1. This section summarises the level of UK expenditure on international development in recent years and then presents comparisons between the UK and other donors.
2. In 2010/11 total GPEX was £9,007m (see Table 1). This represents an increase of £1,240m (16%) on 2009/10 and a 19% increase on 2006/07.
3. In 2010/11 the DFID programme made up £7,689m or 85 per cent of total GPEX. Non-DFID aid (£1,318m or 15%) made up the remainder.
4. The 16% rise in GPEX from 2009/10 to 2010/11 was driven by an increase in DFID programme expenditure of £1,060m or 16%.
5. The relatively large value of GPEX in 2006/07 was driven by both increases in the DFID programme and increased provision of non-DFID debt relief. In 2010/11 total levels of GPEX have exceeded 2006/07 levels largely due to increased levels of DFID programme spend.
6. The value of the DFID programme has grown steadily over recent years. Since 2006/07 DFID’s programme has grown by 53 per cent. This represents an average annual increase of 11 per cent.
7. Figure 3 shows changes in the level and composition of DFID’s programme over the last five years. In 2010/11 over half of DFID’s total programme (55%) was bilateral assistance (£4,248m) and £3,222m (42%) was multilateral assistance. This distribution has changed slightly – in 2009/10 60 per cent of DFID programme was bilateral and 37 per cent was multilateral.
8. DFID’s bilateral programme was £4,248m in 2010/11, an increase of £290m over 2009/10 (7%). DFID’s bilateral programme has continually increased over the last five years with bilateral expenditure 53 per cent higher in 2010/11 than 2006/07.
9. Figure 4 provides a summary breakdown of DFID’s bilateral programme. Over a third was delivered through a multilateral organisation (£1,466m or 34%). Almost a third (£1,194m or 28%) was provided as financial aid in 2010/11. Over half of this (£643m) or 15 per cent of all DFID’s bilateral assistance was Poverty Reduction Budget Support, with ‘other financial aid’ contributing £551m (13%). £627m (15%) of bilateral assistance was disbursed as ‘bilateral through an NGO’; £468m (11%) as ‘technical cooperation’; and £351m (8%) as ‘humanitarian assistance’.
10. Bilateral assistance delivered through a multilateral organisation increased by 16% (£201m) in 2010/11 following a sharp increase in 2009/10. This rise to £1,265m in 2009/10 from £656m in 2008/09 was due to a number of new bilateral contributions to multi donor pooled funds that are managed by a multilateral organisation. For example, £203m to the Global Trade Liquidity Programme (GTLP); £100m to the Environmental Transformation Fund; £100m to the IDA Social Protection & Crisis Response fund.
11. DFID’s multilateral assistance was £3,222m in 2010/11. This represents an increase of £785m (32%) since 2009/10, driven by increases in assistance to the World Bank (+£367m), the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria (GFATM) (+£186m), the United Nations (+£139m) and the European Commission (+£83m). Contributions to the GFATM have increased by nearly £300m since 2008/09. Figure 6 provides a summary of DFID’s multilateral assistance over the last five years. In 2010/11 DFID’s multilateral assistance went primarily the EC (£1,269m or 39% of total), World Bank Group (£927m or 29%), the United Nations (£355m or 11%) and the GFATM (£349m or 11%). Other recipients, including Regional Development Banks, received a total of £321m (10%). [Table 18 provides a detailed breakdown.]
12. DFID channelled £1,466m of its bilateral assistance through the bilateral aid type ‘Bilateral through a Multilateral Organisation’ in 2010/11. (See Figure 4). Some other bilateral aid types (such as Humanitarian Assistance or Debt Relief) also channel funding through multilateral organisations. £417m was channelled through multilaterals in this way in 2010/11. This means that in total, £1,883m (44%) of DFID’s bilateral programme and £5,105m (66%) of DFID’s total programme was channelled through multilateral organisations.
13. The UK, in line with other donors, reports cancellation of aid loans on a lump sum basis to the OECD-DAC. This means that the total outstanding debt is reported as ODA in the year in which a bilateral deal is signed between the UK and a debtor country, except for countries reaching Completion Point under HIPC where the date of the multilateral agreement is used as the date for DAC reporting.
14. The various components of UK debt relief are summarised in Table 4. In 2010/11, DFID debt relief of £124m represented 2 per cent of the DFID programme. Total UK debt relief of £178m represents 2 per cent of total GPEX. Countries receiving DFID and non-DFID debt relief are shown in Tables 14 and 5 respectively.
15. Table 6 shows the volume of UK ODA reported to the DAC in each of the last three years alongside information on Other Official and Private Flows. In 2010, total net ODA amounted to £8,452m. This represented 0.57 per cent of the UK’s gross national income in that year. More detail on ODA by destination country is shown in Section 4 in Tables 16.1 to 16.6.
16. In 1970 the UN General Assembly endorsed a target that 0.7 per cent of the gross national income of developing countries should be given as ODA. The UK Government is committed to reaching the UN target of 0.7 per cent by 2013. Figure 7 shows that since 1997 the UK ODA/GNI ratio has been on a broadly upward trajectory and in 2010 it reached its highest level since the target was set. The high levels of ODA in 2005 and 2006 reflect high levels of debt relief, particularly for Nigeria, in line with commitments made by the UK and other donors at the 2005 G8 Summit in Gleneagles. A full time-series of the level of UK ODA and the ODA/GNI ratio since 1970 is shown in Table 7.
17. Table 8 and Figures 8 and 9 compare UK ODA figures and ODA/GNI ratios with those of other DAC countries. Some countries have already reached the 0.7 per cent ODA/GNI target (Norway, Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark and the Netherlands), while others are some way off (Greece, Italy, Japan and Korea).
18. Despite its relatively low ODA/GNI ratio, the USA is the largest donor in terms of total expenditure followed by the UK.
Bookmark with:
What are Bookmarks?