Commission staff working document - Financing for Development - Annual progress Report 2010 - Getting back on track to reach the EU 2015 target on ODA spending? accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - A twelve-point EU action plan in support of the Millennium Development Goals {COM(2010) 159} {SEC(2010) 418} {SEC(2010) 419} {SEC(2010) 421} {SEC(2010) 422}
Date: 2010-04-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: AIDS, EU financing, development plan, development policy, environmental protection, hunger, infant mortality, international cooperation, poverty, primary education, sexual discrimination

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 21.4.2010 
SEC(2010) 420 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Financing for Development - Annual progress report 2010 

Getting back on track to reach the EU 2015 target on ODA spending? 

accompanying the 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

A twelve-point EU action plan in support of the Millennium Development Goals 

{COM(2010) 159} 
{SEC(2010) 418} 
{SEC(2010) 419} 
{SEC(2010) 421} 
{SEC(2010) 422} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Financing for Development - Annual progress report 2010 
Getting back on track to reach the EU 2015 target on ODA spending? 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

3.4. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

4.4. 

4.5. 

4.6. 

4.7. 

4.8. 

4.9. 

Financing for Development: a core ingredient of the global partnership .................... 4 

The path for growing out of aid dependency – efficient tax sytems in support of 
development  ................................................................................................................ 6 

Fighting corruption, illegal capital outflows and tax evasion ...................................... 6 

The way forward .......................................................................................................... 7 

Enhancing the impact of international private flows on development- an issue for a 
"whole of the Union" approach.................................................................................... 8 

Private capital flows - a favourable business climate required .................................... 8 

Corporate social and environmental responsibility – a way to contribute to 
development objectives................................................................................................ 9 

Social and environmental considerations in public procurement rules...................... 10 

EU remittances: resilient to the global economic crisis? ........................................... 10 

ODA flows to developing countries - a crucial source of financing.......................... 14 

EU ODA decreased in 2009....................................................................................... 14 

Set to miss the agreed intermediate ODA targets of 2010 ......................................... 15 

Lessons learnt - the impact of EU ODA targets on policy decisions in  
EU Member States ..................................................................................................... 17 

Enabling factors for aid increases in Member States:................................................ 17 

How to demonstrate the EU's resolve to reach the 0.7% ODA/ GNI  
target by 2015?........................................................................................................... 18 

International burden-sharing ...................................................................................... 20 

EU not acting in line with its promise on ODA to Africa.......................................... 22 

ODA to Least Developed Countries – EU target - still within reach......................... 24 

Reinforced reporting on ODA flows.......................................................................... 25 

4.10.  A credible pathway for the future .............................................................................. 25 

5. 

Innovative sources and mechanisms of financing: a new debate............................... 26 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
5.1. 

5.2. 

6. 

6.1. 

EU Member States lead most initiatives on innovative sources of finance ............... 27 

Broadening existing mechanisms and introducing  new ones ................................... 29 

Debt sustainability and debt management capacity – major concerns....................... 29 

Implementing debt relief and preserving debt sustainability: all donors must 
participate................................................................................................................... 30 

6.2. 

Next steps ................................................................................................................... 31 

7. 

7.1. 

7.2. 

7.3. 

7.4. 

8. 

8.1. 

8.2. 

8.3. 

International governance reforms – strengthening the voice and representation of 
developing countries .................................................................................................. 32 

Governance reform of the Bretton Woods institutions .............................................. 32 

Improved efficiency and instruments of the International Financial Institutions ...... 33 

United Nations governance reform ............................................................................ 34 

The way forward ........................................................................................................ 34 

Successive crises and climate change - the most important global challenges.......... 35 

Impact of the financial and economic crisis on developing countries ....................... 35 

Global public goods and global challenges................................................................ 35 

Climate Change financing - a major issue in the international negotiations.............. 36 

Annex 1: UN Convention against Corruption (Merida Convention) - State of signature  
and ratification by the EU ........................................................................................................ 43 

Annex 2: EU ODA levels 2006-2009, estimates and gaps for 2010........................................ 44 

Annex 3: ODA indicators – preparedness to meet the individual commitments ..................... 46 

Annex 4: The Commission methodology applied for analysing ODA indicators/ forecasts 
provided by EU Member States: .............................................................................................. 48 

Annex 5: ODA trajectories of all EU Member States 1995 - 2015.......................................... 50 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
1. 

FINANCING  FOR  DEVELOPMENT:  A  CORE 
PARTNERSHIP 

INGREDIENT  OF  THE  GLOBAL 

This monitoring and progress report on financing for development forms part of the 
overall 2010 spring 'development package'1, which proposes EU actions for speeding 
up progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), to contribute to 
the  forthcoming  UN  MDG  Review  High  Level  Plenary  Meeting  (HLPM)  in 
September 20102. 

This  is the eighth of the Commission's annual monitoring reports, which assess 
where  the  EU  and  its  Member  States  stand  in  relation  to  their  commitments  on 
financing  for  development  (FfD).  Based  on  the  Council's  mandate  to  the 
Commission  after  the  International  Conference  on  Financing  for  Development  in 
2002,  progress  reports  ("Monterrey  reports")  have  been  presented  to  the  Council 
every spring since 20033. The Council extended the monitoring mandate to cover aid 
effectiveness and aid for trade4, for which separate Staff Working Papers have been 
prepared5. The report follows the structure of the Doha Declaration on Financing for 
Development6  and  builds  on  the  input  provided  by  the  EU  Member  States  and 
Commission  departments  in  the  annual  'Monterrey  questionnaire',  which  covers  all 
EU commitments on FfD issues. EU action to support developing countries in coping 
with the crisis is tackled as a crosscutting issue in this document. 

Financing for development aims to create a favourable environment for development 
by  addressing  the  responsibilities  of  both  the  developing  countries  and  the  global 
community.  At  the  UN  Doha  follow-up  Conference on Financing for  Development 
in  2008,  the  global  community  reiterated  that  mobilising  financial  resources  for 
development  and  the  effective  use  of  all  those  resources  are  central  to  the  global 
partnership  for  sustainable  development.  It  was  also  recognised  that  each  country 
has  primary  responsibility  for  its  own  development  and  that  national  policies, 
domestic resources and national development strategies are essential. 

The EU and other donors need to demonstrate that they are ready to live up to their 
commitments, to keep their part of the agreement on what is needed to achieve the 
MDGs.  This  report  shows  that  despite  the  impact  of  the  crisis  on  Member  States' 
economies,  in  2009  EU  Official  Development  Assistance  (ODA)  continued  to 
increase  as  a  share  of  GNI,  reaching  0.42%,  but  at  the  same  time  the  total  ODA 

1 

2 
3 
4 

5 
6 

COM(2010)  159  'A  twelve  point  action  plan  to  support  the  Millennium  Development  Goals'; 
COM(2010) xxx 'Tax and Development - Cooperating with Developing Countries on Promoting Good 
Governance in Tax Matters' and SEC(2010) xxx on the same subject; SEC(2010) 418 'Progress made on 
the  Millennium  Development  Goals  and  key  challenges  for  the  road  ahead';  SEC(2010)  422  'Aid 
Effectiveness  Progress  Report  2010");  SEC(2010)  419  "Aid  for  Trade  Monitoring  Report  2010'; 
SEC(2010) 421 'Policy Coherence for Development Work Programme 2010-2013; all published on 21 
April 2010. 
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/  
Council Conclusions of 21 May 2003 and 24 May 2005. 
Council Conclusions of 15 May 2007 on the European Conduct of Division of Labour in development 
policy, Council Conclusions of 29 October 2007 on the EU Aid for Trade Strategy.  
See footnote 1. 
Doha Declaration, available at: http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/doha/   

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
volume decreased to EUR49 billion7. Nonetheless the EU remains the world's most 
generous  donor  both  in  absolute  aid  volumes  (accounting  for  about  56%  of  DAC 
ODA) and in terms of relative effort (ODA as a share of GNI). 

This  report  also  reveals  that  the  EU  is  far  from  the  collective  EU  target  level  of 
0.56%  of  GNI  that  was  promised  for  2010.  With  fair  EU  internal  burden-sharing, 
however, the target of 0.7% of GNI by 2015 is still attainable. Other donors have yet 
to  demonstrate  similar  efforts.  According  to  OECD  estimates  for  20108  the  DAC 
average  ODA  spending  will  be  0.31%  of  GNI,  with  the  US  and  Japan  expected  to 
stand  at  only  0.20%  and  0.18%  respectively,  and  Canada  at  0.30%.  Based  on  the 
forecasts  of  the  27  EU  Member  States,  the  Commission  estimates  that  the  EU  will 
provide in 2010 collectively 0.45-46% of its income as ODA.  

The  Monterrey  Consensus  and  the  Doha  Declaration  recognise  the  importance  of 
other  financial  flows  for  development  besides  ODA.  To  achieve  sustainable 
progress  towards  the  MDGs  the  financing  discussion  should  look  holistically  at 
increasing developing countries' overall revenue base for development. The EU can 
effectively  support  increasing  partners'  domestic  resources  for  development.  The 
Communication  "Tax  and  Development  -  Cooperating  with  Developing 
Countries on Promoting Good Governance in Tax Matters"9 proposes measures 
for  improving  domestic  tax  revenue  and  the  international  environment.  This  report 
demonstrates that innovative sources and mechanisms of financing can also be used 
to raise new funds for development. 

Global  challenges  are  multiplying,  and  the  growing  importance  of  issues  such  as 
climate  change,  international  peace  and  security  and  migratory  flows  in  relation  to 
development is increasingly recognised. The report underlines that these challenges 
need to be dealt with in a coherent and mutually supportive manner, taking into 
account the development dimension. 

The UN has a central role in global FfD discussions, and the EU has been one of the 
driving forces behind this. The Doha Conference of late 2008 decided to strengthen 
the FfD follow-up process at the UN. The UN Conference on the World Financial 
and  Economic  Crisis  and  its  Impact  on  Development  of  June  2009  therefore 
created  separate  follow-up  processes  relating  to  the  crisis10.  The  July  2009  UN 
ECOSOC  meeting  suggested  several  concrete  measures  to  the  General  Assembly 
(UNGA)  to  strengthen  the  FfD  process,  including  greater  interaction  with  the 
international financial and trade organisations, changing the timing of the ECOSOC 
(Economic and Social Council) spring meeting to better link with World Bank/ IMF 
spring meetings and devoting more time for FfD discussions. 

The  changes  made  in  the  UN  FfD  follow-up process have not yet really been tried 
and  tested.  But  there  is  potential  for  overlap  with  the  follow-up  actions  to  the 
economic crisis, including the ad-hoc UNGA Open-Ended Working Group on the 
follow-up  to  the  outcome  of  the  UN  Conference  on  the  economic  crisis  and  its 

The 2008 outcome was 0.40% of GNI and EUR 50 billion in current prices. 
OECD DAC press release 14 April 2010: 

7 
8 
http://www.oecd.org/document/0,3343,en_2649_34487_44981579_1_1_1_1,00.html. 
9 
10 

See footnote 1. 
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/63/303&Lang=E 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
impact on development (OEWG) and the proposed UN 'ad hoc panel of experts 
on the world economic and financial crisis and its impact on development', both 
resulting from the UN Crisis Conference and dealing partly with the same issues as 
the FfD process. The EU should use its influence in the UN to seek the best added 
value from both processes, while recognising the temporary nature of the economic 
crisis  follow-up  in  comparison  to  the  established  and  continuing  FfD  process.  It  is 
clear  that  the  EU's  performance  on  the  FfD  agenda  and  commitments  will  come 
under increasing and more regular scrutiny at global level in the UN, notably at the 
UN 2010 High-Level Plenary Event on the MDGs. 

2. 

THE  PATH  FOR  GROWING  OUT  OF  AID  DEPENDENCY  –  EFFICIENT  TAX  SYTEMS  IN 
SUPPORT OF DEVELOPMENT 

It  is  widely  recognised  that  the  sustainable  provision  of  public  services  needed  to 
achieve and maintain the MDGs requires an increase in stable domestic revenue in 
the developing countries. Building on the EU position for the Doha Conference of 
late  2008,  the  Doha  Declaration  and  the  G-20  London  Summit  conclusions,  the 
communication "Tax and Development - Cooperating with Developing Countries 
on  Promoting  Good  Governance  in  Tax  Matters"  aims  to  enhance  the  link 
between  tax  and  development  policies.  It  suggests  how  the  EU  could  better  assist 
developing  countries  in  building  efficient,  fair  and  sustainable  tax  systems  and 
administrations, with a view to enhancing domestic resource mobilisation. This will 
contribute to further promoting EU principles of good governance in tax matters. 

Sound, transparent and reliable customs systems are equally important to increasing 
domestic revenues, reducing customs evasion and smuggling and facilitating access 
to international markets. 

2.1. 

Fighting corruption, illegal capital outflows and tax evasion 

The  international  community  has  set  up  conventions  and  initiatives  to  effectively 
address the issues of corruption, tax evasion and illegal financial flows on a global 
scale. According to the Member States' replies to the Monterrey questionnaire there 
was little change in EU Member States support for these Conventions in 2009. 

The UN (Merida) Convention against Corruption requires signatory countries to 
implement  measures  against  corruption,  notably  by  adapting  their  legislation 
regarding  corruption  prevention,  criminalisation  of  corrupt  acts,  international 
cooperation and asset recovery. The European Community ratified the Convention in 
November 2008 Cyprus, Estonia and Italy followed by the beginning of 2010. Of the 
27 EU Member States, the Czech Republic, Germany and Ireland lag behind and 
have yet to ratify the Convention (see Annex 1). 

The  OECD  Convention  on  Combating  Bribery  of  Foreign  Officials  in 
International  Business  Transactions  has  been  adopted  and  implemented  by  22 
Member States. So far, remainder are not members of the OECD Working Group on 
Bribery in International Business Transactions (Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, 
and Romania). 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
Further  progress  is  required  in  the  EU  Member  States  to  implement  the  Council 
Framework Decision11 on combating corruption in the private sector. 

The  Stolen  Assets  Recovery  Initiative  (StAR)  aims  to  enhance  international 
cooperation on repatriating stolen assets. While the fight against corruption has often 
focused on corruption issues in developing countries, StAR looks at the other side of 
the  problem:  the  financial  centres  where  the  money  is  placed  are  often  located  in 
developed  countries  and  bribes  sometimes  originate  from  multinational  companies 
based in the industrialised world. Despite the importance of the problem, only eight 
member  states12  have  reported  that  they  support  the  initiative.  Moreover,  several 
Council  Framework  Decisions  oblige  the  Member  States  to  ensure  a  common  EU 
approach to confiscation and call on all Member States to designate Asset Recovery 
Offices to facilitate the tracking of proceeds of crime, including assets stolen through 
corruption. So far 18 Member States have designated such offices. 

The  Extractive  Industries  Transparency  Initiative  (EITI)  is  a  coalition  of 
governments, companies, civil society, investors and international organisations that 
promotes  transparency  and  accountability  in  the  extractive  industries,  by 
supporting  verification  and  full  publication  of  company  payments  and 
government  revenues  from  oil,  gas  and  mining.  Ten  Member  States  and  the 
European  Commission  support  the  initiative13  through  the  World  Bank's  Multi-
Donor  Trust  Fund,  the  EITI  International  Secretariat,  and  through  bilateral  projects 
supporting  partner  countries  in  the  implementation  of  the  EITI.  Denmark  and 
Portugal are considering their participation in the EITI. Several EU Member States, 
in reply to the Monterrey questionnaire, provided specific suggestions for a more 
active  Commission  role  in  the  EITI,  e.g.  more  active  participation  inboard 
meetings, greater promotion of the EITI as part of the Raw Materials initiative and 
mainstreaming the EITI in EU delegations' policy dialogue with resource-rich partner 
countries. 

The  EU  Action  Plan  on  Forest  Law  Enforcement  Governance  and  Trade 
(FLEGT)  tackles  the  problems  of  illegal  logging  and  trade  in  illegally  harvested 
timber  (which  lead  to  revenue  losses  for  developing  country  governments),  and 
offers support for wood-producing countries. 

2.2. 

The way forward 

Further to its communication "Tax and Development – Cooperating with Developing 
Countries  on  Promoting  Good  Governance  in  Tax  Matters"  the  Commission 
recommends that Member States: 

•  speed  up  ratification  of  the  United  Nations  (Merida)  Convention  against 

Corruption if they have not yet ratified it; 

•  expand  their  support  to  the  Stolen  Assets  Recovery  Initiative  and  other  relevant 
initiatives  to  fight  bribery  and  corruption  effectively  and  help  developing 
countries to recover the proceeds  of such practices; 

11 
12 
13 

Council Framework Decision 2005/568/JHA 
France, Greece,  Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK. 
Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Enhance  their  support  for  the  Extractive  Industries  Transparency  Initiative  and 

actively participate in discussions to further extend its field of application.  

3. 

ENHANCING  THE  IMPACT  OF  INTERNATIONAL  PRIVATE  FLOWS  ON  DEVELOPMENT- 
AN ISSUE FOR A 'WHOLE OF THE UNION' APPROACH 

When endorsing the 'whole of the Union' approach in 2009, the Council emphasised 
the  importance  of  mobilising  all  possible  sources  of  financing  for  development, 
including  export  credits,  investment  guarantees  and  technology  transfers,  as 
instruments to leverage assistance aimed at stimulating inclusive growth, investment, 
trade and job creation14. The quality of information on this type of donor financing is 
important to ensure global accountability and to better grasp the development impact 
of different financial sources and flows. This requires a comprehensive overview of 
as many development-relevant financial flows as possible and from as many donors 
as possible. 

Some  of  these  non-ODA  flows  are,  in  principle,  tracked  under  the  established 
OECD/DAC  reporting  system,  which  needs  to  be  developed  further.  Not  all  EU 
Member States have a reliable system in place yet to monitor such flows. Improving 
data  on  the  different  flows  is,  however,  essential  to  enable  better  use  of  ODA  to 
leverage more, and complementary, flows for development. 

3.1. 

Private capital flows - a favourable business climate required 

The  economies  of  developing  countries  suffer  from  a  general  shortage  of  capital, 
especially foreign direct investment (FDI)15, which is worsened in the low income 
countries  by  the  prevalence  of  public  capital.  To  increase  foreign  investment  and 
prevent  domestic  private  capital  flight,  many  developing  countries  are  working  to 
provide  companies  with  transparent  and  simple  regulatory  and  fiscal  frameworks, 
expanded  access  to  finance,  business  development  services,  technology  and 
innovation,  in  short  creating  a  favourable  business  climate.  This  will  help  create  a 
solid productive base for generating incomes for people and budget revenues for the 
state.  In  their  replies  to  the  Monterrey  questionnaire,  the  Member  States  concurred 
on the importance of private capital flows for development. The majority of Member 
States  reported  that  they  support  private  flows  through  investment  guarantees, 
dedicated  funds,  preferential  loans  and  support  for  joint  ventures  in  developing 
countries in sectors that have high returns in terms of development16. Some Member 
States also have special programmes to promote microfinance. Dedicated institutions 
in  the  Member  States  are  in  charge  of  specific  tools  and  projects  such  as  national 
development agencies and development finance institutions. Several Member States 

14 

15 

16 

Council  Conclusions  of  18  May  2009  on  Supporting  developing  countries  in  coping  with  the  crisis, 
point 15. 
World  foreign  direct  investment  flows  fell  moderately  in  2008  following  a  five-year  period  of 
uninterrupted  growth,  in  large  part  as  a  result  of  the  global  economic  and  financial  crisis.  While 
developed economies were initially affected most, the decline has now spread to developing countries, 
with  inward  investment  in  most  countries  falling  in 2009 too.  The  decline poses  challenges  for  many 
developing countries, as FDI has become their largest source of external financing. In particular, FDI 
inflows in Africa appear to have fallen by about 10% in 2008.  
Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, 
the Netherlands, Slovenia, and Spain.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
also contribute to initiatives led by the international financial institutions that provide 
capital,  guarantees,  various  forms  of  finance  and  risk  management  tools  to  the 
private sector. 

On  average  between  2005  and  2008,  Member  States  committed  around  three  times  more 
than  the  European Commission  in  terms  of  total  ODA17  for  private  investment:  respectively  
EUR 1.62 billion and  EUR 0.55 billion a year. 

For  ACP  countries,  the  support  of  the  European  Commission  including  the  Investment 
Facility reached EUR 131 million p.a., whereas the Member States together provided EUR 
249 million p.a. 

3.2. 

Corporate  social  and  environmental  responsibility  –  a  way  to  contribute  to 
development objectives 

Corporate  social  responsibility  (CSR18)  has  become  an  increasingly  important 
concept and is part of the debate about globalisation, climate change, competitiveness 
and  sustainability.  CSR  practices  are  not  a  substitute  for  public  policy  but  can 
contribute to a number of public policy objectives in developing countries, especially 
in relation to labour markets, labour standards, skills development, more rational use 
of natural resources and overall poverty reduction. 

In  Europe,  the  promotion  of  CSR  reflects  the  need  to  defend  common  values  and 
increase the sense of solidarity and cohesion. To promote awareness and the adoption 
of CSR principles by companies operating in developing countries, the Commission 
is supporting several projects totalling approximately EUR 50 million in the period 
2004 - 2010. 

The  vast  majority  of  Member  States  undertake  national  action  to  promote  CSR 
principles and nine of them report19 that they advocate the adoption of internationally 
agreed principles and standards on corporate social and environmental responsibility 
by European companies. Most of them strongly support multilateral initiatives such 
as: 

•  The  OECD  Guidelines 

for  Multinational  Enterprises,  which 

set 

recommendations for good corporate behaviour20; 

•  The  UN  Global  Compact,  a  voluntary  corporate  citizenship  initiative  for 
companies  committed  to  supporting  and  enacting  a  set  of  10  core  values  in  the 
areas of human rights, labour, the environment and combating corruption21; 

•  The 

International  Labour  Organisation 

(ILO)  Conventions 

and 

recommendations on labour standards22. 

17 

18 

19 
20 
21 

For  statistical  information  on  support  for  private  investment,  the  OECD  Creditor  Reporting  System 
database uses the following codes: Banking and Financial System (24000), Business and Other Services 
(25000), Industry (32100), Tourism (33200). 
Voluntary inclusion of social and environmental concerns, beyond the minimum legal requirements, in 
companies' business operations to address societal needs.  
Austria, Belgium Finland, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Slovenia, Sweden and the UK. 
http://www.oecd.org/department/0,3355,en_2649_34889_1_1_1_1_1,00.html 
http://www.unglobalcompact.org/ 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
There  is  a  variety  of  other  activities  that  a  few  Member  States  support.  These 
include  development  partnerships  with  the  private  sector  promoting  international 
standards  such  as  the  International  Finance  Corporation  (IFC)  "Performance 
Standards  on  Environment  and  Social  Sustainability"  and  “Towards  Sustainable 
Development  –  European  Development  Finance  Institution  (EDFI)  Principles  for 
Responsible  Financing",  public  information  and  awareness  raising,  international 
initiatives  like  Fair  Trade,  the  UN  Special  Representative  for  Business  and  Human 
Rights, the Third International Finance Conference 23 and company initiatives. 

3.3. 

Social and environmental considerations in public procurement rules 

The  EU  public  procurement  Directives24  allow  contracting  authorities  to  take  into 
account  environmental  and  social  considerations  at  all  stages  of  the  procurement 
procedure.  The  prerequisite  is  that  these  considerations  are  linked  to  the  subject 
matter of the contract or to the execution of the contract, if they are addressed in the 
contract  performance  clauses,  and  comply  with  the  fundamental  principles  of  the 
Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  EU  (transparency,  non-discrimination)  and  with 
relevant EU law. 

EU Member States may introduce more specific rules in their national legislation, in 
order to further promote the inclusion of social and environmental considerations in 
public  procurement,  provided  such  national  rules  are  in  line  with  the  public 
procurement Directives and all relevant EU law. Most Member States did not report 
substantial  reforms  of  their  rules  in  2009.  Germany  and  the  Netherlands  reported 
that  they  had  introduced  a  social  clause  into  their  national  procurement  rules, 
while Sweden and Spain (the latter specifically for ODA financing) are working to 
strengthen social and environmental considerations in national procurement laws. 

3.4. 

EU remittances: resilient to the global economic crisis? 

Remittances sent by migrants to their countries of origin are essential to improving 
the livelihoods of millions of people and often more significant in volume than ODA. 
The  economic  downturn  has  strongly  affected  remittance  transfers.  The  impact 
of  the  economic  crisis  on  migration  employment,  migrants  stocks  and  flows  and 
irregular migration is not easy to assess, but it is generally recognised that migrants 
are  often  more  affected  by  the  economic  downturn  either  because  they  work  in 
sectors  that  are  more  affected  by  the  crisis,  such  as  tourism  or  construction,  or 
because  of  their  particular  vulnerability25.  In  the  Monterrey  survey  some  Member 
States observed a slight fall in both the number of new work permit applications and 
the number of new work permits awarded in 2009, but this phenomenon very much 
depends  on  the  system  in  place  in  each  Member  State.  Some  Member  States  also 
observed a small fall of the estimated number of migrants irregularly entering the EU 

22 
23 
24 

25 

http://www.ilo.org/global/What_we_do/InternationalLabourStandards/lang--en/index.htm 
http://ifc3.org. 
Directive 2004/17/EC of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating 
in  the  water,  energy,  transport  and  postal  services  sectors  (OJ  L  134,  30.4.2004)  and  Directive 
2004/18/EC  of  31  March  2004  on  the  coordination  of  procedures  for  the  award  of  public  works 
contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ L 134, 30.4.2004). 
Source  –  International  Organisation  for  Migration  (IOM)  Policy  Brief.  The  impact  of  the  global 
financial crisis on migration. J January 2009 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
territory26.  However,  the  economic  downturn  can  only  be  considered  as  one  of  the 
factors possibly influencing the number of new work permits.  

Remittance flows grew rapidly in 2007 (up to EUR 208 billion) and reached EUR 231 billion 
in 2008. Remittance flows started to decrease from the last quarter of 2008; for 2009 global 
remittances  to  developing  countries  are  expected  to  have  decreased  to  EUR  228  billion, 
because  of  a  deterioration  in  migrant-receiving  countries'  economic  and  employment 
situation27. Countries and regions differ in their exposure to the crisis through remittance 
effects.  For  example,  three  quarters  of  remittances  to  Sub-Saharan  Africa  come  from  the 
United States and Europe, which have been badly affected by the downturn; the long-term 
impact on remittances is uncertain28. Remittance flows to North Africa are expected to have 
declined by 7.2 percent and to Sub-Saharan Africa by 2.9 percent in 2009, and to return to 
positive growth in 2010 and 2011, according to the World Bank. 

In the EU, outflows of workers remittances had greatly increased from beginning of 2004 
reaching  a  peak  in  the  last  quarter  of  2007.  While  remaining  almost  stable  in  2008  EU 
outflows are supposed to have markedly fallen in 2009 and to resume their growth in 2011. 
The drop in the remittances outflows was particularly severe in Spain29. 

Continuing progress in meeting EU commitments on remittances 

In  recent  years  the  importance  of  remittances  has  been  recognised  and  several 
international initiatives propose concrete measures to make them more development-
friendly. 

Some of the main initiatives are: guidelines for the compilation of data on remittances by the 
'Luxembourg Group30', the 'General Principles for International Remittances Services' 
and the recent G8 initiative of a 'Global Remittances Working Group' coordinated by the 
World  Bank.  In  July  2009,  at  the  L´Aquila  summit,  the  G8  Heads  of  States  endorsed  the 
'5x5' objective and made a pledge 'to achieve in particular the objective of a reduction of the 
global  average  costs  of  transferring  remittances  from  the  present  10%  to  5%  in  five  years 
through enhanced information, transparency, competition and cooperation with partners'. 

It is encouraging to see that this objective has been reaffirmed beyond the EU, and 
the  drivers  of  remittance  costs  are  generally  recognised.  Regarding  the  three  main 
areas  of  EU  commitments  on  remittances31  the  Member  States'  replies  to  the 
Monterrey survey can be summarised as follows: 

(1) Improving data on remittances 

26 
27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

Source – Frontex (http://www.frontex.europa.eu/) estimates. 
Ratha, D., S. Mohapatra, and A. Silwal (November 3, 2009), Migration and Remittances Trends 2009: 
A  better-than-expected outcome  so  far,  but  significant  risks  ahead,  Migration  and  Remittances  Team, 
Development Prospects Group, World Bank, Migration and Development Brief 11. 
The  UNDP  Human  Development  Report  2009.  Overcoming  barriers:  Human  mobility  and 
development. 
Eurostat, tables with Quarterly Balance of Payments data per country:  
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/balance_of_payments/data/database. 
The Luxembourg Group is an informal IMF working group for collecting and compiling remittance 
data: http://www.imf.org/external/np/sta/bop/2006/luxgrp/060106.htm. 
Council  Conclusions  of  11.11.2008  (EU  position  for  Doha  FfD  Conference),  point  27,  Council 
Conclusions  of  18.05.2009  (Support  to  Developing  countries  in  Coping  with  the  Crisis),  point  11, 
Council Conclusions of 18.11.2009 (PCD), points 5-13. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  Member  States  are  increasingly  adopting  the  definition  of  remittances  and  the 
recommendations regarding the quality and coverage of data on remittances made 
by the Luxembourg Group: 

–  data on remittances provided in Member States' balance of payments now tends to 

cover flows of remittances both via banks and via Money Transfer Operators 

–  household  surveys  and  targeted  studies  are  still  not  widely  used  in  the  Member 

States, but they are the only way to obtain better estimates of informal flows 

–  The  availability  of  consolidated  data  at  European  level  has  improved,  as  in 
February  2010  Eurostat  started  to  publish  annual  data  on  remittance  flows 
between  each  EU  Member  State  and  non-EU  countries.  The  new  tables  cover 
2004-2008  and  will  be  updated  annually.  In  January  2010  Eurostat  began  to 
publish quarterly data on remittances, with less geographical detail. 

(2) Favouring cheaper, faster and more secure remittances flows 

Within  the  EU,  substantial  progress  has  been  achieved  with  the  adoption  of  the  Payment  Services 
Directive  (PSD)32,  which  lays  the  legal  foundation  for  an  EU-wide  single  market  for  payments  and 
facilitates access of migrants to formal remittance services. 'Payment institutions', i.e. money transfer 
operators  or  telecom  providers  for  their  post-paid  activities,  now  have  to  make  charges  and  other 
conditions (such as the transfer time and the charge to the recipient) clear to customers. In line with 
the  rationale  behind  Special  Recommendation  VI  of  the  Financial  Action  Task  Force  on  Money 
Laundering,  the  Directive  provides  a  mechanism  whereby  operators  unable  to  meet  all  the 
requirements to become "payment institutions" are not forced into the black economy but may provide 
remittance  services,  once  their  identity  has  been  registered.  This,  however,  requires  proper 
enforcement by the Member States competent authorities. The PSD has been implemented in most of 
the Member States of the EU/EEA. 

The  new  E-Money  Directive  (EMD)  2009/110/EC,  adopted  in  October  200933,  authorises  e-money 
institutions (such as issuers of pre-paid cards, on-line or telecom providers for their pre-paid activities), 
as  from  30  April  2011,  to  carry  out  other  business'  activities,  including  payment  services  such  as 
money  remittance.  This  will  allow  cross-overs  of  new  payment  methods  between  them  (e.g.  on-line 
payment  accounts  with  mobile  payments:  PayPal  or  Google)  and  with  traditional  payment  methods 
used to send money (e.g. Western Union with telecom providers or with prepaid cards issuers). 

The PSD and the new EMD apply only to payments inside the EU/EEA and do not cover remittances 
between the EU/EEA and non-EU countries. Extending these rules to extra-EU transfers would help 
lower remittance costs. 

•  Fourteen Member States are already applying all or part of the requirements to 
some  extra-EU  transfers  (one-leg  transactions)  carried  out  in  currencies  other 
than those of the Member States. It is also positive that Money Transfer Operators 
with global reach (such as Western Union or Money Gram) and telecom providers 
(such  as  Vodafone  or  Telefónica)  are  envisaging  applying  the  principles 
voluntarily. 

•  To improve financial literacy and access to financial services, Member States 
inform  migrants  about  financial  products  suited  to  their  needs  and  also  work 

32 
33 

2007/64/EC (OJ L 319). 
Directive 2009/110/EC  of  16  September  2009 on  the  taking up, pursuit  and prudential  supervision  of 
the business of electronic money institutions (OJ L 267, 10.10.2009). 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
through dialogue with the private sector, for instance in the UK. Member States 
continue to promote increased transparency by setting up websites34 comparing 
the  prices  and  conditions  offered  by  the  different  money  transfer  providers.  In 
addition,  the  Netherlands,  for  instance,  evaluated  its  initiative's  impact  on  the 
cost of remittances; the UK prepared a leaflet explaining what information has to 
be given to the sender of money, what needs to be checked to make sure that the 
money  reaches  the  recipient  safely  and  what  rights  the  sender  has  if  things  go 
wrong35. 

As most migrants have access to financial services similar to that of the rest of the 
population, the cost of remittances mainly depends on access to financial services in 
non-EU countries. So some Member States and the Commission run programmes in 
partner  countries  aimed  at  developing  the  financial  sector  (e.g.  microfinance,  and 
technical assistance with financial sector regulation and supervision) and improving 
financial  literacy,  to  familiarise  households  receiving  remittances  with  banking 
services36.  If  some  of  the  remittances  are  saved,  banks  can  build  up  their  role  as 
intermediaries, turning savings into productive investment with a positive impact on 
development. 

(3) Enhancing the development impact of remittances from the EU 

A number of targeted initiatives have been set up to support developing countries in 
establishing  a  policy  framework  more  conducive  to  remittances,  such  as  the 
Commission's support for the African Remittances Institute37 and the contributions 
of  a  number  of  Member  States  and  the  Commission  to  the  multi-donor  Financial 
Facility  for  Remittances  of  the  International  Fund  for  Agricultural  Development 
(IFAD), which provides grants for innovative projects that contribute to expanding 
rural access to finance. In a different vein, recent measures by some Member States 
such  as  the  decree  in  Italy  requiring  money  transfer  organisations  to  inform  local 
police within 12 hours if the person wishing to transfer funds is unable to present a 
residence  permit,  could  be  counter-productive  from  a  development  perspective, 
because  such  restrictions  will  increase  the  use  of  informal  channels  to  transfer 
remittances. 

Further actions required to facilitate remittance transfers 

The current, substantial initiatives focus on implementing current commitments and 
will  continue  to  do  so.  Special  consideration  should  be  given  to  further  facilitating 
remittance transfers: 

•  through  reinforced  support  to  new  technology-based  transfers  (cell  phones, 

Internet) via targeted projects; 

34 

35 
36 
37 

Examples  of  such  websites  are:  www.sendmoneyhome.org  (UK),  www.geldtransfair.de  (Germany), 
www.envoidargent.fr  (France),  and  www.geldnaarhuis.nl  (Netherlands).  Sweden  is  working  on  a 
similar initiative. 
www.moneymadeclear.fsa.gov.uk. 
For instance France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom. 
Under preparation under the leadership of the African Union and in collaboration with the World Bank. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  by  extending  the  requirements  of  the  Payment  Services  Directive  to  extra-EU 

transfers  when the Directive is revised in 2011; 

•  by better coordinating work on specific remittance 'corridors' in which flows from 

several Member States are of particular importance; 

•  by  ensuring  proper  enforcement  of  the  Payment  Services  Directive  in  all  EU 
Member  States,  bringing  all  operators  providing  remittance  services  within  the 
ambit of its minimum legal and regulatory requirements; 

•  by  ensuring  that  identification  requirements  under  EU  Member  States  'national 
security  or  immigration  laws  do  not  hamper  the  globally  agreed  objective  of 
reducing remittance costs. 

4. 

ODA FLOWS TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES - A CRUCIAL SOURCE OF FINANCING 

In  2002,  the  EU  Member  States  adopted  their  initial  joint  commitments  on  ODA 
increases. These commitments were further developed and broadened, and endorsed 
by the European Council in 2005 ahead of the UN World Summit that undertook the 
first review of progress on the Millennium Declaration and the MDGs. The EU and 
its Member States agreed to achieve a collective ODA level of 0.7% of GNI by 2015 
and an interim target of 0.56% by 2010, both accompanied by individual targets. The 
EU Member States agreed to increase their ODA to 0.51% of their national income 
by 2010 while those Member States that had already achieved already higher levels 
(0.7% or above) promised to maintain these levels; the Member States that acceded 
to the EU in or after 2004 (EU-12) promised to strive to spend 0.17% of their GNI on 
ODA38 by 2010 and 0.33% by 2015. 

4.1. 

EU ODA decreased in 2009 

Since 2008 the financial crisis has hit EU Member States hard, triggering the deepest 
global  economic  recession  since  decades.  State-financed  rescue  packages  for  the 
affected  banking  sector,  higher  social  protection  costs  and  lower  budget  revenues 
have dramatically changed the fiscal situation of many Member States. The crisis has 
affected EU ODA levels. In 2009 EU-27 ODA continued to increase as a share of 
GNI  from  0.40%  in  2008  to  0.42%,  but  decreased  in  volume  terms  to  EUR49 
billion. The trend among Member States varied, as the tables and figures in Annex 2 
show. 

The increase was led by France, which contributed EUR1.3 billion, followed by the 
UK (EUR285 million), and Belgium (EUR214 million). Malta (0.20%) and Cyprus 
(0.17%)  attained  or  exceeded  the  individual,  intermediate  target  threshold  of  0.17 
ODA/GNI, one year ahead of schedule. 

Aid volume increases or maintenance in 12 Member States were offset by aid cuts 
in  others.  The  biggest  cuts  occurred  in  Germany;  its  aid  was  reduced  by  almost 
EUR1.1  billion.  The  worst aid  cuts    –  more  than  30%  -  were  made  in Italy (down 
EUR990  million,  to  0.16%  ODA/GNI),  putting  Italy's  ODA  lowest  among  the  EU 

38 

For the exact wording see European Council, 18  June 2005, Doc. 10255/05 Conc. 2,  par. 26 onwards. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
donors that had committed to spend at least 0.51% of their income as ODA by 2010, 
and Austria (down EUR365 million), bringing the country's ODA down to 0.30% of 
GNI, i.e. below the level that the EU-15 Member States had promised to achieve in 
2006 (0.33% ODA/ GNI). Greece' aid declined by EUR51 million from already low 
ODA  levels.  For  the  first  time  in  many  years  ODA  spending  was  substantially 
reduced  in  the  Netherlands  (down  EUR234  million)  and  Spain  (EUR42  million). 
Under the impact of the crisis, Irish aid disbursements were cut by EUR203 million, 
albeit from higher levels and keeping aid spending at 0.54% of GNI.  

Member States' Percentage share of EU ODA 2009 

Share of Member State ODA in Total EU ODA (2009)
in € million  and %

PT  364; 1%

LU  289; 1%

EU12  812; 2%

GR  436; 1%

IE  718; 1%

AT  823; 2%
FI  924; 2%

BE  1868; 4%

DK  2017; 4%

IT  2380; 5%

FR  8927; 18%

SE  3267; 7%

DE  8605; 18%

NL  4614; 9%

ES  4719; 10%

UK  8267; 17%

Source: COM estimates based on OECD DAC data and Monterrey survey 2010

4.2. 

Set to miss the agreed intermediate ODA targets of 2010  

According to preliminary Commission estimates, the EU needs to bridge a EUR18.4 
billion  gap  to  reach  the  collective  0.56%  ODA/GNI  target  in  2010  from  2009 
outcome levels. According to Member States' forecasts, EU ODA should increase in 
2010, but the collective EU result in 2010 would be in the range of 0.45% - 0.46% of 
GNI (around EUR55 billion). The EU is thus set to miss its collective intermediate 
target of 0.56% of GNI by 2010 by a wide margin because many Member States will 
not reach the individual minimum intermediate EU ODA targets fixed for 2010. 

Low or negative economic growth rates in the EU as a consequence of the crisis, and 
given the austerity measures that Member States introduced, lead to different risks. 
On  the  one  hand  lower  GNI  growth  combined  with  higher  public  expenditure 
elsewhere may lead to a cut-back in spending on development co-operation, which in 
turn  would  result  in  a  lower  trajectory  of  up-scaling  to  meet  2015  targets.  On  the 
other hand, where aid volumes are not cut, they will show higher aid levels expressed 
as  a  percentage  share  of  GNI,  without  providing  additional  ODA  funding  for 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
developing countries. These prospects will harm the credibility of the EU as a whole. 
Urgent action is therefore needed to remedy this. 

In their replies to the survey, a majority of Member States expressed their resolve to 
further increase ODA in 2010 despite the fact that many of them are facing uncertain 
budgetary positions due to the crisis-related situation.  

The EU scaling-up process has been uneven, with asymmetric efforts. Member States 
not  contributing  their  fair  share  to  the  burden-sharing  effort  endanger  the 
performance  of  the  EU  as  whole  and  substantially  increase  the  risk  of  collective 
failure on ODA targets. This needs to change. All Member States are important for a 
sustained, joint EU scaling-up. The prospects for 2010 according to Member States' 
reports are as follows:  

•  Four  EU  Member  States  –  Sweden,  Luxembourg,  the  Netherlands  and 
Denmark  -  continued  to  spend  at  least  0.8%  of  their  GNI  or  more  on 
development  and  are  planning  to  maintain  this  level  or  to  achieve  and  sustain  a 
more ambitious target, i.e. a 1% target. These four countries account for over 20% 
of  the  EU  ODA  although  their  relative  economic  weight  within  the  EU  is  much 
smaller.  Belgium  is  set  to  join  this  group  of  early  ODA  target  achievers  by 
bringing its ODA spending up to 0.7% of GNI in 2010. 

•  According  to  the  forecasts  provided,  the  UK  remains  on  track  to  deliver  on  its 
ODA spending plans for the financial years (April to March) 2009-10 and 2010-
11 (0.56% ODA/GNI) with a view to attaining 0.7% ODA/GNI by 201339.  

•  Ireland  and  Spain  had  set  themselves  national  thresholds  more  ambitious  than 
the EU timeframes. While they may miss those, they want, along with Finland, to 
meet or surpass the agreed EU individual target of 0.51% of GNI set for 2010.  

•  While  remaining  below  the  0.51%  ODA/GNI  threshold,  France  indicated  aid 
increases  for  2010  corresponding  to  0.43-0.47%  of  GNI  and  Germany  targets 
spending 0.40% of its GNI on aid. Italy should increase its ODA to 0.20% of GNI 
but risks remaining the weakest performer of the EU-15; it has, meanwhile, been 
overtaken by some of the EU-12, for which much lower individual ODA targets 
apply.  Due  to  their  combined  weight  in  the  EU  economy  these  three  Member 
States  are  the  key  to the  EU's  collective  scaling  up.  Without  their  contribution 
the EU cannot reach its collective ODA goal. 

•  Austria  and  Portugal's  ODA  levels  remain  far  below  the  EU  average;  both  are 
set to miss the 2010 target, although they project increasing ODA levels. Greece's 
position remains uncertain due to fiscal restraints; it is unlikely that Greece will 
fulfil its ambition to spend 0.35% of its national income on ODA in 2010.  

•  There  is  some  good  news  amongst  EU-12  Member  States:  Cyprus  and  Malta 
achieved  or  exceed  their  commitments  of  0.17  one  year  ahead  of  the  2010 
deadline. Lithuania steadily increased its figures in recent years; but no forecast 

39 

According to Commission estimates on the future economic growth in the Member States the UK may 
even exceed the national 2010/11 target, as a consequence of a lower economic growth forecast for the 
UK for 2010. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
has been made available and the country is hard hit by the economic crisis. The 
other  EU-12  donors  are  off-track,  as  they  forecast  they  will  not  reach  the 
0.17%  ODA/GNI  target  in  2010,  although  Slovenia  is  relatively  close  to  the 
target in 2009. They need to take decisive steps to get their ODA budgets back on 
target.  

The ODA indicators graphs in Annex 3 show each EU Member State's readiness to 
meet  the  individual  ODA  target  levels  of  0.51%  and  0.17%  of  GNI  respectively  in 
2010.  Annex  4  outlines  the  methodology  used  to  analyse  ODA  indicators  and 
forecasts provided by the Member States. 

4.3. 

Lessons  learnt  -  the  impact  of  EU  ODA  targets  on  policy  decisions  in  EU 
Member States  

Some key lessons can be drawn from experience since the adoption, in 2002, of EU 
ODA  commitments  and  their  revision  in  2005:  back-loading  the  increase  in  ODA 
expenditure has been the main factor in missing target levels. Sustained scaling-up 
process  through  debt  relief  grants  is  impossible:  debt  relief  grants  are  "one-off" 
exercises  by  nature  and  insufficient  if  not  replaced  after  the  debt  relief  spike  by 
"fresh money" in ODA budgets.  

The  EU  commitments  have  been  a  useful  anchor  for  scaling-up  processes  in  a  number  of 
Member States: 

by  bolstering  more  ambitious  national  plans  or  multi-annual  budget  planning  (e.g. 

- 
Spain and the UK: 0.56% by 2010); 

- 
by  "limiting  the  damage"  in  those  Member  States  that  have  decided,  since  2005,  to 
slow down their initially more far-reaching national ODA plans: in France, Finland and Ireland 
0.51% ODA/GNI provided the bottom line for downgraded national objectives for 2010; 

- 
by setting in motion some kind of national process to increase ODA although not at a 
pace  sufficient  to  meet  the  2010  target  (e.g.  the  Czech  Republic,  Germany,  Greece, 
Portugal, and Slovenia). 

This  proves  that  the  targets  agreed  at  EU  level  have  had  a  positive  effect  on  increasing 
ODA.  Some  Member  States,  however,  have  not  demonstrated  any  sustained  trend  of 
increasing  ODA  levels  and  some  have  yet  to  strengthen  their  efforts  as  new  donors  (see 
tables in Annex 5 on the ODA trajectories of individual EU Member States since 1995). 

4.4. 

Enabling factors for aid increases in Member States  

There has been some progress in establishing what can be considered "multi-annual 
timetables"  for  ODA,  as  called  for  by  repeated  Council  Conclusions40.  Timetables 
have  proven  a  useful  tool  for  embedding  the  scaling-up  of  aid  volumes  in  national 
budgets in line with stated commitments. Member States have taken different paths 
in developing timetables.  

Enacting legislation to make 0.7% ODA/GNI a binding obligation. Belgium has set, by law, 
a  minimum  aid  level  commitment,  called  the  ‘growth-path’  towards  the  0.7  target.  The 
‘growth  path’  is  set  out  in  the  solidarity  notes  and  can  also  be  amended  by  the  solidarity 
notes; these are drafted and approved by the government but the government cannot amend 
the  legally  binding  target  of  0.7%  to  be  reached  in  201041.  In  the  UK,  a  draft  International 

40 
41 

Most recently in the Council Conclusions of 18 May 2009, point 14. 
See Article 10. 
http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/change_lg.pl?language=fr&la=F&cn=1991071746&table_name=loi. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Development Spending Bill, published on 15 January 2010, introduces a legal obligation to 
spend  0.7%  of  GNI  on  ODA  as  from  2013;  it  is  now  being  examined  by  the  House  of 
Commons42. 

Multi-year budget spending plans/inclusion of ODA targets in national budget laws. So far 
the  UK  Government  has  set  departmental  budgets  on  a  multi-year  spending  cycle  over  a 
three-year  period  through  spending  reviews.  The  Pre-Budget  Report  and  Comprehensive 
Spending  Review  2007  covers  the  financial  years  2008/9  to  2010/11;  it  includes  the  ODA 
allocation  to  2010  and  details  the  commitment  to  reaching  0.7%  ODA/GNI  by  2013.  In 
Ireland and Sweden the national ODA targets are enshrined in the annual budget law43. 

Government-endorsed  development  policy  documents:  Spain's  "Master  Plan  for 
Development  Cooperation  2009-2012"  was  endorsed  by  the  Spanish  Government  and 
Parliament.  The  Master  Plan  sets  out  the  timeframes  for  reaching  national  ODA  targets 
(which are more ambitious than the EU goals). Portugal published an annex to the budget 
law  outlining  future  aid  increases  that  are,  however,  not  commensurate  with  its  individual 
target of 0.51% for 2010)44. The Finnish Development Policy Programme, i.e. a Government 
Decision-in-Principle,  has  stated 
that 
the  Government's  commitment 
development cooperation appropriations will take Finland towards 0.7%.  

to  ensuring 

Indicative  multi-annual  timetables:  Both  Bulgaria  and  Romania  intend  to  have  an 
indicative  multi-annual  timetable  ready  in  2010.  Estonia  will  include  a  timetable  for  2015 
ODA targets in the Strategy for Estonian development cooperation and humanitarian aid for 
2011-2015, which is under preparation.  

4.5. 

How  to  demonstrate  the  EU's  resolve  to  reach  the  0.7%  ODA/  GNI  target  by 
2015? 

As outlined in the Communication45, the EU now needs to demonstrate how to get 
back  on-track  to  reach  the  0.7%  ODA/  GNI  target  and  to  prepare  a  credible 
pathway  for  bridging  the  gap  to  meeting  the  2015  deadline.  Any  back-loaded 
scaling up of aid would be detrimental to supporting partner countries in achieving 
the  MDGs  and  other  internationally  agreed  development  objectives,  which  is  the 
rationale  behind  the  EU  ODA  targets.  As  development  assistance  takes  time  to 
trigger results in reducing poverty, a sudden increase in aid only in 2015 would not 
help.  Member  States  should  therefore  begin  early  with  gradual  ODA  increases  and 
indicate  their  chosen  trajectories.  Such  national  action  plans  should  consist  of  the 
following, complementary elements:  

(1)  Confirmation  of  the  0.7%  target  for  2015  as  the  EU  collective  target.  Achieving  this 
target entails that individually  

- The Member States (EU-15) undertake to achieve 0.7% ODA/GNI; 

- those which have achieved that target commit themselves to remaining above the target; 

- the Member States that joined the EU since 2004 (EU-12) strive to increase their ODA/GNI 
to 0.33%. 

This re-confirmation is necessary albeit, on its own, insufficient to re-establish EU credibility 
and needs to be complemented by action on the part of each Member State.  

(2)  Establishment  of  realistic  and  verifiable  national  ODA Action  Plans  by  all  Member 
States outlining how they aim to scale up and strive to achieve the 2015 ODA targets. Each 

42 

43 
44 
45 

In view of the forthcoming parliamentary elections in the UK the government has stated its intention to 
present a full Bill in the next parliamentary session. Draft bill: 
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm77/7792/7792.pdf  
http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/13/17/16/95c2a5d5.pdf. 
http://www.dgo.pt/oe/2009/Aprovado/Relatorio/Rel-2009.pdf. 
See footnote 1. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
Member State should commit to publishing individual plans for year-on-year ODA increases. 
The first action plans (covering actions in 2010 and 2011) should be published prior to the 
September  UN  HLPM.  Subsequent  annual  action  plans should  be  published by  the  end  of 
the year preceding the spring Foreign Affairs Council (Development) (FAC). Core elements 
of the action plan are: 

-  Increasing  ODA  each  year  (by  volumes  and  as  a  percentage  of  GNI)  compared  to  the 
previous  year  in  order  to  reach  and  sustain  EU  targets.  ODA  increases  are  an  issue  of 
political choice, even in difficult budgetary situations.  

- Indicating ODA estimates for the remaining period until 2015. Overall ODA increases in 
the period 2010–2015 should be commensurate with the individual target to be reached or 
sustained  by  and  beyond  2015  (=  0.7%  of  GNI  for  the  EU-15  and  0.33%  for  the  EU-12; 
higher  aid  levels  already  achieved  by  the  strong  performers  above  established  EU  ODA 
thresholds should be maintained); 

-  Describing  concrete  actions  to  build  public  support  for  development  in  the  Member 
State concerned; 

- Outlining concrete actions to improve coverage of development-related issues in the 
national  media  and  find  new  and  better  means  of  communication  on  development46.  The 
EU  and  its  Member  States  need  to  better  communicate  development  success  stories  and 
should do this more systematically and jointly. A better informed and educated public that is 
supportive to development cooperation can be a powerful ally in government commitments 
to  increase  ODA  spending:  only  an  educated  public  will  be  able  to  hold  governments 
accountable for delivering on their commitments.  

(3) Creating an EU-internal annual "ODA Peer Review" mechanism at the spring session 
of  the  FAC  (Development)  to  assess  the  progress  of  each  Member  State,  based  on  the 
annual  monitoring  report.  The  FAC  should  assess  progress  in  every  Member  State  and 
make  recommendations  to  improve  performance,  as  appropriate.  The  FAC  should  report 
the  results  of  the  ODA  Peer  Review  and  progress  towards  the  0.7%  ODA/  GNI  target 
annually to the European Council. 

(4) Describing mechanisms for ensuring scaling up. The existence of national legislation, 
ring-fencing  ODA  goals  or  making  them  legally  binding  has  proven  instrumental  in  some 
Member  States  to  ensuring  ODA  increases  designed  to  reach  the  0.7%  target  early 
(Belgium) or to maintain aid levels at or above that level (Sweden). Against this background, 
Member  States  should  consider  enacting  national  legislation  on  ODA  levels  with  a  view  to 
reaching the agreed EU ODA targets or maintaining higher national aid levels (either through 
specific  legislation,  such  as  that  currently  being  examined  in  the  UK)  or  through  specific 
annotations in the national budget laws. 

The  Commission  is  ready  to  extend  its  support,  especially  to  those  Member  States 
that have joined the EU since 2004. Member States more advanced in the scaling-up 
process could also offer their cooperation to identify success factors that could foster 
national processes in those Member States that have to do better.  

There  are  different  options  for  going  forward.  Each  Member  State  will  have  to 
define  its  individual  path  to  reach  the  2015  targets.  The  trajectory  will  differ 
depending on the choice made. Various options are available to bridge the gap from 

46 

The Eurobarometer survey "Development aid in times of economic turmoil" of October 2009 revealed 
that  72%  of  Europeans  are  in  favour  of  honouring  or  going  beyond  existing  aid  commitments  to  the 
developing  world.  Public  support  for  the  EU's  motto  “keeping  our  promises”  is  real.  Europeans 
expressed  a  genuine  interest  in  knowing  more  about  development,  mainly  through  better  press 
coverage;  most  of  the  Mediterranean  countries  of  the  EU  are  dissatisfied  with  the  level  of  media 
coverage: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_318_en.pdf. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2010–2015 (see illustrating graphs in Annex 5 for each Member State)47. Whatever 
choice  Member  States  make,  serious  and  sustained  efforts  are  required  during  the 
entire period. Back-loading ODA increases would harm efforts to reach the MDGs, 
as resources to support progress before 2015 are needed immediately.  

•  Adoption of an intermediate target for 2012 to bridge the gap between the 2009 
results (EU 27 0.42% of GNI) and the 0.7% target for 2015. Individual minimum 
targets in the range of:  

–  EU-15: 0.57% ODA/ GNI by 201248  

–  EU-12: 0.22% of GNI by 201249  

could lead to a collective EU average of the order of 0.6% by 2012. 

•  Linear  ODA  volume  increases  from  2009  aid  levels  to  individually  reach  a 
minimum  of  0.7%  ODA/GNI  by  2015  (EU-15)  and  of  0.33%  (EU-12)  and  to 
maintain high levels once thresholds have been achieved.  

•  Regular percentage increase in ODA volumes from 2010–2015 with a view to 
reaching  0.7%  by  2015  (same  percentage  of  the  absolute  amounts  in  each  year, 
but different percentage levels depending on where Member States stand today). 
The average annual increase required in ODA volumes is 12% for the EU-15 and 
30% for the EU-1250. This option is also ambitious but entails some slight back-
loading compared to linear scaling-up.  

Fair  burden-sharing  among  EU  Member  States  is  a  key  element  in  this 
undertaking.  Lack  of  action  will  jeopardise  the  success  of  the  EU  as  a  whole  on  its 
collective  0.7%  ODA/GNI  target  and  each  Member  State  needs  to  demonstrate  its 
contribution to achieving the agreed common goal.  

4.6. 

International burden-sharing  

At  the  Pittsburgh  Summit,  the  G-20  leaders  reaffirmed  their  resolve  to  support  the 
achievementof the MDGs and to deliver on their respective ODA pledges, including 
commitments  on  "Aid  for  Trade",  debt  relief,  and  those  made  at  Gleneagles, 
especially to Sub-Saharan Africa, by 2010 and beyond51. 

Global  ODA  levels  have  steadily  increased  since  200052,  and  ODA  volumes  are 
expected to rise by about 36% between 2004 and 2010. However, this increase falls 
short of  demonstrating the necessary dynamics to meet the international ODA 
commitments, including those given by the G-8 in Gleneagles. While there should 
be  additional  aid  of  USD28  billion  from  2004  to  2010,  there  is  a  USD22  billion 
shortfall  between  the  2005  pledges  and  recent  OECD  estimates  for  the  2010 

47 

48 
49 
50 
51 
52 

The graphs confront the proposed trajectory with the forecast figures that Member States have provided 
for 2010 and beyond. 
0.7%–0.44% of GNI in 2009 = 0.26%: 2 = 0.13% + 0.44% = 0.57%. 
0.33%-0.10% of GNI in 2009 = 0.23%: 2 = rounded up 0.12% + 0.10% = 0.22%. 
Annex 5 details the individual increase required under this option for each Member State. 
G-20 Pittsburgh Summit Leaders' Statement 24-25 September, 2009, point 37. 
Except in 2007, when global and EU aid slumped. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
                                                 
outcome.  Of  this  shortfall,  USD18  billion  results  from  lower-than-promised  ODA 
spending, and USD4 billion from lower-than-expected GNI growth53. 

Figure: Aid flows of EU and non-European G7 countries 2000 – 2010   

Global aid flows 2000  – 2010  (in € million current  prices )

EU27

Canada

Japan

US

)
s
e
c
i
r
p

t
n
e
r
r
u
c
(
n
o

i
l
l
i

m

60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009*

2010*

Source: COM estimates based on OECD/ DAC data

* COM estimates based on data from member states and DAC 2010 forecast

According  to  OECD  projections  for  2010  only  Norway  (1.0%  ODA/GNI)  and 
Switzerland  (0.47%  ODA/GNI)  will  achieve  aid  levels  higher  than  the  expected 
combined  EU-27  result:  all  other  donors  that  are  members  of  the  OECD/DAC  will 
have  a  substantially  lower  outcome,  despite  increasing  aid  volumes.  The  US  may 
double its ODA to Sub-Saharan Africa between 2004 and 2010, but overall aid levels 
are  forecast  to  remain  as  low  as  0.19%  of  GNI.  Japan  may  reduce  the  aid  level  to 
0.18% of GNI in 2010. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are expected to live up to 
their  pledge  to  double  aid  volumes  from  2004  levels,  reaching  between  0.32%  and 
0.35% of their national income. New partners in development also need to contribute 
their fair share to the effort. 

The EU continues to stand out as the only group of donors that has given a time-
bound  commitment  on  the  0.7%  of  GNI  goal  for  ODA  (by  2015).  EU 
disbursements  in  line  with  this  pledge  could  add  up  to  EUR55.3  billion  in  2010, 
mobilising an additional EUR7.6 billion compared with 2006 levels. 

The difference in donors' aid targets demonstrates a global imbalance in commitment 
to  supporting  developing  countries  in  achieving  their  development  goals.  As  in 
previous  years,  in  2009  the  majority  of  the  global  ODA  came  from  the  EU,  which 

53 
http://www.oecd.org/document/0,3343,en_2649_34487_44981579_1_1_1_1,00.html. 

OECD DAC press release 14 April 2010: 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
€
 
 
 
                                                 
disbursed around 56% of the aid provided by DAC members. As up to now, most of 
the global ODA increase is set to come from the EU54. 

EU DAC Members  (EU15)  Net ODA
(in € million current prices and as a percentage of DAC ODA)

EU15 ODA in millions of €

EU15 ODA as a percent of DAC ODA

s
e
c
i
r
p

t
n
e
r
r
u
c
n
o

i
l
l
i

m

 €

n

i

70000

60000

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

0

A
D
O
C
A
D

f
o

e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
p

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Source: COM estimates based on OECD DAC data and COM Monterery Survey 2010

*percentages based on COM estimates, based on DAC 2010 forecasts

4.7. 

EU not acting in line with its promise on ODA to Africa  

Since making the commitment to direct 50% of EU aid increases to Africa in 2005, 
the  combined  EU  aid  to  Africa  has  not  risen,  but  fallen.  2005  and  2006  were  peak 
years for debt relief operations, also benefitting some African countries. In the years 
that followed, the increases in programmable aid did not make up for the drop in debt 
relief grants. As a result, the EU-15 total net ODA to Africa fell by EUR2.7 billion 
from its 2005 level. The fall in aid to Sub-Saharan Africa was even more acute 
as net ODA fell by EUR3.2 billion from its 2005 level. Combining this result with 
the fact that the EU's overall ODA continued to increase, the EU has not delivered on 
the  commitment to  provide 50% of  the collective EU ODA  increase  to the  African 
continent.  Only  Belgium,  Denmark,  Finland,  Luxembourg  and  Portugal 
channelled more than 50% of the ODA increase to Africa in 2009, compared to 
2005 levels. 

Sub-Saharan Africa has also fared particularly badly in terms of the G8 Gleneagles 
pledge  of  an  additional  USD25  billion  per  year,  with  a  gap  of  USD14  billion  (in 
2004 prices) estimated by the OECD. 

Africa's overall share in  the collective  EU ODA  has fallen  from  44%  to 37% from 
2005  to  2009.  A  positive  sign  though  is  that  if  looking  exclusively  at  total  net  aid 
excluding  debt  relief,  ODA  from  the  EU-15  to  Africa  rose  from  EUR7.2  billion  in 

54 

See previous footnote. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2005  to  EUR9.7  billion  in  2009.  Sub-Saharan  Africa  accounted  for  most  of  this 
increase (from EUR 6.2 billion to EUR 8.4 billion).  

Some  EU  countries  stand  out  for  their  special  focus  on  Africa  and  Sub-Saharan 
Africa. Looking at the accumulated flows since 2005, 63% of Irish ODA has gone to 
Africa,  the  same  for  60%  of  French  and  Portuguese  ODA,  with  Belgium, 
Denmark, and Luxembourg and the UK also around the 50% level.  

Many Member States stated in reply to the Monterrey survey that their bilateral aid 
programmes focus on Africa. The White Paper on Irish Aid states that Africa should 
remain  the  primary  geographic  focus  for  Ireland’s  development  programme.  Other 
Member States - Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France, Italy, Netherland, Portugal and 
Spain  -  have  decided  to  spend  or  are  spending  at  least  50%  of  their  bilateral 
programmable  aid  in  Africa.  Most  of  the  EU-12  contribute  to  Africa  through 
multilateral  channels,  although  some  are  considering  increasing  their  bilateral 
commitment to the region as well.  

EU15 ODA to Africa in € million and as a % of GNI
including imputed multilateral  flows

30 000

25 000

20 000

0.13 

n
o

i
l
l
i

m

15 000

0.12 

0.11 

0.13 

0.12 

0.23 

0.20 

6442

0.18 

0.17 

0.17 

8400

1989

1182

0.16 

0.16 

0.14 

0.10 

2850

1158

3165

4511

1039

411

1382

1034

7936

8181

7232

6578

946

9255

10208

10366

10658

13805

12144

16033

17035

17752

19582

10 000

5 000

0

I

N
G
%

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Source: OECD DAC

For 2009, COM Simulation based on DAC data for 2009

EU15 Net ODA to Africa incl imp multi excl debt

EU15 Net Debt Relief to Africa

Per cent of donor's GNI

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
€
 
 
 
EU15 Total Net Bilateral ODA to Africa in € million (current prices) and % of total net bilateral ODA,
(Excluding Debt Relief)

48  

44  

42  

38  

39  

38  

38  

38  

41  

38  

37  

40  

34  

1 162   

1 082   

979   

715   

878   

862   

923   

793   

743   

4 946    4 749   

5 310   

4 324    4 137   

5 145    5 054    5 216    5 160   

36  

34  

1 372    1 350   

1 349   

1 256   

1 179    1 010   

5 899    6 173   

6 964   

7 772    8 176    8 379   

50  

45  

40  

35  

30  

25  

20  

15  

10  

5  

f
e
i
l
e
R

t
b
e
D

.
l
c
x
e

A
D
O

l
a
r
e
t
a
l
i

b
t
e
n

l
a
t
o
t

f
o
%

 €

n
o

i
l
l
i

m

14 000

12 000

10 000

8 000

6 000

4 000

2 000

0

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Source: OECD DAC

Bilateral Net ODA to SSA excl. Debt Relief

Bilateral Net ODA to North Africa excl. Debt Relief

Bilateral Net ODA to Africa as % of Total Bilateral Net ODA (excl. debt relief)

For 2009, COM Simulation based 
on DAC data for 2009

4.8. 

ODA to Least Developed Countries – EU target still within reach 

In  November  2008,  Member  States  promised,  as  part  of  the  EU's  overall  ODA 
commitments,  to  provide  collectively  0.15%  to  0.20%  of  their  GNI  to  Least 
Developed  Countries  (LDCs)  by  2010  while  fully  meeting  the  differentiated 
commitments  set  out  in  the  "Brussels  Programme  of  action  for  the  LDCs  for  the 
decade 2001-2010".  

According to the Commission simulations, LDCs' share  of EU  ODA  has  decreased 
both in absolute and relative terms and was at EUR 13.5 billion or 0.12% of GNI in 
2009. Nevertheless, reaching collectively the lower end of the target of 0.15%-0.20% 
ODA/GNI  allocated  to  LDCs  by  2010  and  onwards  remains  feasible.  According  to 
the  replies  to  the  2010  Monterrey  survey,  10  of  the  EU-1555  will  reach  or  have 
already  reached  this  target.  The  vast  majority  of  the  EU-12  are  ready  to  reserve  a 
certain amount of ODA for LDCs.  

55 

Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure: EU ODA to LDCs 

EU15 ODA to LDCs in € million and as a % of GNI
including imputed multilateral  flows

n
o

i
l
l
i

m

18 000

16 000

14 000

12 000

10 000

8 000

6 000

4 000

2 000

0

0.15 

0.13 

0.11 

0.12 

0.12 

0.12 

0.11 

0.13 

0.12 

0.10 

0.09 

0.09 

0.08 

0.08 

0.07 

12317

12030

11783

10035

8450

7491

5959

5832

6121

5420

13951

14649

13514

13176

16644

I

N
G
%

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009*

2010 
target*

Source: OECD DAC

Net ODA to LDCs

Per cent of donor's GNI

*2009: COM simulation based on DAC data for 2009
*2010: COM simulation based on the collective ODA target of 0.15% to LDCs by 2010

4.9. 

Reinforced reporting on ODA flows  

Most EU  non-DAC donors report their ODA to the OECD/DAC.  The  Commission 
encourages all of them to do this, in line with DAC reporting rules, although none of 
the EU-12 are yet DAC members. Bulgaria and Malta have yet to start reporting 
systematically to the DAC. The Commission will continue to work with the DAC 
secretariat  on  providing  support  to  the  EU's  non-DAC  donors  in  enhancing  their 
statistical reporting capacity.   

The  Commission  is  ready  to  support  the  OECD/DAC  in  its  efforts  to  develop,  in 
addition to the work on ODA, more detailed reporting on other, non-ODA financial 
flows  that  have  an  impact  on  development.  This  information  could  provide 
transparency  in  donors'  non-ODA  actions,  which  may  help  or  hinder  developing 
countries' progress towards their development objectives. 

4.10.  A credible pathway for the future  

•  In order to reach the ultimate EU goal to provide 0.7% of the combined national 
income as ODA by 2015 and beyond, drawing up annual national action plans 
is  essential  and  should  be  complemented  by  reinforced  EU  internal  monitoring 
(annual ODA "Peer Review"). 

•  Consideration  should  be  given  to  enacting  national  legislation  on  ODA  levels 
with  a  view  to  reaching  the  0.7%  ODA  target  by  and  beyond  2015  and  to  ring-
fencing ODA spending commensurate with this target. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
€
 
 
•  Member States should redouble their efforts to increase their aid to Sub-Saharan 
Africa and to provide half of the pledged aid increases to the African continent. 

•  Member States need to enhance their efforts to increase aid to LDCs with a view 
to meeting the 0.15-0.20% ODA/ GNI target in 2010 and to sustain their efforts 
once they have achieved that level. 

•  The  EU  should  call  on  all  international  donors  and  new  actors  to  contribute 

their fair share of the effort by increasing their aid levels. 

•  Reinforced  efforts  are  required  by  the  EU  and  its  Member  States  and  by  the 
OECD DAC to better track and report on ODA and non-ODA flows relevant 
to the development of poor countries.  

5. 

INNOVATIVE SOURCES AND MECHANISMS OF FINANCING: A NEW DEBATE 

The European Council56: 

•  agreed on the need to prepare a coordinated strategy for exiting from the broad-

based stimulus policies when recovery is secured,  

•  invited the Commission to examine innovative financing at global level, with a 

view to facilitating fiscal exit strategies and fiscal consolidation,  

•  recognised  the  need  to  significantly  increase  financing  to  help  developing 
countries  implement  ambitious  climate  mitigation  and  adaptation  strategies, 
without jeopardising the fight against poverty and continued progress towards the 
MDGs, 

•  highlighted  the  role  of  innovative  financing  in  ensuring  predictable  flows  of 
financing  for  sustainable  development,  especially  towards  the  poorest  and  most 
vulnerable countries. 

Initially, innovative financing mechanisms were considered in order to address 
financing  needs  for  development.  Not  least  because  of  many  donor  countries' 
difficulties  in  meeting  their  ODA  commitments  in  the  medium  term,  innovative 
sources  of  financing  could  play  a  more  prominent  role  in  the  near  future. 
Development  budgets  are  coming  under  increasing  pressure,  partly  because  of  the 
significant  commitments  that  developed  countries  made  in  the  Copenhagen  Accord 
to scale up the financing of climate change measures in developing countries.  

The  Leading  Group  on  Innovative  Financing  for  Development  is  spearheading  the 
international debate on this issue. It was founded in 2006 with a Secretariat in Paris and 
now has 59 member countries from the North and South, in addition to the main international 
organisations  and  NGO  platforms57.  EU  Member  States  are  very  supportive  of  this 
initiative:  nine  are  members  (Belgium,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Italy,  Luxembourg, 
Poland, Spain and the UK), as is the Commission; Austria, the Netherlands and Romania 
are  observers,  and  Denmark,  the  Netherlands,  Portugal  and  Sweden  have  expressed 

56 
57 

Conclusions of the European Council of 29-30 October 2009, point 27. 
For further information see www.leadinggroup.org. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
                                                 
interest  in  joining.  Sector-relevant  discussions  are  pursued  in  a  number  of  thematic 
working  groups  where  concrete  proposals  for  action  against  hunger  and  poverty,  on  illicit 
flows  and  tax  evasion,  on  international  financial  transactions  for  development,  and  on 
education  and  development  are  examined.  In  addition,  the  Leading  Group  cooperates with 
the Taskforce on Innovative Finance for Health Systems led by the World Bank and the UN.  

In October 2009 the Leading Group on Innovative Financing for Development established a 
Taskforce  on  International  Financial  Transactions  for  Development,  in  which  Belgium, 
France, Germany Spain and the UK are represented, in addition to six non-EU countries. 

In  its  recent  Staff  Working  Paper  "Innovative  financing  at  a  global  level"58,  the 
European  Commission  provided  an  assessment  of  the  various  instruments  of 
innovative financing relating to the financial sector, climate change and development 
on the basis of a number of criteria. 

5.1. 

EU Member States lead most initiatives on innovative sources of finance 

Depending on the definition, only about a third of all EU Member States raised funds 
via  innovative  mechanisms  in  2009,  but  they  are  piloting  most  of  the  existing 
mechanisms. 

•  Air  ticket  levy:  France  was  one  of  the  first  countries  (in  July  2006)  to  introduce  an  air 
ticket levy with a sliding scale based on destination and class. Most of the proceeds are 
earmarked  for  development  finance,  notably  an  International  Drug  Purchase  Facility 
(UNITAID)  aimed  at  combating  the  major  pandemic  diseases  affecting  the  developing 
world.  The  French  air  ticket  levy collected  EUR  165 million  in  2007,  EUR  173 million  in 
2008  and  EUR  162  million  in  2009.  Following  this  example,  which  was  subsequently 
promoted by the Leading Group on Innovative Financing for Development , several other 
countries around the world introduced similar air ticket levies, including Chile, the Ivory 
Coast, the Republic of Korea, Madagascar, Mauritius and Niger, which allocate all or 
a  share  of  the  revenues  to  UNITAID.  Furthermore,  Luxembourg  and  Spain  collect 
voluntary  contributions  from  air  passengers.  Cyprus  (EUR  0.4  million),  Luxembourg 
(EUR  0.5  million)  and  the  UK  (£25  million)  are  supporting  UNITAID  from  their  general 
budgets. 

• 

International  Financing  Facility  (IFF):  The  general  concept  of  the  IFF  was  first  put 
forward by the UK Government in 2003. It is designed to frontload aid by issuing bonds in 
international  capital  markets,  backed  by  binding  long-term  commitments  from  donors  to 
provide  regular  payments  to  the  facility.  The  first  concrete  implementation  of  the  IFF 
concept  is  the  International  Finance  Facility  for  Immunisation  (IFFIm)  begun  in 
November 2006. The IFFIm' total anticipated disbursement of USD 4 billion is expected to 
protect more than 500 million children through immunisation in more than 71 developing 
countries.  So  far,  IFFIm  bonds  have  raised  more  than  USD 2  billion  for  immunisation 
programmes run by a charity called the GAVI Alliance. IFFIm's financial base consists of 
legally  binding  grants  from  its  sovereign  sponsors,  which  are  France,  Italy,  Norway, 
Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and South Africa.  

•  Advance Market Commitment (AMC): The idea of an AMC was strongly promoted by 
the  governments  of  Italy  and  the  UK  from  the  end  of  2005.  The  idea  is  that  donors 
guarantee  a  set  envelope  of  funding  to  purchase  at  a  given  price  a  new  product  that 
meets  specified  requirements,  thus  creating  the  potential  for  a  viable  future  market.  In 
June 2009, the governments of Italy, the UK, Canada, the Russian Federation, Norway 
and  the  Bill  &  Melinda  Gates  Foundation 
the  pilot  AMC  against 
pneumococcal  disease  with  a  collective  USD  1.5  billion  commitment.  The  supporters  of 
this pilot AMC estimate that the introduction of a pneumococcal vaccine through the AMC 

launched 

58 

SEC(2010) 409 of 1 April 2010. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
                                                 
could  save  approximately  900,000  lives  by  2015  and  over  7  million  lives  by  2030.  In 
October  2009,  four  suppliers  made  offers  to  supply  vaccines  under  the  Pneumococcal 
Advance Market Commitment. 

•  Debt-for-development swaps: for instance Germany introduced the conversion of debt 
into grants for health financing in the "Debt2Health initiative". It reduces partner countries’ 
debt  as  the  corresponding  amounts  are  invested  in  additional  financial  resources  for 
health systems through the Global Fund. In this way, Germany disbursed EUR 40 million 
in  2008  and  EUR  10  million  in  2009.  Similarly,  the  government  of  Australia  is 
implementing  an  arrangement  worth  some  EUR50  million  with 
Indonesian 
Government. 

the 

•  Tax  discounts:  Many  Member  States  provide  tax  exemptions  or  write-offs  for  private 
funding  of  development,  for  example  through  civil  society  organisation,  foundations  or 
charities.  Such  tax reductions exist  in Austria,  Belgium,  Denmark,  Germany,  Greece, 
Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the UK. 

Some  Member  States  are  considering  broadening  the  application  of  the  above 
existing mechanisms either by joining them or by extending their scope to new areas. 
Romania considers the introduction of an airline ticket levy to support UNITAID and 
Portugal  is  assessing  possible  support  to  UNITAID.  The  UK  is  currently  exploring 
the  potential  for  a  second  vaccine  AMC  and  an  AMC  for  climate  change.  The 
Commission proposed in early 2009 to launch an IFF for climate change, but this is 
finding little support among Member States59. 

In  their  replies  to  the  annual  questionnaire  several  Member  States  indicated  their 
interest  in  introducing  new  levies,  with  all  or  part  of  the  revenues  earmarked 
for development. Several Member States consider a financial transactions tax or a 
currency  transaction  levy,  in  particular,  a  promising  instrument  for  raising 
revenues60. 

More  recently,  a  stability  levy  on  certain  positions  on  banks'  balance  sheets  is 
gaining increasing international support. This follows its use by Sweden for a crisis 
management fund and the proposal by the US administration to recover support for 
the financial sector from the general budget in the current crisis. For climate change, 
auctioning emission allowances will be  the mainstay of the EU Emission  Trading 
Scheme (ETS) from 2013 on, at least half of the revenues of which should be used 
for energy and climate change purposes, some of it for developing countries. Already 
Member States can auction part of the ETS emission allowances. Germany has taken 
this approach and raised revenues of EUR 933 million in 2008 and about EUR 530 
million in 2009, of which EUR 120 million and EUR 230 million respectively were 
used  for  ODA.  Several  Member  States  also  support  using  revenues  from  levies  on 
international  aviation  and  maritime  transport  to  finance  climate  change 
projects in developing countries61. The feasibility of a specific mechanism for tax 
discounts  called  "De-Tax"  is  being  examined  by  Italy:  a  certain  share  of  value 

59 

60 
61 

Communication COM(2009) 39 of January 2009 “Towards a comprehensive climate change agreement 
in Copenhagen”. 
For instance Austria, Belgium, Spain and the UK. 
Finland, France and Poland would support aviation and maritime levies to fund climate change related 
projects. Belgium, Denmark and Spain only explicitly supported an aviation levy for that purpose, but 
did  not  mention  maritime  transport  levies.  (Austria  explicitly  disagrees  to  an  aviation  levy  for  this 
purpose). 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
                                                 
added  tax  (VAT)  on  goods  and  services,  based  on  consumer  and  business  choices, 
would  be  earmarked  for  development  and  then  be  topped  up  by  voluntary 
contributions  by  the  businesses  benefitting  from  the  scheme  in  a  dedicated  fund  to 
strengthen health systems in poor countries. Finally, Belgium has earmarked nearly 
EUR 90 million of lottery proceeds for development-related purposes. 

5.2. 

Broadening existing mechanisms and introducing new ones 

The above FfD mechanisms, most of them frontloading public funding through 
the  capital  markets  or  leveraging  private  finance  through  public  incentives, 
have  proven  to  deliver  important  contributions.  While  their  individual  revenue-
raising  potential  might  be  limited,  the  combination  of  these  instruments  has  a 
significant effect in specific areas, notably in the health sector. Frontloading public 
finance  for  development  can  be  particularly  efficient  if  it  prevents  substantially 
higher costs or risks in the future by acting at an early stage. However, these debt-
based  instruments  can  entail  the  risk  of  additional  and  hidden  burdens  on  the  aid 
budgets of donor countries in the future. As a consequence, future aid flows may be 
adversely  affected,  creating  inter-temporal  distribution  problems  where  the  projects 
financed have a lower-than-expected economic  rate  of  return.  Instruments  aimed  at 
leveraging private finance increase the capacity of public funds to channel resources 
into investments with high economic returns, but the risk of deadweight effects in the 
private sector needs to be properly addressed. 

The  value  added  of  innovative  mechanisms  compared  to  general  budget 
resources as sources of financing for development should be properly assessed. 
While  the  general  budgets  of  donor  countries  will  have  to  be  the  major  source  of 
development finance, there is little doubt that pressure will mount to further exploit 
the potential of innovative finance mechanisms, notably to increase the prospects of 
meeting  the  MDGs.  However,  innovative  financing  related  to  economic  activities, 
e.g. taxes on transactions, transport or emissions, can also be subject to volatility as 
the  tax  base  changes  with  economic  cycles.  This  became  evident  in  the  lower 
revenues  from  some  of  the  above  mechanisms  in  2009.  Revenues  from  innovative 
financing  are  also  frequently  used  for  so-called  "vertical  funds"  which  face 
problems  of  aid  effectiveness  by  often  being  insufficiently  owned  by  partner 
countries  and  not  well  integrated  into  their  broader  poverty  reduction  strategies. 
Furthermore, setting-up and managing such vertical funds can be complex and tie up 
considerable resources for administration, which are then not available for their main 
purpose of reducing poverty. It is therefore indispensable to secure, also in the field 
of  innovative  finance,  the  full  respect  of  the  agreed  principles  of  aid 
effectiveness.  Relevant  implementation  issues  to  ensure  effective  disbursement  at 
beneficiary  level  have  to  be  addressed.  This  requires  specific  in-depth  analysis  and 
full agreement among the main stakeholders concerned. 

6. 

DEBT SUSTAINABILITY AND DEBT MANAGEMENT CAPACITY – MAJOR CONCERNS 

Debt relief has substantially alleviated debt burdens in recipient countries. However, 
a number of challenges remain as Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs), which 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
have not yet reached completion point62 under the IMF/ World Bank HIPC initiative 
and the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI)63, need to strengthen their debt 
management policies and institutions with continued support from the international 
community. It is crucial  to  that HIPCs are granted full debt relief, if eligible under 
the HIPC Initiative and the MDRI, from all creditors, including smaller multilateral 
creditors, non-Paris Club bilateral official creditors, and private creditors. Moreover, 
these  international  debt  relief  initiatives  themselves  need  to  be  fully  financed, 
also  to  cover  potential  new  HIPCs  which  may  require  additional  resources  from 
some contributors. 

Notwithstanding debt relief, maintaining debt sustainability beyond the completion 
point  is  a  worry  for  many  HIPCs  and  the  global  crisis  has  exacerbated  such 
concerns. Although analyses from the World Bank and the IMF do not so far indicate 
a  great  danger  of  a  widespread  debt  crisis  among  HIPCs,  the  risks  are  increasing. 
HIPCs need to carry out sound borrowing policies and strengthen their capacity to 
manage public debt to avoid falling back into debt distress situations. 

6.1. 

Implementing debt relief and preserving debt sustainability: all donors need to 
participate 

Continued  participation  by  creditors  and  donors  in  existing  debt  relief 
initiatives,  in  particular  the  HIPC  and  MDRI,  is  central  to  debt  sustainability.  In 
order to alleviate the impact of the financial and economic crisis on progress towards 
the  MDGs,  the  EU  needs  to  continue  to  give  full  support  to  the  HIPC/MDRI 
initiatives.  The  statements  by  almost  all  Member  States  in  their  replies  to  the 
Monterrey  survey  that  they  have  delivered  on  their  commitments  to  the  HIPC/ 
MDRI  initiatives  on  time,  are  consistent  with  World  Bank/IMF  reporting  on  the 
subject. 

Member  States'  replies  also  suggested  that  existing  debt  management  and 
sustainability  mechanisms  should  be  further  enhanced,  their  membership 
broadened and capacity in developing countries improved.  

Despite  the  risk  of  more  restricted  access  to  new  loans  and  the  higher  borrowing 
costs,  many  developing  countries  will  be  forced  to  resort  to  new  borrowing  to 
support continued investment in human and physical capital. These new loans need 
to be carefully managed, especially since a number of post-completion-point HIPCs 
were  already  assessed  as  being  at  high  risk  of  debt  distress  prior  to  the  economic 
downturn.  Maintaining  long-term  debt  sustainability  in  post-HIPC/MDRI  Low-
Income Countries (LICs) will be central in the future. EU Member States apply the 
OECD  principles  and  guidelines  to  promote  sustainable  lending  practices  in  the 
provision  of  official  export  credits  to  low  income  countries  and  are  committed  to 
using  the  joint  World  Bank/IMF  Debt  Sustainability  Framework  to  make  informed 
decisions  on  lending.  Much  of  the  debt  sustainability  problem  derives  from  the 
failure to enhance debt management capacity. It is therefore encouraging that twelve 

62 

63 

Completion  point  is  the  second  and  last  step  (after  the  decision  point)  towards  receiving  a  full  and 
irrevocable reduction in debt under the HIPC/MDRI initiatives. It is reached once the triggers agreed at 
the decision point are met by the debtor country. 
See 'Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative and Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI) - 
Status of Implementation 2009' of September 15, 2009, available on the IMF and World Bank web sites. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Member States64 reported that they were taking action to promote debt sustainability, 
mainly  by  participating  in  existing  international  initiatives  in  this  area  such  as  the 
Debt Management and Financial Analysis System Programme (DeMFAS) managed 
by UNCTAD65 and the Debt Management Facility (DeMF)66 managed by the World 
Bank,  to  which  the  Commission  is  also  planning  to  contribute.  Moreover,  some 
Member States are exploring the possibility of supporting the African Legal Support 
Facility67. 

Member  States  have  not  usually  taken  individual  action  to  mitigate  the  negative 
impact of the economic and financial crisis on debt sustainability but have rather 
supported and participated in multilateral initiatives, e.g. the EU Vulnerability Flex 
initiative or the World Bank crisis response window. 

Questioned on the need to reform the international architecture for restructuring 
sovereign debt in order to deal with potential future cases of debt distress in LICs, 
Member  States  do  not  propose  to  go  beyond  the  line  expressed  in  the  Council 
Conclusions  of  May  200968,  which  is  'to  support  discussions,  if  relevant,  on 
enhanced  forms  of  sovereign  debt  restructuring  mechanisms,  based  on  existing 
frameworks  and  principles  (…)'.  Most  Member  States  do  not  expect  the  EU  or  the 
Commission  to  take  the  initiative  in  this  field  but  to  participate  in  a  coordinated 
manner in discussions which are mainly led by the international financial institutions 
(IFIs). 

A  majority  of  Member  States  see  a  role  for  the  EU  and  the  Commission  in 
encouraging  more  participation  from  the  non-Paris  Club  creditors  in  debt  relief 
for  LICs  and  to  promoting  comparable  treatment  for  non-HIPC  countries  that 
have benefited from the Evian approach of the Paris Club. 

In its May 2008 Conclusions69, the EU committed itself to not sell claims on HIPCs 
to creditors unwilling to provide debt relief and called on all countries to do likewise 
and to deter aggressive litigation by distressed-debt funds (commonly referred to as 
'vulture  funds').  Questioned  on  the  need  for  specific  interventions  to  prevent  these 
aggressive  litigations  against  HIPCs,  the  questionnaire  replies  demonstrate  that 
specific  interventions  by  EU  Member  States  are  still  rare  and  isolated  and  that,  for 
the  moment,  there  seems  to  be  no  desire  for  a  Commission  proposal  or  an  EU 
initiative in this area. 

6.2. 

Next steps 

In  the  light  of  these  findings  and  challenges,  and  reflecting  earlier  Council 
Conclusions, the following measures should be taken: 

64 

65 
66 

67 
68 
69 

Austria,  Belgium,  Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  France,  Germany,  Ireland,  the  Netherlands,  Poland, 
Portugal, Spain, the UK. 
See http://r0.unctad.org/dmfas/. 
Information available on the Wold Bank web site: 
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTDEBTDEPT/0,,contentMDK:22359443
~menuPK:6030665~pagePK:64166689~piPK:64166646~theSitePK:469043,00.html. 
http://www.afdb.org/en/topics-sectors/initiatives-partnerships/african-legal-support-facility/. 
Council Conclusions 18 May 2009 (Support to developing countries in coping with the crisis) point 12. 
Council Conclusions of 27 May 2008, point 41. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
•  provide  continued  full  and  timely  support for  implementation  of  the  HIPC/MDRI 

initiatives including for arrears clearance; 

•  call  on  commercial  and  non-Paris  Club  official  creditors  to  step  up  their 
contribution to implement the HIPC initiative and to granting comparable treatment 
to non-HIPC countries that have benefited from the Evian approach; 

•  support discussions on enhanced sovereign debt restructuring mechanisms based on 
existing  frameworks  and  principles,  including  the  Paris  Club,  with  a  broad 
participation  by  creditors  and  debtors  and  comparable  burden  sharing  among 
creditors and with a central role for the IMF and the World Bank in the debate70; 

•  strengthen the debt management capacity of debtor nations giving a preference to 

participation in existing international initiatives; 

•   provide  highly  concessional  loans  to  HIPC  graduated  countries  in  risk  of  debt 

distress. 

7. 

INTERNATIONAL  GOVERNANCE  REFORMS  –  STRENGTHENING  THE  VOICE  AND 
REPRESENTATION OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES 

International  financial  stability  is  a  global  public  good.  The  global  financial  and 
economic  crisis  has  revealed  a  clear  global  and  economic  governance  deficit.  The 
ongoing  international  review  of  the  international  financial  and  monetary 
architecture  and  global  economic  governance  should  ensure  more  effective  and 
coordinated management of global issues such as financial stability, food and energy 
security, climate change and the fight against major pandemics. The review should 
encompass the World Bank, other multilateral development banks (MDBs), the IMF 
and the United Nations and its specialised agencies, funds and programmes (such as 
the FAO, the WHO and the ILO), the WTO and relevant regional organisations. The 
main  challenge  is  to  strike  the  correct  balance  between  the  legitimacy  (through 
representativeness)  and  the  effectiveness  of  global  institutions.  In  this  context  the 
implementation  of  the  G20  London  Summit  commitments  including  those  on  the 
reform  of  global  financial  governance  are  essential71.  Europe,  in  line  with  its  long-
standing commitments72, should be driving the necessary reforms and should ensure 
that the interests and needs of developing countries are taken into account. 

7.1. 

Governance reform of the Bretton Woods institutions 

The  2008  reform  package  adopted  by  the  International  Monetary  Fund  was  a 
first step in improving the alignment of members' quotas with their relative positions 
in the world  economy and has helped to  strengthen the  voice and representation of 
developing  countries;  the  next  review  of  quotas  should  be  completed  by  January 
201173. 

70 
71 
72 

73 

As reflected in the May 18, 2009 Council Conclusions. 
G-20 London Summit Communique of 2 April 2009. 
Council  Conclusions  on  the  UN  Conference  on  Financing  for  Development  (Monterrey),  14  March 
2002 point 7 g). 
G-20 London Summit Leaders' Statement of 2 April.2009, point 20. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  currently  discussed  World  Bank  governance  reform  package  includes  an 
increase in developing and transition countries' voting shares in the International 
Bank  for  Reconstruction  and  Development  (IBRD)  and  International  Development 
Association  (IDA)  with  special  emphasis  on  the  smallest  poor  members  as  an 
important first step. The G20 and Development Committee decided a shift in voting 
rights  of  at  least  3%  towards  developing  and  transition  countries  in  addition  to  the 
1.46% increase favouring underrepresented countries, agreed on in the first phase of 
the  reform.  The  majority  of  EU  Member  States  agree  that  a  further  realignment  of 
shareholdings in the Bank should take account of the evolving weight of all members 
in the world economy74 and contributions to the World Bank Group, particularly to 
the  IDA75.  This  is  consistent  with  the  World  Bank  Group's  'Development 
Mission'.  A  number  of  Member  States76  and  the  Commission  believe  that 
strengthening basic votes (in the IBRD and IFC77) would be a good option to protect 
and strengthen  the voting  power  of  the  poorest, the low income countries (LICs). 
The  crucial  question  is  how  this  increase  in  voting  power  for  developing  and 
transition  countries  will  be  implemented.  For  the  EU,  the  long-term  objective 
should be one single European seat at the IMF and the World Bank. 

The  majority  of  EU  Member  States78  and  the  Commission  support  an  open, 
transparent  merit-based  process  to  select  the  IMF  Managing  Director,  the 
World  Bank  President  and  senior  staff  of  the  two  institutions  regardless  of  their 
nationality.  

7.2. 

Improving  the  efficiency  and  instruments  of  the  International  Financial 
Institutions (IFIs) 

The  G20  called  for  increased  the  resources  and  improved  IFI  instruments, 
particularly for low-income countries, and the Bretton Woods institutions took steps 
to support developing countries: 

•  Regarding the IMF79: (1) allocation of USD250 billion of Special Drawing Rights 
(SDR); (2) gold sales; (3) changes to IMF instruments, also favouring low income 
countries; (4) an appeal from the G-20 Pittsburgh Summit to developed countries, 
to  volunteer  their  own  Special  Drawing  Rights  (SDR)  resources  to  support  IMF 
lending to the poorest countries80. 

•  The World Bank created a new crisis response window in IDA to help LICs cope 
with  the  current  crisis  and  to  protect  them  from  future  crises.  The  World  Bank 
Group, namely its concessional arm IDA, should have sufficient resources to fulfil 
its development mandate and future development challenges81. 

74 

75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 

14  out  of  27:  Austria,  Belgium,  Denmark,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Ireland,  Italy,  the 
Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK. 
This was stated by several EU Member States, e.g. Belgium, France, Germany, Finland and Spain. 
Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg and the UK. 
The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Finance Corporation. 
All Member States that were members of the EU prior to 2004. 
http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/sdr.htm. 
G-20 London Summit Leaders' Statement point 36. 
Development Committee Communiqué of October 2009. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  The G20 called on all Multilateral Development Banks to conclude all reviews 
during  the  first  half  of  2010  to  ensure  that  requests  for  capital  increases  can  be 
examined  together  with  similar  requests  to  the  World  Bank  Group  and  to  avoid 
having available resources distributed on a first come first served basis. 

The EU Economic and Financial Committee recently agreed on principles for future 
capital  increases  for  Multilateral  Development  Banks  and  the  division  of  labour 
between  them.  Several  Member  States,  in  their  answers  to  the  Monterrey 
questionnaire, agreed that special emphasis should be given to replenishments for the 
banks'  concessional  arms  such  as  the  IDA  at  the  World  Bank  and  the  African 
Development Fund (ADF) at the African Development Bank.  

7.3. 

United Nations governance reform 

they 

include 

improved 

The  systemic  reforms  decided  at  the  2005  World  Summit  have  yet  to  be  fully 
implemented; 
representativeness  and 
effectiveness of the principal UN bodies. Moreover, the 'UN system-wide coherence 
reform'  needs  to  progress  in  order  to  reduce  fragmentation  of  the  UN  system,  to 
strengthen  its  operational  capacity  and  to  improve  the  UN's  efficiency  at 
headquarters  and  in  the  countries  where  it  operates.  The  coherence  of  policies  and 
actions between the IFIs and the UN needs to be strengthened. The UN's contribution 
to the work of the IFIs should be improved and made more systematic. 

transparency, 

7.4. 

The way forward 

•  The Commission will monitor emerging discussions on how best to use the new 

SDR allocations in particular to the benefit of low-income countries. 

•  In line with the decision by the G20 and the Joint World Bank/IMF Development 
Committee,  the  EU  and  other  Governors  on  the  Boards  need  to  ensure  that  the 
increases  in  developing  and  transition  countries'  voting  shares  are  swiftly  and 
essential and a good solution would be to increase basic votes. 

•  Europe's  voice  in  the  International  Financial  Institutions  should  be  strengthened 
through consolidated, less fragmented European representation, with the ultimate 
objective  of  a  single  European  seat  at  the  IMF  and  the  World  Bank  and  EU 
coordination  should  be  stepped  up,  particularly  within  regional  development 
banks. 

•  the replenishments for concessional arms of Multilateral Development Banks such 
as  the  IDA  at  the  World  Bank  Group  and  the  African  Development  Fund  at  the 
African  Development  Bank  are  of  particular  concern  in  relation  to  capital 
adequacy. 

•  The  'UN  system-wide  coherence  reform'  needs  support  in  order  to  reduce 
fragmentation  of  the  UN  to  strengthen  its  operational  capacity  and  improve  its 
efficiency headquarters and in the countries where it operates. 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
8. 

SUCCESSIVE  CRISES  AND  CLIMATE  CHANGE  -  THE  MOST  IMPORTANT  GLOBAL 
CHALLENGES  

8.1. 

Impact of the financial and economic crisis on developing countries 

In 2009 the European Commission reacted rapidly to support developing countries in 
coping  with  the  crisis82  and  proposed  a  set  of  comprehensive,  timely,  targeted  and 
coordinated measures to be taken by the EU, largely endorsed by the Council83. 

One  of  the  main  concrete  and  short-term  instruments  is  the  ad  hoc  Vulnerability 
FLEX  (V-FLEX)  mechanism  to  mobilise  EUR  500  million  in  2009  and  2010  to 
support  the  most  vulnerable  ACP  countries  with  poor  resilience,  with  a  view  to 
enabling  them  to  maintain  priority  spending,  notably  in  social  sectors.  In  2009,  the 
first  tranche  of  the  allocations  came  to  EUR  215  million  for  13  ACP  countries.  In 
collaboration  with  the  IFIs,  the  Commission  has  already  started  working  towards 
identifying the ACP countries potentially eligible under the 2010 V-FLEX exercise. 

The EU response also includes measures decided to address the previous food crisis 
(including  the  EUR  1  billion  Food  Facility  set  up  in  reaction  to  the  soaring  food 
prices in 2008). The Commission has delivered the main elements of a collective EU 
response  but  several  EU  Member  States  also  acted,  through  bilateral  responses  as 
well as their contributions to IFI resources. 

While  the analyses  and  reports of the IFIs, the UN and the OECD have provided 
useful  information  on  the  impact  of  the  crisis  on  developing  countries,  several 
Member  States  (Belgium,  Germany,  the  Netherlands  and  the  UK)  have  also 
conducted  specific  assessments  for  a  number  of  developing  countries,  including 
through  enhanced  consultations  with  partner  countries.  Most  of  the  Member  States 
have sought close cooperation and coordination with the IFIs and the Commission in 
their  response  to  the  crisis.  Some  (Austria,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Spain, 
Sweden and the UK) have contributed to the support mechanisms set up by the UN 
and  the  IFIs,  including  the  World  Bank's  operational  crisis  response  initiatives.  A 
majority of Member States have either reviewed or plan to review their development 
cooperation programmes on the basis of new needs and priorities resulting from the 
crisis. 

8.2. 

Global Public Goods and global challenges 

The  financing  of  global  public  goods,  such  as  global  health,  food  security  and 
security, is a priority for the European Union and its Member States. Member States 
and  the  European  Commission  contribute  through  a  variety  of  instruments, 
including humanitarian assistance, country development assistance, contributions to 
global funds and multilateral programmes. This reflects the variety of needs and the 
fact 
interact. 
Furthermore,  the  outcome  on  global  public  goods  also  greatly  depends  on  non-
development policies and regulations. 

that  development  and  global  public  goods  often  strongly 

82 

83 

COM  (2009)  160,  Brussels,  8.04.2009  Commission  Communication  'Supporting  developing  countries 
in coping with the crisis'. 
10018/09, Brussels, Council Conclusions of 18 May, 2009. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Besides a strengthening of the international governance, notably in the area of food 
security,  the  new  EU  approach  to  Policy  Coherence  for  Development  (PCD) 
focusing  on  policies  implemented  to  tackle  global  challenges  (Trade  and  Finance, 
Climate Change, Food Security, Migration and Security) should contribute to greater 
aid efficiency and effectiveness. 

8.3. 

Climate change financing - a major issue in the international negotiations 

The  key  challenges  for  climate  negotiations  are  to  agree  on  emission  reduction 
targets and appropriate actions to ensure that the global average temperature rise 
remains below 2°C and on international and national actions to adapt to the impact of 
climate  change.  The  financing  issue  is  central  to  the  prospects  for  reaching  this 
ambitious  post-2012  agreement.  Throughout  2009  the  EU  intensely  debated  the 
climate change-related financing. 

•  The  Commission's  views  are  summarised 

in  the  Communication 

'Stepping  up 
international climate finance: a European blueprint for the Copenhagen deal'84: By 
2020  roughly  EUR  100  billion  will  be  required  for  mitigating  emissions  and  adapting  to 
climate  change  in  all  developing  countries.  Financing  should  come  from  three  main 
sources:  (1)  domestic  public  and  private  finance  from  developing  countries  (estimated 
share at 20-40 %), (2) the international carbon market (up to 40 %, depending on carbon 
price)  and  (3)  international  public  finance  in  the  range  of  EUR22  to  50  billion  per  year. 
Industrialised  countries  and  economically  more  advanced  developing  countries  should 
contribute,  while  LDCs  should  not.  International  public  funding  contributions  should  be 
shared on the basis of two criteria: the ability to pay and responsibility for emissions.  

•  The  Council  recognised:  (1)  that  a  climate  agreement  will  require  a  gradual  but 
significant scaling up of both public and private financial flows to developing countries - 
including through the carbon market - for adaptation, mitigation, deforestation reduction, 
technology and capacity-building activities and that current institutional arrangements for 
climate  finance  were  not  designed  to  handle  disbursal  of  finance;  (2)  that  adequate, 
predictable and timely financial support for implementation of an international agreement 
is crucial; and (3) that the EU is prepared to take on its fair share, in the framework of a 
global  and  comprehensive  Copenhagen  agreement  which  entails  appropriate  and 
adequate contributions by the Parties. 

•  The European Council called on all international parties to undertake that such financing 
would  not  undermine  or  jeopardise  the  fight  against  poverty  and  continued  progress 
towards  the  MDGs  and  recognised  the  role  of  innovative  financing  for  sustainable 
development85.  It  also  stressed  the  importance  of  improving  climate  finance-related 
statistics for monitoring financial flows to developing countries, including ODA. 

•  The European Council of December 2009 pledged that the EU would collectively provide 

fast-start funding for 2010-2012 of EUR2.4 billion on average per year. 

The  main  outcome  of  the  Copenhagen  Accord  (CA)86,  which  contains  solid 
elements  on  finance  for  climate  change,  is  consistent  with  the  overall  EU  line  on 

84 
85 
86 

COM(2009) 475, 10.9.2009. 
Conclusions of the European Council of 29-30 October 2009. 
The Copenhagen Accord, includes a 'collective commitment by developed countries to provide new and 
additional resources, including forestry and investments through international institutions, approaching 
USD  10  billion  annually  for  the  period  2010-2012,  with  balanced  allocation  between  adaptation  and 
mitigation'.  Council  Conclusions  of  11.12.2009  on  the  Copenhagen  Conference  on  Climate  Change, 
paragraph  37  concerning  the  climate  fast-start  international  public  support:  'The  EU  and  its  Member 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
                                                 
finance. By March 2010, more than 100 developed and developing countries have, so 
far,  associated  themselves,  and  notified  their  pledges  for  mitigation  targets  and 
action, demonstrating sound support to the Accord and their commitment to act now.  

The Copenhagen Accord contains several positive points for developing countries that can 
be considered a step forward: 

recognition that temperature rise should remain below 2°C; responding to demands 

- 
especially of island states there will be a review by 2015 to consider a target of 1.5°C; 

- 
(emerging) developing countries are expected to implement  mitigation actions; Least 
Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States may undertake voluntary 
actions on the basis of support; 

special  attention  is  envisaged  to  help  LDCs,  Small  Island  Developing  States  and 

- 
Africa; adaptation funding is to be prioritised for the most vulnerable; 

recognition  of  the  crucial  role  of  reducing  emissions  from  deforestation  and 

- 
degradation, and the need, in this context, to provide positive incentives; 

recognition  of  the  importance  of  technology  transfers  and  of  the  need  to  a 

- 
mechanism to enhance such transfers; 

a collective financial commitment of developed countries for fast start funding during 

- 
2010-12 approaching USD 30 billion for developing countries; 

a joint goal to mobilise USD 100 billion per year by 2020 from a range of private and 
- 
public  sources  to  address  the  needs  of  developing  countries    for  mitigation  (including 
regarding deforestation), and adaptation, technology transfer and capacity building. 

As a precursor to the High Level Panel agreed upon in the Accord the UN Secretary General 
set up a High Level Advisory Group on Climate Finance to study the contribution of potential 
sources  of  revenue,  including  alternative  sources  of  finance.87.The  European  Commission 
pledged a contribution of EUR50 million per year to fast start finance for 2010-12, which is 
covered - for 2010 - by the EC budget for the Environment and Natural Resources Thematic 
Programme (ENRTP). 

Almost all Member States – in the Monterrey questionnaire – indicate adaptation 
as  a  priority88  for  support  and  especially  highlighted  water  management.  Other 
priorities reported are: energy efficiency, renewable energy and Reducing Emissions 
from  Deforestation  and  Degradation  (REDD).  The  majority  of  Member  States  and 
the  Commission  concur  on  the  need  to  further  consider  innovative  financing  to 
support  developing  countries  coping  with  climate  change.  Among  possible 
innovative  sources,  revenues  linked  to  the  carbon  market  as  well  as  to 
international maritime or air transport are interesting options. In accordance with 
the  EU  Emission  Trading  Scheme  (ETS)  Directive89,  as  agreed  by  EU  Member 
States and the European Parliament in December 2008, at least 50% of the revenues 
generated  from  the  auctioning  of  allowances  under  the  ETS  should  be  used,  inter 
alia,  for  supporting  developing  countries  that  have  ratified  the  international 
agreeement  on  climate  change  to  finance  measures  to  avoid  deforestations  and 

87 

88 

89 

States are ready to contribute with fast-start funding of EUR 2.4 billon annually for the years 2010 – 
2012.' 
The  UN  Secretary-General  announced  the  launch  of  the  High-level  Advisory  Group  on  12  February 
2010. It will be co-chaired by the UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian Prime Minister 
Meles Zenawi. 
Austria,  Belgium,  Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Ireland,  Italy, 
Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and the UK. 
Directive 2009/29/EC of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend 
the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme of the Community, OJ L 140, 5.6.2009, p 63. 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
increase  afforestation  and  reforestation,  to  transfer  technologies  and  to  cope 
with adverse  effects  of  climate  change.  Global  instruments  addressing  international 
aviation  and  maritime  transport  could  provide  an  important  source  of  innovative 
financing building on existing commitments under the EU ETS for all aviation action 
revenues to be use for climate change measures. 

For the way ahead, priority should be given to: 

•  implementing  as  soon  as  possible  the  EU  financial  pledge  to  the  fast-start 
funding under the Copenhagen Accord of EUR2.4 billion per year during 2010-
2012. The European Commission could take a facilitating and coordinating role in 
the implementation of the EU's fast-start funding commitment; 

•  Continued  work  for  the  effective  implementation  of  the  Global  Climate 
Change Alliance between the EU and poor developing countries most vulnerable 
to climate change; 

•  exploring the contribution that innovative sources and mechanisms of funding 

can make to support developing countries cope with climate change; 

•  promoting mechanisms that can leverage private sector finance by using public 
funding in innovative ways, including by taking into account the experience of 
the EU's Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund (GEEREF); 

•  reflecting on the relation between climate funding and ODA; 

•  establishing  a  fully  transparent  reporting  system,  using  a  comprehensive  set  of 

climate finance statistics, which build on the OECD-DAC system; 

•  promoting a more balanced geographical distribution of financing under the 
Clean  Development  Mechanism  and  encouraging  to  move  from  a  pure  project 
approach towards a sector-wide carbon market mechanism; 

•  further  promoting  renewable  energy,  in  the  context  of  improved  energy 
security and sustainability, and paying careful attention to the sustainability of 
bio-fuels as one of the sources of renewable energy. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
ABBREVIATIONS  

ACP 
ADF 
AfDB 
AfT 
AMC 
AT 
AWEPA 
ATAF 
BCPR 

BE 
BG 
CAP 
CIAT 
CIF 
COM 
CPSS 
CSP 
CSR 
CY 
CZ 
DAC 
DDR 
DE 
DK 
DRR 
DRRP 
DSF 
DTC 
EBRD 
EC 
ECOFIN 
ECOSOC 
EDF 
EE 
EEA 
EIB 
EIF 
EITI 
EL 
ENP 
EPA 
ES 
ETS 
EU-27 
EU-15 
EU-12 
FAO 

African, Caribbean and Pacific States, party to the Cotonou Agreement 
African Development Fund 
African Development Bank  
Aid for Trade 
Advance Market Commitment 
Austria 
Association of European Parliamentarians for Africa 
African Tax Administration Centre  
United  Nations  Development  Programme's  Bureau  for  Crisis  Prevention  and 
Recovery 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Common Agricultural Policy  
Centro International de Agricultura tropical 
Climate Investment Funds 
European Commission 
Committee on Payments and Settlements Systems 
Country Strategy Paper  
Corporate social responsibility 
Cyprus 
Czech 
Development Assistance Committee of the OECD 
Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration of former combatants  
Germany 
Denmark 
Disaster risk reduction 
Disaster Risk Reduction Prevention 
Debt Sustainability Framework 
Double Tax Convention 
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development 
European Community 
Economic and Financial Affairs Council 
Economic and Social Council  
European Development Fund 
Estonia 
European Economic Area 
European Investment Bank 
European Investment Fund 
Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative 
Greece 
European Neighbourhood Policy 
Economic Partnership Agreement 
Spain 
Emission Trading Scheme 
European Union and its 27 Member States 
The 15 Member States of the EU members of the EU prior to 2004 
The 12 Member States of the EU joining the EU in or after 2004 
Food and Agriculture Organisation 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
 
FFD 
FI 
FLEGT 
FLEX: 

FoS 
FR 
FFD 
FSF 
G 8 

GAERC 
GAVI 
GCCA 
GDP 
GEEREF 
GEF 
GFATM 
GFDRR 
GIIF 
GNI 
GPG 
GVP 
HIPC 
HLPM 
HU 
IATI 
IBRD 
ICF 
IDA 
IDB 
IDLO 
IE 
IFAD 
IFC 
IFF 
IFFI 
IFIs 
IFM 
ILO 
IMF 
IMFC 
IPG 
ISDR 
ISO26000 
IT 
ITC 
ITRS 
LDCs 
LICs 

Financing for Development 
Finland 
Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade 
The  EU  instrument  to  compensate  African,  Caribbean  and  Pacific  (ACP)
countries for short term fluctuations in export earnings 
Framework of Standards 
France 
Financing for Development 
Financial Stability Forum 
Group  of  Eight  (Summit  of  Canada,  France,  Germany,  Italy,  Japan,  Russia,
United Kingdom and United States) 
General Affairs and External Relations Council 
Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation  
Global Climate Change Alliance 
Gross Domestic Product 
Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fund 
Global Environment Facility 
Global Fund Against AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria 
Global Facility for Disaster Risk Reduction 
Global Index Insurance Facility 
Gross National Income 
Global Public Goods 
Global Vertical Programmes 
Heavily Indebted Poor Countries 
High Level Plenary Meeting  
Hungary 
International Aid Transparency Initiative 
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development 
Investment Climate Facility for Africa 
International Development Association 
Inter-American Development Bank 
International Development Law Organisation 
Ireland 
International Fund for Agricultural Development 
International Finance Corporation  
International Financial Facility 
International Finance Facility for Immunisation 
International Financial Institutions 
Innovative Finance Mechanisms 
International Labour Organisation 
International Monetary Fund 
International Monetary and Financial Committee 
International Public Goods 
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction 
Standard on Social responsibility 
Italy 
International Tax Compact 
International Transactions Reporting System  
Least Developed Countries 
Low Income Countries 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
 
 
LT 
LU 
LV 
MDG 
MDRI 
MDTF 
MTOs 
MTR 
MoU 
MS 
MT 
NAMAs 
NAPA: 
NGO 
NL 
ODA 
OECD 
OECD CRS 

OEWG 
PCD 
PEFA 
PFM 
PGA 
PIU 
PL 
PSD 
PT 
REDD 
RO 
RSP 
SE 
SI 
SIDS 
SK 
SME 
Stabex 
SRF 
STAR 
TIEAs 
TRA 
UK 
UN 
UNDEF 
UNDP 
UNGA 
UNFCCC 
UNITAID 
UNODC 
UNSC: 

Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Latvia 
Millennium Development Goals 
Multinational Debt Relief Initiative 
Multi-Donor Trust Fund of World Bank 
Money Transfer Operators 
Mid-Term Review 
Memorandum of Understanding 
Member States 
Malta 
Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions 
National Adaptation Programmes of Action 
Non-Governmental Organisation 
The Netherlands 
Official Development Assistance 
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development 
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Creditor Reporting 
System 
Open-ended Working Group 
Policy Coherence for Development  
Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability  
Performance Measurements Framework  
President of UN General Assembly 
Project Implementation Units  
Poland 
Payment Service Directive 
Portugal 
Reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation 
Romania 
Regional Strategy Paper 
Sweden 
Slovenia 
Small Island Developing States 
Slovakia 
Small and medium-sized enterprises 
System to Stabilise Export Earnings 
Statistics for Results Facility  
Stolen Assets Recovery Initiative 
Tax Information Exchange Agreements 
Trade Related Assistance  
United Kingdom 
United Nations 
United Nations Democracy Fund 
United Nations Development Programme 
United Nations General Assembly 
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 
United Nations International Drug Purchase Facility 
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 
United Nations Security Council 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
 
WB 
WCO 
WFP 
WHO 
WTO 

World Bank 
World Customs Organisation 
World Food Programme 
World Health Organisation 
World Trade Organisation 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
Annex 1: UN Convention against Corruption (Merida Convention) - State of signature 
and ratification by the EU 

Date of Signature 

Date  of  Ratification, 
Accession, 
Acceptance, 
Approval 

Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
The Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
UK

11-Jan-06
25-Sep-08
20-Sep-06
23-Feb-09
---
26-Dec-06
20-Jan-10*
20-Jun-06 (accepted)
11-Jul-05
---
17-Sep-08
19-Apr-05
---
05-Oct-09
04-Jan-06
21-Dec-06
06-Nov-07
11-Apr-08
31-Oct-06 (accepted)
15-Sep-06
28-Sep-07
02-Nov-04
01-Jun-06
01-Apr-08
19-Jun-06
25-Sep-07
09-Feb-06

10-Dec-03
10-Dec-03
10-Dec-03
09-Dec-03
22-Apr-05
10-Dec-03
N/A
09-Dec-03
09-Dec-03
09-Dec-03
10-Dec-03
10-Dec-03
09-Dec-03
09-Dec-03
19-May-05
10-Dec-03
10-Dec-03
12-May-05
10-Dec-03
10-Dec-03
11-Dec-03
09-Dec-03
09-Dec-03
N/A
16-Sep-05
09-Dec-03
09-Dec-03

EC
* Estonia has concluded the national ratification process and is in the process of depositing 
the ratification instruments at the UN/ 

12-Nov-08

15-Sep-05

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
 
 
Annex 2: EU ODA levels 2006-2009, estimates and gaps for 2010 (ODA in EUR million and % of GNI) - Baseline Case 

GNI and ODA  in million € at current prices

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010 (fore cast)

2010 
(commitme nts/fore cast)

2010: financial gap to 
me e t INDIVIDUAL 
targe ts

2010: financial gap to 
me e t C O LLEC TIVE 
targe t 0.56%

O DA in 
million €

O DA in % 
of GNI

O DA in 
million €

O DA in % 
of GNI

O DA in 
million €

O DA in % 
of GNI

O DA in 
million €

O DA in % 
of GNI

O DA in 
million €

O DA in % 
of GNI

O DA in 
million €

O DA in % 
of GNI

Gap in 
million €

Gap in % 
of GNI

O DA 
targe t in 
million 

Gap in 
million €

Gap in % of 
GNI

O fficial Targe ts

Austria

Be lgium

Bulgaria

C yprus

C z e ch Re public

De nmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Ge rmany

Gre e ce

Hungary

Ire land

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxe mbourg

Malta

The  Ne the rlands

Poland

Portugal

Romania

Slovak Re public

Slove nia

Spain

Swe de n

UK

EU 15 TO TAL

EU 12 TO TAL

EU 27 TO TAL

EN 

1194

1575

1

21

128

1782

11

665

8445

8313

338

119

814

2901

9

20

232

7

4343

236

316

3

44

35

3038

3151

9926

47033

635

47664

0.47

0.50

0.00

0.15

0.12

0.80

0.09

0.40

0.47

0.36

0.17

0.13

0.54

0.20

0.06

0.08

0.89

0.15

0.81

0.09

0.21

0.00

0.10

0.12

0.32

1.02

0.51

0.43

0.09

0.41

1321

1425

17

18

131

1872

12

717

7220

8978

366

76

871

2901

12

35

274

8

4547

265

344

84

49

40

3755

3170

7194

44954

745

45699

0.50

0.43

0.06

0.12

0.11

0.81

0.08

0.39

0.38

0.37

0.16

0.08

0.55

0.19

0.06

0.11

0.92

0.15

0.81

0.10

0.22

0.07

0.09

0.12

0.37

0.93

0.35

0.39

0.09

0.37

1188

1654

13

26

173

1944

16

808

7562

9693

488

74

921

3370

15

35

288

11

4848

258

430

94

64

47

4761

3281

7973

49207

825

50032

0.43

0.48

0.04

0.17

0.12

0.82

0.10

0.44

0.39

0.38

0.21

0.08

0.59

0.22

0.07

0.11

0.97

0.20

0.80

0.08

0.27

0.07

0.10

0.13

0.45

0.98

0.43

0.43

0.09

0.40

823

1868

12

29

161

2017

14

924

8927

8605

436

83

718

2380

15

35

289

11

4614

249

364

99

53

51

4719

3267

8267

48217

812

49029

EU-15: 0.51

EU-12: 0.17
(or national 
target)

1411

2434

57

30

221

1863

22

921

10223

12655

1188

154

671

7915

29

40

315

10

4515

551

806

211

114

60

5689

3143

9117

62866

1499

64365

0.51

0.70

0.17

0.17

0.17

0.80

0.17

0.51

0.51

0.51

0.51

0.17

0.51

0.51

0.17

0.17

1.00

0.17

0.80

0.17

0.51

0.17

0.17

0.17

0.56

1.00

0.56

0.56

0.17

0.53

1031

2434

16

30

170

2042

13

966

9364

9925

815

78

671

3043

20

35

300

11

4708

437

514

99

53

52

5265

3020

10159

54257

1012

55270

0.37

0.70

0.05

0.17

0.13

0.88

0.10

0.54

0.47

0.40

0.35

0.09

0.51

0.20

0.12

0.15

0.95

0.19

0.83

0.13

0.33

0.08

0.08

0.15

0.52

0.96

0.62

0.49

0.11

0.46

0.30

0.55

0.04

0.17

0.12

0.88

0.11

0.54

0.46

0.35

0.19

0.09

0.54

0.16

0.08

0.14

1.01

0.20

0.82

0.08

0.23

0.08

0.08

0.15

0.46

1.12

0.52

0.44

0.10

0.42

44 

EU-15: 0.51

EU-12: 0.17

380

0.14

41

51

9

859

2729

373

76

4872

9

6

114

292

112

62

8

0.12

0.04

0.07

0.04

0.11

0.16

0.08

0.31

0.05

0.02

0.04

0.18

0.09

0.09

0.02

9506

488

9994

0.09

0.06

0.08

67384

12114

0.10

EN 

 
  
€
 
EU ODA levels 2006-2009, estimates and gaps for 2010 (ODA in EUR million and % of GNI)- Low Case  

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010 (fore cast)

2010 
(commitme nts/fore cast)

2010: financial gap to 
me e t INDIVIDUAL 
targe ts

2010: fi nancial gap to 
me e t C O LLEC TIVE 
targe t 0.56%

O DA i n 
mi ll i on €

O DA i n % 
of GNI

O DA i n 
mi l li on €

O DA i n % 
of GNI

O DA in 
mil li on €

O DA in % 
of GNI

O DA in 
mil li on €

O DA in % 
of GNI

O DA i n 
mi ll ion €

O DA in % 
of GNI

O DA i n 
mi ll ion €

O DA i n % 
of GNI

Gap i n 
mi ll ion €

Gap i n % 
of GNI

O DA 
targe t in 
mil li on 

Gap in 
mi ll i on €

Gap in % of 
GNI

O ffi cial Targe ts

Austri a

Be lgium

Bul gari a

C yprus

C z e ch Re publi c

De nmark

Estoni a

Finland

France

Ge rmany

Gre e ce

Hungary

Ire l and

Italy

Latvia

Lithuani a

Luxe mbourg

Mal ta

The  Ne the rlands

Pol and

Portugal

Romania

Slovak Re publi c

Slove nia

Spain

Swe de n

UK

EU 15 TO TAL

EU 12 TO TAL

EU 27 TO TAL

1194

1575

1

21

128

1782

11

665

8445

8313

338

119

814

2901

9

20

232

7

4343

236

316

3

44

35

3038

3151

9926

47033

635

47664

0.47

0.50

0.00

0.15

0.12

0.80

0.09

0.40

0.47

0.36

0.17

0.13

0.54

0.20

0.06

0.08

0.89

0.15

0.81

0.09

0.21

0.00

0.10

0.12

0.32

1.02

0.51

0.43

0.09

0.41

1321

1425

17

18

131

1872

12

717

7220

8978

366

76

871

2901

12

35

274

8

4547

265

344

84

49

40

3755

3170

7194

44954

745

45699

0.50

0.43

0.06

0.12

0.11

0.81

0.08

0.39

0.38

0.37

0.16

0.08

0.55

0.19

0.06

0.11

0.92

0.15

0.81

0.10

0.22

0.07

0.09

0.12

0.37

0.93

0.35

0.39

0.09

0.37

1188

1654

13

26

173

1944

16

808

7562

9693

488

74

921

3370

15

35

288

11

4848

258

430

94

64

47

4761

3281

7973

49207

825

50032

0.43

0.48

0.04

0.17

0.12

0.82

0.10

0.44

0.39

0.38

0.21

0.08

0.59

0.22

0.07

0.11

0.97

0.20

0.80

0.08

0.27

0.07

0.10

0.13

0.45

0.98

0.43

0.43

0.09

0.40

823

1868

12

29

161

2017

14

924

8927

8605

436

83

718

2380

15

35

289

11

4614

249

364

99

53

51

4719

3267

8267

48217

812

49029

0.30

0.55

0.04

0.17

0.12

0.88

0.11

0.54

0.46

0.35

0.19

0.09

0.54

0.16

0.08

0.14

1.01

0.20

0.82

0.08

0.23

0.08

0.08

0.15

0.46

1.12

0.52

0.44

0.10

0.42

1031

2434

16

30

170

2042

13

966

8664

9925

815

78

671

3043

20

35

300

11

4708

437

514

99

53

52

5265

3020

10159

53557

1012

54570

0.37

0.70

0.05

0.17

0.13

0.88

0.10

0.54

0.43

0.40

0.35

0.09

0.51

0.20

0.12

0.15

0.95

0.19

0.83

0.13

0.33

0.08

0.08

0.15

0.52

0.96

0.62

0.48

0.11

0.45

EU-15: 0.51

EU-12: 0.17
(or national 
t arget)

1411

2434

57

30

221

1863

22

921

10223

12655

1188

154

671

7915

29

40

315

10

4515

551

806

211

114

60

5689

3143

9117

62866

1499

64365

0.51

0.70

0.17

0.17

0.17

0.80

0.17

0.51

0.51

0.51

0.51

0.17

0.51

0.51

0.17

0.17

1.00

0.17

0.80

0.17

0.51

0.17

0.17

0.17

0.56

1.00

0.56

0.56

0.17

0.53

EU-15: 0.51

EU-12: 0.17

380

0.14

41

51

9

1559

2729

373

76

4872

9

6

114

292

112

62

8

0.12

0.04

0.07

0.08

0.11

0.16

0.08

0.31

0.05

0.02

0.04

0.18

0.09

0.09

0.02

10206

488

10694

0.09

0.06

0.09

67384

12814

0.11

Source:  OECD/DAC  for  2006-2009,  where  available;  otherwise  Commission  data  based  on  Member  States'  information  to  the  Commission.  Note:  shaded  cells  contain  information  supplied  by  Member 
States, white cells are OECD DAC or Commission data or simulations. ODA is at current prices. Annex 4 describes the Commission's methodology applied for analysing ODA indications/ forecasts provided 
by EU Member States. 

EN 

45 

EN 

 
  
€
 
ODA indicator for the EU-15 – preparedness to meet the individual commitments of 0.51% and 0.7% ODA/GNI by 2010 and 2015 

Annex 3: ODA indicators – preparedness to meet the individual commitments 

1.20

1.10

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

I

/

N
G
A
D
O
%

0.35

0.30

0.16

0.19

0.23

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

s
t
e
g
r
a
t

A
D
O

i

g
n
h
c
a
e
r

s
d
r
a
w
o
T

1.12

1.01

0.88

0.82

0.52

0.54

0.54

0.55

0.46

0.46

y
a

l

t
I

e
c
e
e
r

G

2015 target of 0.7% ODA/GNI

2010 target of 0.51% ODA/GNI

ODA/GNI in 2000

ODA/GNI in 2009 Arrows

Source: European Commission 2010 

l

a
g
u

t
r
o
P

a

i
r
t
s
u
A

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

e
c
n
a
r
F

i

n
a
p
S

K
U

d
n
a
e
r
I

l

d
n
a

l

i

n
F

m
u

i

l

g
e
B

s
d
n
a

l
r
e
h
e
N

t

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

n
e
d
e
w
S

The  position of  the arrows represent  the  2009  ODA/GNI   level f or each country.   

The  direction of  the arrow  indicates whether  ODA went  up or down f rom 2008  levels.  Arrows  are  coloured:
green
red

if  the MS is "on track" with  a clear timetable to meet the 2010   target of  0.51% ODA/GNI, 

if  it is not "on track", and needs to substantially reinf orce ef f orts to reach the target.  

A diamond indicates that ODA levels stayed the same  f rom 2008 to 2009.

EN 

46 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
ODA indicator for the EU-12 – preparedness to meet the individual commitments of 0.17% and 0.33% ODA/GNI by 2010 and 2015 

I

/

N
G
A
D
O
%

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

0.20

0.17

0.12

0.11

0.15

0.14

0.08

0.08

0.08

0.08

0.09

0.04

Bulgaria

Latvia

Poland

Romania

Slovakia Hungary

Estonia

Czech 
Republic

Slovenia

Lithuania

Cyprus

Malta

s
t
e
g
r
a
t

A
D
O

i

g
n
h
c
a
e
r

s
d
r
a
w
o
T

2015 target of 0.33% ODA/GNI

2010 target of 0.17% ODA/GNI

ODA/GNI at tim e of EU accession

ODA/GNI in 2009 Arrows

Source: European Commission 2010 

EN 

The  position of  the arrows represent  the  2009  ODA/GNI   level f or each country.   

The  direction of  the arrow  indicates whether  ODA went  up or down f rom 2008  levels.  Arrows  are  coloured:
green
orange        
have a clear timetable, and 
red

if  the MS is "on track" with a clear  timetable to meet the 2010   target of  0.17% ODA/GNI, 
if  the MS is also "on track" and planning to reach  the 2010  target of  0.17% ODA/GNI  but does not 

if  it is not "on track", and needs to substantially reinf orce ef f orts to reach the target.  

A diamond indicates ODA levels stayed the same  f rom 2008  to 2009.

47 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 4: The Commission methodology applied for analysing 
ODA indications/ forecasts provided by EU Member States: 

Figures on Official Development Assistance (ODA) are in current prices and have been taken from the 
OECD  Development  Assistance  Committee  (DAC)  for  the  years  1995  to  2009,  inclusive,  for  those 
Member States for which DAC reports90. For those Member States that do not report ODA volumes to 
DAC,  figures  for  2008  and  2009  have  been  taken  from  Member  States'  replies  to  the  annual 
questionnaire.  Where  Member  States  did  not  make  an  indication  for  their  2009  ODA  volume,  it  was 
assumed that those Member States would maintain their 2008 nominal ODA volume.  

The  Commission  requested  all  Member  States  to  share  their  replies  to  the  DAC  Advance 
Questionnaire on ODA 2009, in order to ensure consistency between figures published here and those 
that Member States report to the OECD DAC in the Advance Questionnaire. 

From 2010 onwards, ODA figures have been taken, as far as available, from Member States’ replies. 
For  those  Members  States  that  gave  ODA  figures  in  national  currencies  the  Commission’s  annual 
average exchange rates for the respective years have been applied to convert them into euro. Up to 
2011, the exchange rates have been taken from the Commission’s autumn 2009 forecast and, beyond 
that, nominal exchange rate stability has been assumed. Where a Member State has presented only 
the ODA/GNI ratio, ODA has been calculated by multiplying it with the Commission’s estimate of GNI. 
Where  a  Member  State  has  given  both  the  ODA  figure  and  the  ODA/GNI  ratio,  we  have  given 
preference to using the ODA volume figure as ODA/GNI targets are more sensitive to differing 
assumptions on GNI. 

The ratios of ODA to GNI might be subject to change after the publication of this report. For the 
year  2009  only  preliminary  GNI  figures  were  available  from  the  Commission's  official  AMECO 
database91 and from EU Member States' information on their ODA volumes and national GNI provided 
to the Commission (in the replies to the Monterrey questionnaire) and the OECD/ DAC (March 2010 in 
response to the DAC advance ODA questionnaire).  

For 2010:  

- 
indications show both (1) the forecasts the Member States made regarding their ODA levels in 
2010 and (2) the individual ODA/GNI targets of each Member States for that year (0.51% for EU-15 
Member States and 0.17% for Member States that joined the EU after 2004).  

- 
they will maintain their nominal ODA volume of 2009.  

When  Member  States  did  not  provide  a  forecast  for  2010  ODA  levels,  it  was  assumed  that 

- 
level is reflected in the commitment column for 2010. 

When  Member  States  indicated  ODA  volumes  that  exceed  their  individual  targets,  that  aid 

- 
when Member States indicated a range of possible ODA volumes. 

A  baseline  and  a  low  case  scenario  were  created  to  show  the  lower  and  higher  outcome, 

90 

91 

For figures between 1995 and 2009, the Commission services used the OECD DAC exchange rates and 
GNI figures to ensure consistency with percentages already published by the OECD DAC. For figures 
between  2010  and  2015,  Commission  estimates  for  exchange  rates  and  GNI  were  used.  Marginal 
differences in the ODA/GNI ratios for some countries in the Commission calculations compared to the 
OECD DAC calculations could still, however, be due to minor differences in the applied exchange rates 
and GNI estimates. The OECD DAC also published figures for EU Member States that are not DAC 
members. Where available, this data was used. For 2008 data however, some non-DAC Member States 
provided more up to date information to the Commission than the data published by the DAC. Where 
this was the case, the Commission used the more up to date information. 
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/ameco/user/serie/SelectSerie.cfm  

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
For  the  remaining  years  the  Commission  established  3  different  scenarios  for  reaching  the  2015 
targets for Member States (0.7% for EU-15 Member States and 0.33% for Member States that joined 
the EU after 2002). 

-A  linear  increase  scenario.  In  this  scenario,  the  ODA  volume  required  to  meet  the  2015  target  for 
each  Member  State,  was  calculated  by  using  the  official  Commission  estimates  for  GNI  levels.  The 
Commission  calculated  the  ODA  amount  that  is  required  in  addition  to  the  2009  ODA  volume  by 
distributing this required increase evenly between 2010 and 2015. On that basis ODA as a % of GNI 
was calculated using the official Commission GNI estimates. 

-A  constant  growth  scenario.  In  this  scenario,  the  ODA  volume  required  to  meet  the  2015  target  for 
each  Member  State,  were  calculated  as  above.  The  Commission  determined  the  average  annual 
growth rate in the ODA volumes required to reach this target, starting from 2010. This growth rate was 
then applied to the 2009 ODA result, to obtain the ODA volumes in interim years. Finally ODA as a % 
of GNI was established using the official Commission GNI estimates. 

-A  scenario  with  an  interim  2012  target.  The  Commission  determined  an  interim  target  that  lies  half 
way – i.e. in 2012, between ODA as a % of GNI in 2009 and the 2015 targets. For this scenario, the 
Commission calculated a linear progression in ODA as a % of GNI, between the 2009 ODA outcome 
and the 2012 interim target, and between the 2012 interim target and the 2015 target. On this basis, 
ODA  volumes  for  interim  years  were  calculated  by  multiplying  the  expected  ODA  as  a  %  of  GNI, 
applying the official Commission  GNI estimates. 

-Where  provided,  the  Commission  also  indicated  Member  State’s  estimates  for  their  ODA  volumes 
between 2010 and 2015. 

Figures  for  Gross  National  Income  (GNI)  in  current  prices  are  estimates  for  2009  and  from  the 
Commission’s autumn 2009 forecast and February 2010 interim forecast for the years 2010 and 2011. 
GNI figures for the years 2012 to 2013 were calculated by applying the Commission’s country-specific 
projections of nominal GDP growth rates. The Commission’s projections are based on potential output 
growth  estimates  until  2013,  based  on  a  methodology  which  was  also  used  for  the  purpose  of 
budgetary  calculations  in  the  context  of  the  EU  financial  framework  2007-2013.92  The  GNI  growth 
rates  applied  for  the  years  2014  and  2015  were  assumed  to  be  equal  to  the  2013  growth  rate 
respectively. 

92 

The  Commission  estimates  Member  States’  potential  output  growth  on  the  basis  of  the  production 
function approach. For further technical details see Cécile Denis, Kieran Mc Morrow and Werner Röger 
(2002), “Production function approach to calculating potential growth and output gaps – estimates for 
the  EU  Member  States  and  the  US”  Economic  Papers  No.  176,  European  Commission,  Brussels, 
September 2002, and Cécile Denis, Daniel Grenouilleau, Kieran Mc Morrow and Werner Röger (2006), 
"Calculating  Potential  Growth  Rates  and  Output  Gaps  -  A  revised  Production  function  approach  ", 
Economic Papers No. 247, European Commission. 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Annex 5: ODA trajectories of all EU Member States 1995 – 2015 

EU27  - ODA as a % of GNI 
Historical data and scenarios for reaching 2015 targets

EU15

EU25

EU27

Outcome linear increase in ODA volume

Outcome constant growth rate in ODA  volume

Collective Targets 2010/2015

2012_Intermediate_Targets

EU15 ODA to Africa  incl. imputed multilateral

EU15 ODA to LDCs incl. imputed multilateral

0.80

0.70

ODA as a % of GNI
•2009-2015 increase required: 

0.28

% of GNI over whole period

•
•Average of            % of GNI per year

0.047

I

N
G

f
o
%
a
s
a
A
D
O

0.60

•Highest previous annual increase: 

•2008: +0.03%

0.50

•Highest previous multi year increase:

•2007-2009:   +0.04% (annual: +0.02%)

0.40

0.37

0.37

0.33

0.33

0.31

0.32

0.33

0.35

0.35

0.35

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

0.70

0.69

0.66

0.63

0.63

0.59

0.61

0.59

0.55

0.56

0.49

0.55
0.54

0.50

0.41

0.41

0.40

0.42

0.46

0.37

ODA Volume (EUR)
•ODA gap to 2015  0.7% target from 2009  level:

52.7
•EUR          billion

•Annual increase in ODA volume to meet target:

8.78

•EUR          billion increase each year
•
average annual growth rate in 
ODA volume

13%

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

EN 

50 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Austria  - ODA as a % of GNI 
Historical data and scenarios for reaching 2015 targets

Historical/MS Forecast

Linear increase in ODA volume

Constant growth rate in ODA  volume

2010 Target

2012_Intermediate_Targets

ODA to Africa incl. imputed multilateral

ODA to LDCs incl. imputed multilateral

ODA as a % of GNI
•2009-2015 increase required: 

ODA Volume (EUR)
•ODA gap to 2015  target from 2009  level:

0.40

% of GNI over whole period

•
•Average of             % of GNI per year

0.067

•EUR       billion
1.5
•

3.1%

of EU27 ODA funding gap

0.80

0.70

•Annual increase in ODA volume to meet target:

•EUR         million increase each year
•

average annual growth rate in ODA volume

258

19%

0.70

0.66

0.65

0.61

0.61

0.59

0.57

0.53

0.53

0.60

•Highest previous annual increase: 

•2004: +0.29%
•2001: +0.11%

0.50

0.40

I

N
G

f
o
%
a
s
a
A
D
O

•Highest previous multi year increase:

•2003-2005:  +0.32% (annual: +0.16%)

0.34

0.47

0.52

0.51

0.48

0.50

0.43

0.47

0.47

0.39
0.39
0.37
0.35

0.41

0.37

0.30

0.30

0.27

0.23

0.24

0.24

0.23

0.22

0.26

0.23

0.20

0.20

0.10

0.00

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

EN 

51 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Belgium  - ODA as a % of GNI 
Historical data and scenarios for reaching 2015 targets

Historical/MS Forecast

2010 Target

ODA to Africa incl. imputed multilateral

ODA to LDCs incl. imputed multilateral

0.80

0.70

ODA as a % of GNI
•Belgium national timeline on schedule to reach 
and maintain target in 2011.

•2009-2015 increase required: 

•

0.15

% of GNI over whole period

0.60

0.60

•Highest previous annual increase: 

0.50

•2003: +0.17%
•2005: +0.12%

•Highest previous multi year increase:

•1999-2003:  +0.30% (annual: +0.075%)
•2007-2009:  +0.12% (annual: +0.06%)

0.43

0.41

0.40

0.38

0.34

0.31

0.35

0.30

0.36

0.37

I

N
G

f
o
%
a
s
a
A
D
O

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

0.70

0.70

0.70

0.70

0.70

0.70

0.53

0.50

0.48

0.43

0.55

0.51

ODA Volume (EUR)
•ODA gap to meet and keep 2015 target 
from 2009 level:
•EUR        billion
1.1
2.1%
•

of EU27 ODA funding gap

•Annual increase in ODA volume to 
meet/keep target from 2009 level:

•EUR         million increase each year
177
•
average annual growth rate in 
ODA volume

8%

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

EN 

52 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Bulgaria  - ODA as a % of GNI 
Historical data and scenarios for reaching 2015 targets

Historical/MS Forecast

Linear increase in ODA volume

Constant growth rate in ODA  volume

2010 Target

2012_Intermediate_Targets

ODA as a % of GNI
•2009-2015 increase required: 

0.29

% of GNI over whole period

•
•Average of              % of GNI per year

0.048

ODA Volume (EUR)
•ODA gap to 2015  target from 2009  level:

•EUR          million
132
•
0.3%
of EU27 ODA funding gap

•Highest previous annual increase: 

•Annual increase in ODA volume to meet target:

•2007: +0.06%

•Highest previous multi year increase:

•N/A

•EUR        million increase each year
•
51%

22
average annual growth rate in ODA volume

0.22

0.21

0.11

0.17

0.10

0.06
0.05

0.16

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.04

0.01

0.00

0.33

0.29

0.23

0.26

0.25

0.16

I

N
G

f
o
%
a
s
a
A
D
O

0.40

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

EN 

53 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cyprus  - ODA as a % of GNI 
Historical data and scenarios for reaching 2015 targets

Historical/MS Forecast

Linear increase in ODA volume

Constant growth rate in ODA  volume

2010 Target

2012_Intermediate_Targets

ODA as a % of GNI
•2009-2015 increase required: 

ODA Volume (EUR)
•ODA gap to 2015  target from 2009  level:

0.16

% of GNI over whole period

•
•Average of             % of GNI per year

0.027

45

•EUR        million
•

0.1%

of EU27 ODA funding gap

•Highest previous annual increase: 
•2005,2006:  +0.06%

•Highest previous multi year increase:

•2004-2006:  +0.12% (annual: +0.06%)

•Annual increase in ODA volume to meet target:
•EUR     million increase each year
•
17%

7
average annual growth rate in ODA volume

0.17

0.17

0.21

0.20
0.19
0.17

0.17

0.15

0.12

0.09

0.03

0.33

0.32

0.30
0.29

0.22

0.21

0.29

0.27
0.26

0.20

0.27

0.24

0.22

0.19

0.24

0.22
0.20

0.18

I

N
G

f
o
%
a
s
a
A
D
O

0.40

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

EN 

54 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Czech Republic  - ODA as a % of GNI 
Historical data and scenarios for reaching 2015 targets

Historical/MS Forecast

Linear increase in ODA volume

Constant growth rate in ODA  volume

2010 Target

2012_Intermediate_Targets

ODA as a % of GNI
•2009-2015 increase required: 

ODA Volume (EUR)
•ODA gap to 2015  target from 2009  level:

0.21

% of GNI over whole period

•
•Average of              % of GNI per year

0.035

•EUR         million
406
•

0.8%

of EU27 ODA funding gap

•Highest previous annual increase: 

•Annual increase in ODA volume to meet target:

•2003: +0.04%

•Highest previous multi year increase:

•2000-2003:  +0.08% (annual: +0.027%)

•EUR       million increase each year
•

68
average annual growth rate in ODA volume

23%

0.33

0.31

0.29

0.28

0.25

0.26

0.24

0.22

0.22

0.18

0.18

0.16
0.15

0.13

0.13

0.13

0.11

0.11

0.11

0.12

0.11

0.12

0.12

0.07

0.05

0.03

0.03

0.03

I

N
G

f
o
%
a
s
a
A
D
O

0.40

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

EN 

55 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Denmark  - ODA as a % of GNI 
Historical data and scenarios for reaching 2015 targets

Historical/MS Forecast

2010 Target

ODA to Africa incl. imputed multilateral

ODA to LDCs incl. imputed multilateral

1.20

1.04

1.01

0.99

0.97

1.06

1.03

0.96

1.00

0.96

ODA as a % of GNI
•Denmark already exceeds the 0.7% target and  is 
commited to staying above a minimum level of 
0.8%.
•2009-2015 increase required: 

•N/A

•Highest previous annual increase: 

•1996: +0.08%

•Highest previous multi year increase:

•1997-2000:  +0.09% (annual: +0.03%)

I

N
G

f
o
%
a
s
a
A
D
O

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

0.84

0.85

0.81

0.80

0.81

0.82

0.88

0.88

0.80

0.80

0.80

0.80

0.80

0.51

ODA Volume (EUR)
•Amount of ODA required to stay at 0.8% from 
2009 level:

240
•EUR         million
•

0.5%

of EU27 ODA funding gap

•Annual increase in ODA to stay at 0.8% from 
2009 level:

40
average annual growth rate in ODA 

•EUR       million increase each year
•
2%
volume

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

EN 

56 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Estonia - ODA as a % of GNI 
Historical data and scenarios for reaching 2015 targets

Historical/MS Forecast

Linear increase in ODA volume

Constant growth rate in ODA  volume

2010 Target

2012_Intermediate_Targets

ODA as a % of GNI
•2009-2015 increase required: 

ODA Volume (EUR)
•ODA gap to 2015  target from 2009  level:

% of GNI over whole period

•
0.22
•Average of             % of GNI per year

0.037

•EUR       million
35
•

0.1%

of EU27 ODA funding gap

•Highest previous annual increase: 

•2005: +0.03%

•Highest previous multi year increase:

•2004-2006:  +0.04% (annual: +0.02%)

•Annual increase in ODA volume to meet target:
•EUR     million increase each year
•
23%

6
average annual growth rate in ODA volume

0.22

0.19

0.18

0.16

0.17

0.15

0.14

0.10

0.09

0.08

0.08

0.11

0.10

0.05

0.33

0.29

0.28

0.26

0.23

I

N
G

f
o
%
a
s
a
A
D
O

0.40

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

EN 

57 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Finland  - ODA as a % of GNI 
Historical data and scenarios for reaching 2015 targets

Historical/MS Forecast

Linear increase in ODA volume

Constant growth rate in ODA  volume

2010 Target

2012_Intermediate_Targets

ODA to Africa incl. imputed multilateral

ODA to LDCs incl. imputed multilateral

ODA as a % of GNI
•2009-2015 increase required: 

% of GNI over whole period

•
0.16
•Average of             % of GNI per year

0.027

•Highest previous annual increase: 

•2005: +0.09%
•2009: +0.08%

•Highest previous multi year increase:

•2000-2005:  +0.15% (annual: +0.03%)
•2007-2009:  +0.13% (annual: +0.065%)

0.31

0.33

0.32

0.33

0.31

0.31

0.32

0.35

0.35

0.37

0.46

0.44

0.40

0.39

0.70

0.68

0.66

0.63

0.66

0.62

0.58

0.58

0.58

0.61
0.59
0.57

0.54

0.57
0.56
0.54

0.51

ODA Volume (EUR)
•ODA gap to 2015  target from 2009  level:

•EUR         million
611
•

1.2%

of EU27 ODA funding gap

•Annual increase in ODA volume to meet 
target:

•EUR         million increase each year
102
•
average annual growth rate in 
ODA volume

9%

I

N
G

f
o
%
a
s
a
A
D
O

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

EN 

58 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
France - ODA as a % of GNI 
Historical data and scenarios for reaching 2015 targets

Historical/MS Forecast

Linear increase in ODA volume

Constant growth rate in ODA  volume

2010 Target

2012_Intermediate_Targets

ODA to Africa incl. imputed multilateral

ODA to LDCs incl. imputed multilateral

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.55

I

N
G

f
o
%
a
s
a
A
D
O

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

ODA as a % of GNI
•2009-2015 increase required: 

% of GNI over whole period

•
0.24
•Average of             % of GNI per year

0.040

•Highest previous annual increase: 
•2002,2005:  +0.06%
•Highest previous multi year increase:

•2000-2005:  +0.17% (annual: +0.03%)

0.48

0.44

0.47

0.47

0.38

0.38

0.40

0.41

0.37

0.38

0.39

0.57

0.57

0.53

0.53

0.42

0.46

0.51
0.50
0.49
0.47

0.43

0.70

0.66

0.65

0.61

0.61

0.30

0.31

ODA Volume (EUR)
•ODA gap to 2015  target from 2009  level:

•EUR        billion
7.8
15.5%
•

of EU27 ODA funding gap

•Annual increase in ODA volume to meet 
target:

1.30

•EUR          billion increase each year
•
ODA volume

average annual growth rate in 

11%

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

EN 

59 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Germany  - ODA as a % of GNI 
Historical data and scenarios for reaching 2015 targets

Constant growth rate in ODA  volume

Historical/MS Forecast

Linear increase in ODA volume

2010 Target

2012_Intermediate_Targets

ODA to Africa incl. imputed multilateral

ODA to LDCs incl. imputed multilateral

ODA as a % of GNI
•2009-2015 increase required: 

ODA Volume (EUR)
•ODA gap to 2015  target from 2009  level:

% of GNI over whole period

•
0.35
•Average of            % of GNI per year

0.058

•EUR          billion
11.8
•

23.3%

of EU27 ODA funding gap

•Highest previous annual increase: 

•2005: +0.08%

•Annual increase in ODA volume to meet 
target:

•Highest previous multi year increase:

•2004-2008:  +0.10% (annual: +0.03%)

•EUR          billion increase each year
1.97
•
average annual growth rate 
in ODA volume

15%

0.31

0.32

0.28

0.26

0.26

0.27

0.27

0.27

0.28

0.28

0.36

0.36

0.37

0.38

0.35

0.70

0.61

0.57

0.66

0.63

0.51

0.42

0.40

0.50

0.56

0.51

0.45

I

N
G

f
o
%
a
s
a
A
D
O

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

EN 

60 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Greece  - ODA as a % of GNI 
Historical data and scenarios for reaching 2015 targets

Historical/MS Forecast

Linear increase in ODA volume

Constant growth rate in ODA  volume

2010 Target

2012_Intermediate_Targets

ODA to Africa incl. imputed multilateral

ODA to LDCs incl. imputed multilateral

ODA as a % of GNI
•2009-2015 increase required: 

ODA Volume (EUR)
•ODA gap to 2015  target from 2009  level:

0.51

% of GNI over whole period

•
•Average of             % of GNI per year

0.085

•EUR        billion
1.5
•

3.0%

of EU27 ODA funding gap

•Highest previous annual increase: 
•2000, 2009:  +0.05%

•Annual increase in ODA volume to meet 
target:

•Highest previous multi year increase:

•2007-2009:  +0.10% (annual: +0.05%)

253

•EUR          million increase each year
•
average annual growth rate in 
ODA volume

28%

0.70

0.66

0.64

0.57

0.61

0.56

0.46

0.57

0.48

0.37

0.51

0.35

0.31
0.30

0.44

0.39

0.30

0.15

0.14

0.15

0.15

0.20

0.17

0.21

0.21

0.16

0.17

0.17

0.16

0.21

0.19

0.24

I

N
G

f
o
%
a
s
a
A
D
O

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

EN 

61 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Hungary  - ODA as a % of GNI 
Historical data and scenarios for reaching 2015 targets

Historical/MS Forecast

Linear increase in ODA volume

Constant growth rate in ODA  volume

2010 Target

2012_Intermediate_Targets

ODA as a % of GNI
•2009-2015 increase required: 

ODA Volume (EUR billions)
•ODA gap to 2015  target from 2009  level:

0.33

% of GNI over whole period

•
0.24
•Average of             % of GNI per year

0.040

•Highest previous annual increase: 
•2004, 2005:  +0.04%

•Highest previous multi year increase:

•2003-2006:  +0.10% (annual: +0.03%)

326

•EUR         million
•

0.6%

of EU27 ODA funding gap

•Annual increase in ODA volume to meet target:

54

•EUR       million increase each year
•

average annual growth rate in ODA volume

30%

0.30
0.29

0.27

0.27

0.26

0.22

0.24

0.22

0.18

0.20

0.18

0.15

0.17

0.15

0.13
0.12

•NB: Hungary has indicated that ODA volumes 
- excluding contributions to the European 
Development Fund - will remain stable in 
nominal terms from 2011  to 2015.

0.13

0.11

0.08

0.08

0.09

0.09

0.07

0.03

I

N
G

f
o
%
a
s
a
A
D
O

0.40

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

EN 

62 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ireland  - ODA as a % of GNI 
Historical data and scenarios for reaching 2015 targets

Historical/MS Forecast

Linear increase in ODA volume

Constant growth rate in ODA  volume

2010 Target

2012_Intermediate_Targets

ODA to Africa incl. imputed multilateral

ODA to LDCs incl. imputed multilateral

0.80

0.70

ODA as a % of GNI
•2009-2015 increase required: 

% of GNI over whole period

•
0.16
•Average of             % of GNI per year

0.027

0.60

•Highest previous annual increase: 

•2006: +0.12%
•2002: +0.07%

•Highest previous multi year increase:

•2000-2008:  +0.30% (annual: +0.04%)

0.40

0.39

0.39

0.42

0.29

0.31

0.31

0.30

0.31

0.29

0.33

I

N
G

f
o
%
a
s
a
A
D
O

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

0.59

0.54

0.55

0.54

0.70

0.68
0.67
0.66

0.68

0.66

0.61

0.66

0.64

0.57

0.64

0.62

0.56

0.60

0.59

0.55

0.51

ODA Volume (EUR)
•ODA gap to 2015  target from 2009  level:

428

•EUR         million
•
0.8%

of EU27 ODA funding gap

•Annual increase in ODA volume to meet 
target:

•EUR       million increase each year
71
•
average annual growth rate in 
8%
ODA volume

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

EN 

63 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Italy  - ODA as a % of GNI 
Historical data and scenarios for reaching 2015 targets

Historical/MS Forecast

Linear increase in ODA volume

Constant growth rate in ODA  volume

2010 Target

2012_Intermediate_Targets

ODA to Africa incl. imputed multilateral

ODA to LDCs incl. imputed multilateral

ODA as a % of GNI
•2009-2015 increase required: 

% of GNI over whole period

•
0.54
•Average of             % of GNI per year

0.090

ODA Volume (EUR)
•ODA gap to 2015  target from 2009  level:

•EUR          billion
10.7
•
21.2%

of EU27 ODA funding gap

•Highest previous annual increase: 

•2005: +0.14%
•1998: +0.09%

•Highest previous multi year increase:

•2000-2002:  +0.07% (annual: +0.035%)

•Annual increase in ODA volume to meet 
target:

0.51

•EUR          billion increase each year
1.79
•
average annual growth rate in 
33%
ODA volume

0.20

0.20

0.20

0.15

0.13

0.15

0.11

0.17

0.15

0.29

0.20

0.19

0.22

0.30
0.27

0.20
0.20

0.16

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

I

N
G

f
o
%
a
s
a
A
D
O

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.00

0.70

0.66
0.63

0.55

0.61

0.55

0.43

0.57

0.47

0.34

0.15

0.43

0.37

0.26

0.17

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

EN 

64 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Latvia  - ODA as a % of GNI 
Historical data and scenarios for reaching 2015 targets

Historical/MS Forecast

Linear increase in ODA volume

Constant growth rate in ODA  volume

2010 Target

2012_Intermediate_Targets

ODA as a % of GNI
•2009-2015 increase required: 

ODA Volume (EUR)
•ODA gap to 2015  target from 2009  level:

% of GNI over whole period

•
0.25
•Average of            % of GNI per year

0.042

•Highest previous annual increase: 

•2004: +0.05%

•Highest previous multi year increase:

•2003-2005:  +0.06% (annual: +0.03%)

42

•EUR       million
0.1%
•

of EU27 ODA funding gap

•Annual increase in ODA volume to meet target:
•EUR     million increase each year
•
25%

7
average annual growth rate in ODA volume

0.33

0.29

0.26

0.27

0.22

0.22
0.21

0.17

0.17
0.17

0.14

0.17

0.13
0.12

0.11

0.07

0.06

0.06

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.01

I

N
G

f
o
%
a
s
a
A
D
O

0.40

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

EN 

65 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Lithuania  - ODA as a % of GNI 
Historical data and scenarios for reaching 2015 targets

Historical/MS Forecast

Linear increase in ODA volume

Constant growth rate in ODA  volume

2010 Target

2012_Intermediate_Targets

ODA as a % of GNI
•2009-2015 increase required: 

0.19

% of GNI over whole period

•
•Average of              % of GNI per year

0.032

ODA Volume (EUR)
•ODA gap to 2015  target from 2009  level:

•EUR       million
57
0.1%
•
of EU27 ODA funding gap

•Highest previous annual increase: 

•2009: +0.04%

•Highest previous multi year increase:

•2003-2009:  +0.14% (annual: +0.02%)

•Annual increase in ODA volume to meet target:
•EUR      million increase each year
•

average annual growth rate in ODA volume

10

18%

0.19
0.17
0.16

0.14

0.11

0.11

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.01

0.33

0.31
0.29

0.28

0.26
0.26

0.25

0.23
0.22

0.22

0.20
0.19

I

N
G

f
o
%
a
s
a
A
D
O

0.40

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

EN 

66 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Luxembourg  - ODA as a % of GNI 
Historical data and scenarios for reaching 2015 targets

Historical/MS Forecast

2010 Target

ODA to Africa incl. imputed multilateral

ODA to LDCs incl. imputed multilateral

1.20

1.00

0.80

0.60

I

N
G

f
o
%
a
s
a
A
D
O

ODA as a % of GNI
•Luxembourg already exceeds the 0.7% target and  is 
commited to staying above a level of 1.0%.
•2009-2015 increase required: N/A
•Highest previous annual increase: 

•1997: +0.11%  and 1998,  2006:  +0.10%

•Highest previous multi year increase:

•1995-2003:  +0.50% (annual: +0.06%)

0.65

0.66

0.70

0.77

0.78

0.55

0.44

0.40

0.36

0.20

0.00

1.01

0.97

0.95

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.92

0.89

0.86

0.79

0.79

0.51

ODA Volume (EUR)
•Amount of ODA required to stay at 1.0% 
from 2009 level:
159
of EU27 ODA funding gap

•EUR         million
•
0.3%

•Annual increase in ODA volume to stay at 
1.0% from 2009  level:

26
average annual growth rate in 

•EUR      million increase each year
•
ODA volume

8%

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

EN 

67 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Malta  - ODA as a % of GNI 
Historical data and scenarios for reaching 2015 targets

Historical/MS Forecast

Linear increase in ODA volume

Constant growth rate in ODA  volume

2010 Target

2012_Intermediate_Targets

ODA as a % of GNI
•2009-2015 increase required: 

% of GNI over whole period

•
0.13
•Average of            % of GNI per year

0.022

•Highest previous annual increase: 

•2008: +0.05%

•Highest previous multi year increase:

•N/A

ODA Volume (EUR)
•ODA gap to 2015  target from 2009  level:

•EUR       million
11
0.02%
•

of EU27 ODA funding gap

•Annual increase in ODA volume to meet target:
•EUR    million increase each year
2
•
12%

average annual growth rate in ODA volume

0.23
0.22
0.21

0.20

0.20

0.19

0.17

0.18

0.18

0.15

0.15

0.33
0.33

0.32
0.31
0.29

0.30
0.28

0.26

0.21

0.20

0.21

0.27
0.26

0.22

0.20

0.25
0.23

0.21

0.20

I

N
G

f
o
%
a
s
a
A
D
O

0.40

0.35

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

EN 

68 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Netherlands  - ODA as a % of GNI 
Historical data and scenarios for reaching 2015 targets

Historical/MS Forecast

2010 Target

National Path

ODA to Africa incl. imputed multilateral

ODA to LDCs incl. imputed multilateral

0.81

0.81

0.81

0.80

0.79

0.84

0.82

0.81

0.80

0.82

0.81

0.81

0.80

0.87

0.82

0.83

0.81

0.80

0.80

0.78

1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

I

N
G

f
o
%
a
s
a
A
D
O

ODA as a % of GNI
•The Netherlands already exceeds the 0.7% target 
and  is commited to staying above a level of 0.8%.

•2009-2015 increase required: 

•N/A

0.73

0.50

•Highest previous annual increase: 

•2005: +0.09%

•Highest previous multi year increase:

•N/A

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

0.51

ODA Volume (EUR)
•Amount of ODA required to stay at 0.8% from 
2009 level:

•EUR         million
•
1.4%

711
of EU27 ODA funding gap

•Annual increase in ODA volume to stay at 0.8% 
from 2009 level:
119
average annual growth rate in ODA 

•EUR         million increase each year
•
2%
volume

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

EN 

69 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Poland  - ODA as a % of GNI 
Historical data and scenarios for reaching 2015 targets

Historical/MS Forecast

National Path

Constant growth rate in ODA  volume

2010 Target

2012_Intermediate_Targets

0.40

0.35

0.30

ODA as a % of GNI
•2009-2015 increase required: 

0.25

% of GNI over whole period

•
•Average of             % of GNI per year

0.042

ODA Volume (EUR)
•ODA gap to 2015  target from 2009  level:

•EUR          billion
1.24
•
2.4%
of EU27 ODA funding gap

•Highest previous annual increase: 

•Annual increase in ODA volume to meet target:

•2004: +0.04%

0.25

•Highest previous multi year increase:

•2003-2007:  +0.09% (annual: +0.02%)

0.33

0.30

0.29

0.26

0.27

0.26

0.21

•EUR        million increase each year
•
35%

207
average annual growth rate in ODA volume

0.23

0.22

0.17

0.19

0.17

0.14

0.13

0.10

0.09

0.08

0.08

0.11

0.07

0.05

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.02

0.01

I

N
G

f
o
%
a
s
a
A
D
O

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

EN 

70 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Portugal  - ODA as a % of GNI 
Historical data and scenarios for reaching 2015 targets

Historical/MS Forecast

Linear increase in ODA volume

Constant growth rate in ODA  volume

2010 Target

2012_Intermediate_Targets

ODA to Africa incl. imputed multilateral

ODA to LDCs incl. imputed multilateral

0.80

0.70

ODA as a % of GNI
•2009-2015 increase required: 

0.47

% of GNI over whole period

•
•Average of             % of GNI per year

0.078

0.63

0.60

•Highest previous annual increase: 

•2004: +0.41%
•2008: +0.05%

•Highest previous multi year increase:

•2006-2009:  +0.08% (annual: +0.03%)

I

N
G

f
o
%
a
s
a
A
D
O

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.25

0.24

0.21

0.26

0.26

0.25

0.27

0.22

0.21

0.21

0.22

0.70

0.59

0.66

0.64

0.58

0.50

0.61

0.57

0.49

0.46

0.57

0.50

0.42
0.41

0.51

0.34

0.33

0.29

0.46

0.42

0.38

0.35

0.27

ODA Volume (EUR)
•ODA gap to 2015  target from 2009  level:

0.23

964

•EUR        million
•
1.9%

of EU27 ODA funding gap

0.10

0.00

EN 

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

71 

EN 

•Annual increase in ODA volume to meet 
target: EUR        million increase each year

161

average annual growth rate in 

•
24%
ODA volume

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Romania  - ODA as a % of GNI 
Historical data and scenarios for reaching 2015 targets

Historical/MS Forecast

Linear increase in ODA volume

Constant growth rate in ODA  volume

2010 Target

2012_Intermediate_Targets

0.40

0.35

0.30

ODA as a % of GNI
•2009-2015 increase required: 

% of GNI over whole period

•
0.25
•Average of             % of GNI per year

0.042

ODA Volume (EUR)
•ODA gap to 2015  target from 2009  level:

•EUR         million
•
1.0%

487
of EU27 ODA funding gap

•Highest previous annual increase: 

•Annual increase in ODA volume to meet target:

•EUR       million increase each year
•

81
average annual growth rate in ODA volume

35%

0.33

0.30

0.29

0.27

0.24

0.26

0.26

0.20

0.22

0.21

0.17

0.15

0.17

0.17

0.13

0.14

0.07

0.07

0.08

0.11

I

N
G

f
o
%
a
s
a
A
D
O

•2009: +0.01%

0.25

•Highest previous multi year increase:

•N/A

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

EN 

72 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
0.40

0.35

0.30

I

N
G

f
o
%
a
s
a
A
D
O

Slovakia - ODA as a % of GNI 
Historical data and scenarios for reaching 2015 targets

Historical/MS Forecast

Linear increase in ODA volume

Constant growth rate in ODA  volume

2010 Target

2012_Intermediate_Targets

ODA as a % of GNI
•2009-2015 increase required: 

ODA Volume (EUR)
•ODA gap to 2015  target from 2009  level:

% of GNI over whole period

•
0.25
•Average of             % of GNI per year

0.042

•EUR         million
247
•

0.5%

of EU27 ODA funding gap

•Highest previous annual increase: 

•Annual increase in ODA volume to meet target:

•2005: +0.05%

0.25

•Highest previous multi year increase:

•2002-2005:  +0.10% (annual: +0.03%)

41

•EUR        million increase each year
•

average annual growth rate in ODA volume

33%

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

0.12

0.10

0.10

0.09

0.07

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.04

0.02

0.17

0.19
0.17

0.14
0.13

0.11

0.13

0.08

0.08

0.09

0.09

0.08

0.33

0.30
0.29

0.26

0.27
0.26

0.21

0.23
0.22

0.17

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

EN 

73 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
0.40

0.35

0.30

Slovenia - ODA as a % of GNI 
Historical data and scenarios for reaching 2015 targets

Historical/MS Forecast

Linear increase in ODA volume

Constant growth rate in ODA  volume

2010 Target

2012_Intermediate_Targets

ODA as a % of GNI
•2009-2015 increase required: 

ODA Volume (EUR)
•ODA gap to 2015  target from 2009  level:

% of GNI over whole period

•
0.18
•Average of             % of GNI per year

0.030

95

•EUR       million
•

0.2%

of EU27 ODA funding gap

•Highest previous annual increase: 

•Annual increase in ODA volume to meet target:

I

N
G

f
o
%
a
s
a
A
D
O

•2009: +0.02%

0.25

•Highest previous multi year increase:

•2004-2009:  +0.05% (annual: +0.01%)

•EUR       million increase each year
•
19%

16
average annual growth rate in ODA volume

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

0.19

0.17

0.15

0.15

0.12

0.12

0.13

0.11

0.10

0.33

0.31

0.29

0.24

0.21

0.28

0.26

0.19

0.26

0.22

0.17

0.23

0.20

0.16

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

EN 

74 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Spain  - ODA as a % of GNI 
Historical data and scenarios for reaching 2015 targets

Historical/MS Forecast

2010 Target

Linear increase in ODA volume

Constant growth rate in ODA  volume

2012_Intermediate_Targets

ODA to Africa incl. imputed multilateral

ODA to LDCs incl. imputed multilateral

ODA as a % of GNI
•2009-2015 increase required: 

0.24

% of GNI over whole period

•
•Average of             % of GNI per year

0.040

•Highest previous annual increase: 
•2001,2008:  +0.08%

•Highest previous multi year increase:

•2003-2009:  +0.23% (annual: +0.04%)

0.24

0.22

0.24

0.24

0.23

0.22

0.30

0.26

0.23

0.24

0.27

I

N
G

f
o
%
a
s
a
A
D
O

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

0.70

0.70

0.68
0.66
0.66

0.70

0.70

0.65
0.63
0.61

0.62
0.59
0.57

0.60

0.58
0.55
0.53

0.53
0.51
0.51

0.45

0.46

0.37

0.32

ODA Volume (EUR)
•ODA gap to 2015  target from 2009  level:

•EUR        billion
3.8
•

7.5%

of EU27 ODA funding gap

•Annual increase in ODA volume to meet 
target:

•EUR         million increase each year
635
•
average annual growth rate in 
ODA volume

10%

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

EN 

75 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sweden - ODA as a % of GNI 
Historical data and scenarios for reaching 2015 targets

Historical/MS Forecast

2010 Target

National Path

ODA to Africa incl. imputed multilateral

ODA to LDCs incl. imputed multilateral

1.20

1.00

1.12

1.02

0.98

0.94

0.93

0.96

0.96

0.93

1.00

1.00

1.00

0.84

0.79

0.80

0.77

0.84

0.80

0.77

0.79

0.78

0.72

0.70

I

N
G

f
o
%
a
s
a
A
D
O

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00

ODA as a % of GNI
•Sweden already exceeds the 0.7% target and  is 
commited to staying above a level of 1.0%.
•2009-2015 increase required:  N/A
•Highest previous annual increase:  2005:  +0.16%
•Highest previous multi year increase:

•2004-2006:  +0.24% (annual: +0.12%)

0.51

ODA Volume (EUR)
•Amount of ODA required to stay at 1.0% from 
2009 level:

•EUR       billion
1.0
•

2.0%

of EU27 ODA funding gap

•Annual increase in ODA volume to stay at 1.0% 
from 2009 level:
166
average annual growth rate in ODA 

•EUR         million increase each year
•
5%
volume

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

EN 

76 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
United Kingdom  - ODA as a % of GNI 
Historical data and scenarios for reaching 2015 targets

Historical/MS Forecast

2010 Target

Linear increase in ODA volume

Constant growth rate in ODA  volume

2012_Intermediate_Targets

ODA to Africa incl. imputed multilateral

ODA to LDCs incl. imputed multilateral

0.80

0.70

ODA as a % of GNI
•2009-2015 increase required: 

•NB: UK 2010  figure refers to UK financial 
year, not calendar years.

% of GNI over whole period

•
0.18
•Average of             % of GNI per year

0.030

0.60

•Highest previous annual increase: 

•2005: +0.11%

•Highest previous multi year increase:

•1999-2006:  +0.27% (annual: +0.04%)
•2007-2009:  +0.17% (annual: +0.08%)

0.51

0.47

0.52

0.43

0.70

0.70

0.68
0.67
0.66

0.70

0.65
0.64
0.61

0.67

0.62
0.61

0.57

0.65

0.59
0.58
0.55

0.62

0.56
0.56
0.54

0.51

0.32

0.32

0.31

0.36

0.34

0.35

0.29

0.27

0.26

0.27

0.24

ODA Volume (EUR)
•ODA gap to 2015  target from 2009  level:

•EUR        billion
5.1
•
10.1%

of EU27 ODA funding gap

•Annual increase in ODA volume to meet 
target:

•EUR        million increase each year
849
•
average annual growth rate in 
ODA volume

8%

I

N
G

f
o
%
a
s
a
A
D
O

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

EN 

77 

EN