dr. San, Gee Vice Chairman Taiwan External Trade Development Council Taiwan

Equity and Excellence in Education from International Perspectives

MINISTERIAL DECLARATION

Briefing Paper Pakistan Floods 2010: Country Aid Factsheet

Inclusion and Gender Equality in China

Please, send back this application form, duly filled out and signed on each page, by post, fax or to:

Standard Note: SN/SG/6077 Last updated: 25 April 2014 Author: Oliver Hawkins Section Social and General Statistics

Letter prices in Europe. Up-to-date international letter price survey. March th edition

Mobility of Rights 1

IMMIGRATION IN THE EU

Where are the Middle Class in OECD Countries? Nathaniel Johnson (CUNY and LIS) David Johnson (University of Michigan)

Upgrading workers skills and competencies: policy strategies

TRIPS OF BULGARIAN RESIDENTS ABROAD AND ARRIVALS OF VISITORS FROM ABROAD TO BULGARIA IN AUGUST 2015

TRIPS OF BULGARIAN RESIDENTS ABROAD AND ARRIVALS OF VISITORS FROM ABROAD TO BULGARIA IN AUGUST 2016

TRIPS OF BULGARIAN RESIDENTS ABROAD AND ARRIVALS OF VISITORS FROM ABROAD TO BULGARIA IN MAY 2017

TRIPS OF BULGARIAN RESIDENTS ABROAD AND ARRIVALS OF VISITORS FROM ABROAD TO BULGARIA IN MARCH 2016

Introduction to the European Agency. Cor J.W. Meijer, Director. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education

European Union Passport

TRIPS OF BULGARIAN RESIDENTS ABROAD AND ARRIVALS OF VISITORS FROM ABROAD TO BULGARIA IN FEBRUARY 2017

Asylum Trends. Appendix: Eurostat data

Asylum Trends. Appendix: Eurostat data

Asylum Trends. Appendix: Eurostat data

Asylum Trends. Appendix: Eurostat data

PUBLIC PROCUREMENT AND ILLEGAL SETTLEMENTS

Territorial indicators for policy purposes: NUTS regions and beyond

8193/11 GL/mkl 1 DG C I

Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB)

IMMIGRATION, ASYLUM AND NATIONALITY ACT 2006 INFORMATION FOR CANDIDATES

TRIPS OF BULGARIAN RESIDENTS ABROAD AND ARRIVALS OF VISITORS FROM ABROAD TO BULGARIA IN DECEMBER 2016

Inclusive global growth: a framework to think about the post-2015 agenda

Settling In 2018 Main Indicators of Immigrant Integration

Estimating the foreign-born population on a current basis. Georges Lemaitre and Cécile Thoreau

OECD Affordable Housing Database OECD - Social Policy Division - Directorate of Employment, Labour and Social Affairs

PISA 2015 in Hong Kong Result Release Figures and Appendices Accompanying Press Release

1. Why do third-country audit entities have to register with authorities in Member States?

8. REGIONAL DISPARITIES IN GDP PER CAPITA

ODA REPORTING OF IN-DONOR COUNTRY REFUGEE COSTS. Members methodologies for calculating costs

MAKEPOVERTYHISTORY CONCERT

OECD Strategic Education Governance A perspective for Scotland. Claire Shewbridge 25 October 2017 Edinburgh

3.1. Importance of rural areas

Commitment to Development Index 2017

PISA 2009 in Hong Kong Result Release Figures and tables accompanying press release article

CLASSIFICATION/CATEGORISATION SYSTEMS IN AGENCY MEMBER COUNTRIES

Global Economic Trends in the Coming Decades 簡錦漢. Kamhon Kan 中研院經濟所. Academia Sinica /18

Impact of Japan s ODA Loan on Asian Economic Developments

UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Newsletter, December 2011

Determinants of the Trade Balance in Industrialized Countries

2015 (received) 2016 (received) 2017 (received) Local Local Local Local currency. currency. currency (millions) (millions)

A Long Term Approach To Bilateral Aid: The Case of Germany

Brexit. Alan V. Deardorff University of Michigan. For presentation at Adult Learning Institute April 11,

EuCham Charts. October Youth unemployment rates in Europe. Rank Country Unemployment rate (%)

Spot on! Identifying and tracking skill needs

Transcription:

April 2017 aid spending by Development Assistance Committee (DAC) donors in 2016 factsheet

In this factsheet we provide an overview of key trends in official development assistance (ODA) emerging from the provisional 2017 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) data release. Key findings Total net ODA from DAC donors in 2016 was US$142.62 billion (US$143.33 billion in constant 2015 prices), up 8.9% on 2015 figures. 1 Both total ODA and ODA net of refugee-hosting costs increased. Total ODA net of refugee-hosting costs reached US$127.21 billion in 2016 (US$127.89 billion in constant 2015 prices), an increase of 7.1% from 2015. The proportion of total ODA reported by DAC donors for refugee-hosting costs increased by 27.5%, reaching US$15.41 billion (US$15.44 billion in constant 2015 prices). The majority of donors saw an increase in their reported ODA from 2015 to 2016, some quite significantly; however, some key donors saw a decrease. Six countries met the 0.7% gross national income (GNI) target. Bilateral aid to least developed countries (LDCs) has fallen slightly on last year, from just over US$25 billion to US$22.4 billion (US$22.5 billion in constant 2015 prices). 2 In terms of total volumes, the United States (US) continues to be the largest bilateral provider, with US33.59 billion (US$33.16 billion in constant 2015 prices). Germany is the second largest provider with ODA increasing to US$24.67 billion (US$24.41 billion in constant 2015 prices), followed by the United Kingdom (UK) with US$18.01 billion (US$20.01 billion in constant 2015 prices), Japan with US$10.37 billion (US$9.29 billion in constant 2015 prices) and France with US$9.50 billion (US$9.46 billion in constant 2015 prices). 3 In 2016 total gross ODA loans and equity investments are slightly down against grants compared with 2015. In 2015, US$17.94 billion of ODA was given in the form of loans. This fell 8.9% in 2016 to US$17.23 billion (US$16.35 billion in constant 2015 prices). 4 In 2016 ODA to multilateral organisations from DAC donors stood at US$40.63 billion (US$40.99 billion in constant 2015 prices), a 9.8% increase on levels in 2015. Bilateral net ODA to Africa from DAC donors stood at US$26.74 billion in 2016 (US$26.93 billion in constant 2015 prices); this was a 0.5% fall from the previous year. Sub-Saharan Africa made up 88.7% of the 2016 total to Africa. aid spending by DAC donors in 2016 / devinit.org 1

The US, Germany and the UK provided the most net ODA in 2016 Net ODA in 2016 by DAC donor, US$ billions, current prices United States Germany United Kingdom Japan France Netherlands Sweden Italy Norway Spain Canada Switzerland Australia Denmark Belgium Korea Austria Finland Ireland Poland New Zealand Luxembourg Portugal Greece Czech Republic Hungary Slovak Republic Slovenia Iceland 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.4 4.1 4.0 3.6 3.0 2.4 2.3 2.0 1.6 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 10.4 9.5 18.0 24.7 33.6 0 10 20 30 40 US$ billions (current prices) Source: OECD DAC: DAC1, accessed 11 April 2017 In terms of total volumes, the United States (US) continues to be the largest bilateral provider, with US33.59 billion (US$$33.16 billion in constant 2015 prices). Germany is the second largest provider with ODA increasing to US$24.67 billion (US$24.41 billion in constant 2015 prices), followed by the UK with US$18.01 billion (US$20.01 billion in constant 2015 prices) Japan with US$10.37 billion (US$ 9.29 billion in constant 2015 prices) and France with US$9.50 billion (US$9.46 billion in constant 2015 prices). aid spending by DAC donors in 2016 / devinit.org 2

22 DAC donors saw an increase in their reported ODA in 2016 compared with 2015 Proportional changes in net ODA from 2015 to 2016 (constant 2015 prices) Spain Poland Germany Czech Republic Slovak Republic Slovenia Italy Belgium Austria Ireland Iceland Greece Portugal United Kingdom Norway Luxembourg United States France Switzerland Korea Japan Hungary New Zealand Canada Denmark Australia Netherlands Finland Sweden -50% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% Source: OECD DAC: DAC1, accessed 11 April 2017 Donors that have seen a significant increase in their ODA in 2016 compared with 2015 include Spain (192.3%), Poland (42.6%) and Germany (36.1%). Other donors that increased their ODA from last year by more than 20% include the Czech Republic (29.3%), Italy (20.2%), the Slovak Republic (26.8%) and Slovenia (25.3%). Other donors that saw smaller increases include the UK (8.4%), the US (7.0%) and France (4.6%). Seven donors saw a decrease in their reported ODA: Sweden ( 31.1%), Finland ( 18.7%), the Netherlands ( 13.1%), Australia ( 12.7%), Denmark ( 7.6%), Canada ( 4.4%) and New Zealand ( 2.5%). aid spending by DAC donors in 2016 / devinit.org 3

Six donors reported ODA exceeding 0.7% of GNI in 2016 Changes in net ODA as proportion of GNI from 2015 to 2016 0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% Norway Luxembourg Sweden Denmark Germany United Kingdom Netherlands Switzerland Belgium Finland Austria France Spain Ireland Canada Italy Australia New Zealand Iceland Japan Slovenia United States Portugal Czech Republic Korea Greece Poland Hungary Slovak Republic 0.7% growth from 2015 reduction from 2015 Source: OECD DAC: DAC1, accessed 11 April 2017 Six countries, Norway (1.11%), Luxembourg (1.00%), Sweden (0.94%), Denmark (0.75%), the UK (0.7%) and Germany (0.7%), met the UN target to keep ODA at or above 0.7% of GNI. Germany joined the list of donors meeting the UN target for the first time this year. The UK, the other G7 member of this group, has reported 0.7% since 2013. The Netherlands surpassed the 0.7% target in 2015 reaching 0.75%, but this year it dropped back to 0.65%. aid spending by DAC donors in 2016 / devinit.org 4

Headline figures for 2016 preliminary ODA data by DAC country donor Net ODA, US$ millions Net ODA as % of GNI Current Constant 2015 prices 2016 2016 2015 change ($) change (%) 2015 2016 Australia 3025 3,050 3,494 444 12.70% 0.29% 0.25% Austria 1583 1,566 1,324 243 18.33% 0.35% 0.41% Belgium 2306 2,277 1,904 373 19.60% 0.42% 0.49% Canada 3962 4,089 4,277 189 4.41% 0.28% 0.26% Czech Republic 261 257 199 58 29.27% 0.12% 0.14% Denmark 2372 2,370 2,566 195 7.61% 0.85% 0.75% Finland 1057 1,047 1,288 241 18.68% 0.55% 0.44% France 9501 9,457 9,039 418 4.63% 0.37% 0.38% Germany 24670 24,408 17,940 6,468 36.05% 0.52% 0.70% Greece 264 265 239 26 10.83% 0.12% 0.14% Hungary 155 156 156 1 0.54% 0.13% 0.13% Iceland 50 44 40 5 11.55% 0.24% 0.25% Ireland 802 804 718 85 11.87% 0.32% 0.33% Italy 4856 4,813 4,003 809 20.21% 0.22% 0.26% Japan 10368 9,287 9,203 84 0.91% 0.20% 0.20% Korea 1965 1,980 1,915 64 3.35% 0.14% 0.14% Luxembourg 384 391 363 28 7.66% 0.95% 1.00% Netherlands 4988 4,976 5,726 750 13.09% 0.75% 0.65% New Zealand 438 430 442 11 2.55% 0.27% 0.25% Norway 4352 4,610 4,278 332 7.77% 1.05% 1.11% Poland 603 629 441 188 42.65% 0.10% 0.13% Portugal 340 336 308 28 8.93% 0.16% 0.17% Slovak Republic 107 108 85 23 26.85% 0.10% 0.12% Slovenia 80 79 63 16 25.27% 0.15% 0.18% Spain 4096 4,082 1,397 2,685 192.27% 0.12% 0.33% Sweden 4870 4,884 7,089 2,205 31.11% 1.40% 0.94% Switzerland 3563 3,679 3,529 150 4.24% 0.51% 0.54% United Kingdom 18013 20,095 18,545 1,550 8.36% 0.70% 0.70% United States 33589 33,160 30,986 2,175 7.02% 0.17% 0.18% TOTAL DAC-29 142,619 143,329 131,555 11,773 8.95% 0.30% 0.32% Source: OECD DAC: DAC1, accessed 11 April 2017 Note: Net ODA includes multilateral ODA. aid spending by DAC donors in 2016 / devinit.org 5

US$ billions, constant 2015 prices The costs of hosting refugees reported as ODA increased, as did other forms of ODA Total net ODA and ODA net of refugee-hosting costs in donor countries, 2007 2016 160 140 120 12 15 Refugee costs 100 80 60 40 98 110 111 117 116 111 118 118 119 128 Net ODA excluding refugee costs 20 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Source: OECD DAC: DAC1, accessed 11 April 2017 Both total net ODA and ODA excluding volumes reported as refugee-hosting costs increased. ODA net of refugee-hosting costs was US$127.21 billion in 2016 (US$127.89 in constant 2015 prices), an increase of 7.1% on 2015. ODA thus increased over 2015 levels irrespective of what donors reported as costs of hosting refugees. There is no agreed methodology on how to count costs of hosting refugees. Consequently, there are substantial inconsistencies in what is and isn't included between donors and how these are measured. Costs presented by the OECD DAC, therefore, reflect what donors report as ODA rather than what donors actually spend on refugees. 5 A number of donors significantly increased the refugee costs reported in their ODA figures, including Finland (230.5%), Germany (103.8%), Norway (83.0%), Ireland (72.9%), and Italy (67.9%). The UK increased refugee costs by 59.2% and the US by 38.5%. The majority of these donors with increased refugee costs reported as ODA also saw their ODA figures rise when refugee costs are excluded. Only two countries with total aid spending by DAC donors in 2016 / devinit.org 6

reported ODA increases between 2015 and 2016 saw a decrease when refugee costs are excluded. A small number of donors decreased the volumes of refugee costs reported as ODA, notably Sweden ( 65.6%), the Netherlands ( 65.3%), Portugal ( 40.2%), Poland ( 35.1%) and Slovak Republic ( 23.1%). When refugee costs are excluded, ODA from the Netherlands grew by 2.6%; when refugee costs are included, ODA decreased by 13.1%. Similarly, when refugee costs are excluded, ODA from Sweden decreased by 13.5%; when refugee costs are included, ODA decreased by 31.1%. Korea, Luxembourg and Australia did not report any refugee costs in 2015 or 2016. aid spending by DAC donors in 2016 / devinit.org 7

US$ billions, constant 2015 prices Bilateral ODA to LDCs fell from last year, and most donors are still missing international targets Bilateral net ODA from DAC donors to LDCs, 2007 2016 (constant 2015 prices) 30 25 20 22 24 27 28 25 27 24 25 22 15 19 10 5 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Source: OECD DAC: DAC2a and ADV (ODA in 2016 - preliminary data) spreadsheet, accessed 11 April 2017 Notes: Germany did not report on ODA to LDCs in this year s preliminary figures. If we assume the same figures for Germany as 2015, the total ODA to LDCs in 2016 would be US$24.07 billion. Donors seeing a decrease in their reported bilateral ODA to LDCs include Canada, France, Japan, Norway, Sweden, the UK and the US. Donors reporting an increase in bilateral ODA to LDCs include Belgium, Denmark, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland. aid spending by DAC donors in 2016 / devinit.org 8

Only seven donors gave more than 0.15% of GNI as ODA to LDCs in 2016 Bilateral and imputed multilateral ODA to LDCs as a % of GNI by DAC donor, 2016 Luxembourg Norway Sweden United Kingdom Denmark Belgium Netherlands Ireland Switzerland Finland Canada France Iceland Australia Japan New Zealand United States Austria Italy Korea Portugal Spain Poland Hungary Slovenia Czech Republic Slovak Republic Greece Bilateral Imputed multilateral 0.00% 0.05% 0.10% 0.15% 0.20% 0.25% 0.30% 0.35% 0.40% 0.45% Source: OECD DAC: DAC2a and ADV (ODA in 2016 - preliminary data) spreadsheet, accessed 11 April 2017 Note: The grey band shown on the chart represents the established target, emerging from the 2011 Istanbul Programme of Action for LDCs, that OECD DAC donors should provide 0.15 0.20% of their gross national income (GNI) as ODA to LDCs. Imputed multilateral estimates are derived from 2016 donor disbursements by multilateral type applied to the share of multilateral expenditure (by type) towards LDCs from 2015. Germany is not shown in this chart because it did not report on ODA to LDCs in this year s preliminary figures. aid spending by DAC donors in 2016 / devinit.org 9

Total gross ODA loans and equity investments are slightly down against grants in 2016 compared with 2015 Gross bilateral lending by DAC donors, 2015 2016 Total gross loans and equity investments Loans and equity as proportion of total gross ODA (%) Constant 2015 prices 2015 2016 change ($) change (%) 2015 2016 Australia 14 0 14 100% 0% 0% Austria 8 6 3 30% 1% 0% Belgium 22 16 6 28% 1% 1% Canada 156 0 156 100% 4% 0% Czech Republic 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% Denmark 58 59 1 2% 2% 2% Finland 44 30 14 31% 3% 3% France 3459 3321 137 4% 32% 29% Germany 5449 4922 527 10% 28% 19% Greece 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% Hungary 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% Iceland 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% Ireland 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% Italy 99 71 28 28% 2% 1% Japan 7507 7037 469-6% 50% 47% Korea 642 642 0 0% 32% 31% Luxembourg 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% Netherlands 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% New Zealand 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% Norway 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% Poland 41 82 40 97% 9% 12% Portugal 72 47 25 35% 20% 12% Slovak Republic 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% Slovenia 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% Spain 31 37 6 20% 2% 1% Sweden 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% Switzerland 56 63 8 13% 2% 2% United Kingdom 284 16 269 94% 2% 0% United States 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% DAC-29 TOTAL 17943 16349-1593 -9% 13% 11% Source: OECD DAC: DAC1 and ADV (ODA in 2016 - preliminary data) spreadsheet, accessed 11 April 2017 aid spending by DAC donors in 2016 / devinit.org 10

Total gross ODA loans and equity investments are slightly down against grants in 2016 compared with 2015. In 2015 US$17.94 billion of ODA was given in the form of loans. This fell 8.9% in 2016 to US$16.35 billion. Loans and equity investments made up 11% of total ODA in 2016, compared with 13% of ODA in 2015. Most donors saw the proportions of loans and equity investments fall in 2016, with some donors reporting significant changes. For example, Australia and Canada both reported no ODA in loans/equity investments, compared with US$14 million and US$156 million, respectively, in 2015. The UK saw a 94% drop in reported loans, from US$284 million to US$16 million. Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Portugal also saw decreases in reported amounts of ODA given as loans. These countries saw loans fall as a proportion of ODA compared to grants. Spain also saw proportions fall, despite net increases in loans and equity investments (up 20% to US$37 million). Poland saw proportions of ODA delivered as loans rise, with volumes of lending increasing by 97% from 2015 to US$82 million. Denmark and Switzerland also increased their proportions of ODA lending, but by margins of less than 0.2 percentage points. Several donors, including the US and the Netherlands, report that they give no ODA in the form of loans, as in previous years. 6 aid spending by DAC donors in 2016 / devinit.org 11

US$ billions, constant 2015 prices Multilateral ODA from DAC donors increased in 2016 reaching a high of US$41 billion Total bilateral and multilateral ODA from DAC donors 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 41 37 35 31 33 35 37 38 34 29 71 81 81 86 85 81 85 86 94 102 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Multilateral ODA Bilateral net ODA Source: OECD DAC: DAC1 and ADV (ODA in 2016 - preliminary data) spreadsheet, accessed 11 April 2017 ODA to EU Institutions made up 34% of multilateral ODA from DAC donors in 2016 Breakdown of ODA by multilateral organisation type, 2016 Regional development banks 8% Other agencies 22% World Bank 22% UN agencies 14% EU institutions 34% Source: OECD DAC: ADV (ODA in 2016 - preliminary data) spreadsheet, accessed 11 April 2017 aid spending by DAC donors in 2016 / devinit.org 12

Notes 1 Headline figures shown are provided in current and constant prices, all trend analysis data is shown in constant 2015 prices to allow for comparison with previous years. Data is converted into constant 2015 prices through the application of OECD DAC US$ deflators. The deflators are used to account for inflation and exchange rate variations (between national currency and US dollar). For more information see: http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/informationnoteonthedacdeflators.htm 2 Germany did not report on ODA to LDCs in this year s preliminary figures. If we assume the same figures for Germany as 2015, then the total aid to LDCs in 2016 would stand at US$24.07 billion. 3 The ordering of the largest donors is by data in current prices; ordering in constant 2015 prices would result in Japan having a lower net ODA value that France due to the effect of national inflation and currency exchange rates. 4 For comparability purposes the percentage change from 2015 to 2016 in total gross ODA loans is calculated from data in constant 2015 prices. The significant difference between the figure for 2016 in current prices and in constant 2015 prices exchange rate can be predominantly attributed to variations between Japanese Yen and US dollar. 5 Recognising these challenges at a time where reported costs are increasing, the OECD has established a DAC Temporary Working Group on Refugees and Migration to produce guidance to improve member s practices in reporting in-donor refugee hosting costs. It draws on findings of a DAC member s survey undertaken in order to better understand current reporting practises. It is anticipated that there will be an agreement on clarified reporting terms by July 2017, and political endorsement at the DAC High Level Meeting in October 2017. 6 Data provided on grant equivalents (following the rule changes recently agreed by the DAC) have not yet been published. The above figures are therefore based on the existing loan reporting rules. We are told that the DAC hopes to have calculations for loans data using the new reporting rules later in 2017. aid spending by DAC donors in 2016 / devinit.org 13

Development Initiatives (DI) is an independent international development organisation working on the use of data to drive poverty eradication and sustainable development. Our vision is a world without poverty that invests in human security and where everyone shares the benefits of opportunity and growth. We work to ensure that decisions about the allocation of finance and resources result in an end to poverty, increase the resilience of the world s most vulnerable people, and ensure no one is left behind. Copyright 2017 Development Initiatives We encourage dissemination of our work provided a reference is included. UK OFFICE Development Initiatives North Quay House Quay Side, Temple Back Bristol, BS1 6FL, UK +44 (0) 1179 272 505 KENYA OFFICE Development Initiatives Shelter Afrique Building 4th Floor, Mamlaka Road Nairobi, Kenya PO Box 102802-00101 +254 (0) 20 272 5346 Contact Duncan Knox Analyst Duncan.knox@devinit.org To find out more about our work visit: www.devinit.org Twitter: @devinitorg Email: info@devinit.org Development Initiatives is a group headed by Development Initiatives Poverty Research Limited, a not-for-profit company established in England no. 06368740. Registered office: North Quay House, Quay Side, Temple Back, Bristol, BS1 6FL, UK. DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH AND TRAINING (DRT) Ggaba Road, Mutesasira Zone, Kansanga PO Box 22459 Kampala, Uganda +256 (0) 312 263629/30 +256 (0) 414 269495 www.drt-ug.org US OFFICE Development Initiatives 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, US