Flanders 0.35 10.915 15. Australia 2.5 16. UNFPA 1.5 16 17. Canada 0.27 18. Austria 0.
16 Northern Province, Northern Cape, North West, Gauteng and Mpumalanga were among the provinces that could be identified as beneficiaries of this ODA.
Different donors apparently follow distinct approaches in the allocation of ODA to the SA health sector. Based on which recipient and for which purpose ODA is targeted at, four approaches can be distinguished, namely a national-sectoral approach, a provincial-sectoral approach, a programme approach and an "NGOapproach".
The approach adopted by the EU can be referred to as a national-sectoral approach. Here, the emphasis is on supporting macro-processes and the transformation of the health sector at large. Support is directed towards processes and structures at a national level rather than at a provincial level. (Although ODA from the EU is allocated principally along these lines, it has also supported programmes at a provincial level in the Western Cape, North West, KwaZulu-Natal, Mpumalanga and Northern Province.
The second approach, which can be termed provincial-sectoral, typifies the approach adopted by USAID. This donor provides wide-ranged support to health-related processes and structures in a particular province. The socalled Equity Project in the Eastern Cape is an example of this approach.
The third approach, which is notably adopted by DfID, is the programme approach. Here, a range of projects related to a particular field/theme in health care are supported. Examples of such fields/themes include reproductive health, HIV/AIDS, policy development and capacity development.
The fourth approach entails the targeting of ODA to NGOs rather than to government health services. UNFPA is an example of a donor that supports a larger NGO (PPASA), while Ireland supports smaller and more localised NGOs and CBOs. Of course, these approaches are not mutually exclusive, with different donors often adopting a variety or combination of approaches. Smaller donors appear to prefer entering into ODA agreements with NGOs. However, some also have agreements with the National Department of Health and with individual provinces.
According to available information, the only two provinces that do not have direct ODA agreements with donors are the Western Cape and Eastern Cape. However, the Eastern Cape is known to be a major recipient of ODA from USAID channelled to this province via an NGO. Poor record-keeping and the fact that the Western Cape was not samples for first-hand data collection in this study could explain why this province is apparently not a primary recipient of any ODA. It is highly unlikely that this is in fact the case.
The province apparently benefiting most from direct ODA agreements with donors is Northern Province, followed by Gauteng. The Free State apparently has only one direct ODA agreement (with Ireland) to the value of R0.53 million.
Initiatives and interventions aimed at curbing the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the entire South African population.
However, the same argument applies to the planning and management of South African health services in general. In the absence of good quality information about the health status and health care needs of the population at large, alignment between the allocation of health care resources (including ODA) and the real needs and priorities of the population would hardly be possible. All aspects of information management in the health sector, i.e. systems development, development of criteria and indicators, infrastructure and training could therefore benefit substantially form ODA.
Selected other government departments, e.g. the Departments of Foreign Affairs, Arts, Culture Science & Technology and Trade &Industry.