ODA Analysis

Canadian Council for International Co-operation (CCIC)
Statistical Analysis of Official Development Assistance
International Development Financing
DVM3140
Philippe Regnier
School of International Development and Globalization
Laurisse Noel, Aislynn Row and Sebastian Winsor
April 17th, 2013

The object of the research is to look at trends for the amount of funding given to Official
Development Assistance (ODA) within Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) countries, including a specific analysis of how Canada compares to other
OECD donors. We look at ODA data, which can be defined as:
“Flows of official financing administered with the promotion of the
economic development and welfare of developing countries as the
main objective, and which are concessional in character with a grant
element of at least 25 percent (using a fixed 10 percent rate of
discount). By convention, ODA flows comprise contributions of donor
government agencies, at all levels, to developing countries (“bilateral
ODA”) and to multilateral institutions. ODA receipts comprise
disbursements by bilateral donors and multilateral institutions.”
(OECD, 2012)
We compare, year by year, in both constant and current prices. If current prices are examined,
this will show that aid has increased overall. However, when looking at constant prices, which
adjusts for inflation, we can see a real comparison in the changes over time.
The first section of the research is intended to be a historical analysis of ODA as spent by
Development Assistance Committee (DAC) countries in the OECD. The OECD has 34 member
countries, which have joined together “with the mission to promote policies that will improve the
economic and social well-being of people around the world” (OECD, 2012), however only 25 of
them are members of the DAC. In our research, we analyze the changes in ODA over time, and
more specifically since the 1960s. The second section focuses on ODA from Canada, in the form
of bilateral and multilateral aid. Bilateral aid is the official transfer of ODA from one country to
another, while multilateral aid is development aid given by governments through multilateral
institutions such as the World Bank, the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund.
Finally, the third section will examine spending by sector. In this section we will be looking at
CIDA spending and how it has changed over time and as a percentage of overall spending.
Spending by thematic focus, and by cross cutting focus is examined in detail. By comparing the
results from the aforementioned sections, the research will help to give a deeper understanding of
international development funding on a local and global scale. We have learned that donors have
made commitments regarding their spending on international development, and we will delve

into the actual trends and results of these commitments. Looking into the Canadian context is
also important, because the repercussions of local actions can be seen as a result of, and a factor
in, the bigger picture.
Overview
This topic is of interest to the Canadian Council for International Co-operation and to us
because of the recent changes in ODA worldwide. ODA has had its largest increase ever in the
decade between 2000 and 2010, reaching 0.32% globally. However, since 2010 there has been a
decrease worldwide due to the global financial crisis (OECD 2012a). Partly due to the global
recession, many governments made budget cuts that affected their spending, which took a toll on
development assistance. This means that total ODA from DAC donors decreased by 2.7%
between 2010 and 2011. This is the first time there has been an overall decrease in ODA since
1997. More specifically, bilateral aid took an even bigger dip, falling by 4.5%. Net bilateral
ODA to the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) fell the most, by 8.9% (OECD 2012b). Country
Programmable Aid (CPA), which is a subsection of ODA that excludes food aid and
administrative costs, is estimated to fall by 3% between 2011 and 2013. This decline in CPA and
ODA in general is dangerous for the achievement of the MDGs (WBG 2012).
Also, CCIC is interested in looking into how the context of Canadian government
changes has affected the development sector. The federal government has made major budget
changes in recent years, affecting many sectors such as health-care, old age security and, most
importantly to this research, foreign aid. The International Assistance Envelope, which
encompasses most of Canada’s foreign aid, was capped at $5 billion in 2010. This meant that
Canada’s ODA fell 5.3% in 2011 (OECD 2012b). All aid institutions – with the exception of
Finance Canada - are losing funds; however, CIDA is taking an even bigger hit. According to the
CCIC, the decline in CIDA’s budget is the equivalent of getting rid of all aid for basic education
programs, water and sanitation (CCIC 2012).
In 2010, the Canadian government cut previously established annual aid increases of 8%,
and plans on reducing ODA by another $1.2 billion before 2015. This means that as a percentage
of the GNI, ODA will only represent 0.24% in 2015, as compared to the current 0.34% (2011??
2012?? – Sorry I forget). More specifically, CIDA is losing $663.5 million of funding as a result
of these budget cuts, representing 84.5% of the total cuts. (CCIC 2012).

0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
MillionsUSD
Year
OECD Total ODA
1968-2011, Current and Constant 2010 USD
ODA Current
USD
SECTION A
Statistics on Development Financing: OECD donor ODA
Sebastien Winsor
As we can see from Figure 1, there is a clear overall upward trend in current prices since
1968. Despite this, in the early 1990s, aid flows decreased significantly, going against the
upward trend that dominated aid flows for almost 25 years. During this time, from its then
current peak of 62,435.11 million USD in 1992, there is a clear downward trend for the next five
years, reaching a low of 48,650.17 million USD in 1997. This represents a loss of over 22% from
1992 to 1997. After this, for another 5 years, aid flows remained relatively consistent, although
the 2002 levels were still lower than in 1992. The high of 1992 would not be reached again until
2003, where there is a clear upward trend again, with the exception of a slight dip from 2005 to
2007. These figures are interesting in that the 2008 financial crisis appears to have had little
effect on ODA.
Focusing on these trends since 1990 as in Figure 2 allows us to examine recent changes in
more detail. To begin, funding was significantly lower in 2000 than in 1995, and continued to
decrease slightly into 2001. Following this, however, we do see a clear upward trend until 2011
with the exception of two periods. Funding for ODA remained relatively consistent for two
Figure 1

straight years from 2005 to 2007 and, after a large increase in 2008, remained consistent until
2009. There were several events during this decade that influenced OECD ODA in both
directions. In 2002, the UN Secretary-General commissioned the Millennium project in order to
achieve the Millennium Development Goals, increasing OECD ODA targets to reduce poverty
and promote development. The Monterrey-Consensus on Development Financing also occurred
during 2002. Where levels remained constant from 2005-2006, an OECD report from 2006 states
that
oil and other energy prices continued to rise rapidly in 2005, for the second year in a row
[but the] adverse impact on real incomes and activity in the OECD economies was offset
to some extent…Hence, there remained room for monetary policy to support demand
where needed (OECD, 2006, p. 18).
In 2008, Doha Declaration on Financing for Development widely reaffirmed the
agreements of the Monterrey-Consensus, which implied increases in OECD ODA. Although
funding decreased slightly during this time, the financial crisis that resulted in a global recession
in 2008 does not appear to create significant variations, at least in these figures, to overall ODA.
In fact, despite the fact the 2008 financial crisis continued to have worldwide impacts for several
years after-the-fact, ODA funding continued to increase into 2011. The US comprises
approximately 22% of the OECD budget, and variations within this country could have
significant impacts on ODA (OECD, 2012). There existed within this decade major fluctuations
in the United States’ economic affairs, and the impacts on ODA should be investigated.
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
MillionsUSD
Year
Total and Real OECD ODA
1990, 1995, 2000-2011 (Current and Constant 2010 USD)
a. Current USD
b. Constant USD
c. Real ODA Current
USD
d. Real ODA
Constant USD
Figure 2

The outcomes, when comparing current and constant USD, are similar to the trend
witnessed for current USD. As expected, there is convergence of these two lines up until the
point of 2010, where the constant USD figures are equal. The following year shows something
interesting, however. Despite the fact that from 2010 to 2011, there is an increase in current
dollars from 128,465.92 to 134,038.29 million USD, this increase is not large enough to account
for constant dollar conversions. This results in a decrease in constant dollars, from 128,465.92 to
125,524.83 million USD. Therefore, despite an increase of 4.3% in current dollars, the actual
change is a decrease of 2.3% in constant dollars, representing a loss of approximately 2%.
Since 2000, the trends in constant USD are very similar to the current USD trend. It is
worthwhile to note, however, that the stagnation of 2005-2007 in current USD now becomes a
significant drop, from 123,175.29 to 107,355.55 million constant 2010 USD representing a
decrease of approximately 14.7%. The 2008 financial crisis still seems to have had little to no
effect as ODA continued to increase even in Constant USD, while 2005 to 2007 saw such a
significant decrease, which may be attributed to large debt relief package.
As is evidenced by the OECD GNI Trend graph in Figure 3, Gross National Income for
OECD countries increased at a fairly consistent pace. Although we have relatively stagnant
levels on several occasions, such as in 1973, 1980-1982, and 2000-2002, the only real important
dip seems to have occurred in 2008, to which the most significant impact on OECD GNI was the
2008 financial crisis. Despite this consistent trend, OECD Total ODA as a percentage of GNI
0
10000000
20000000
30000000
40000000
50000000
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
MillionsUSD
Year
OECD GNI Trend
(Constant 2010 USD)
GNI
Figure 3

shows no distinct pattern, with significant variations in actual funding and trends. Figure 4 shows
the instability of ODA funding as a percentage of GNI when compared to GNI growth.
Nevertheless, levels of total ODA as a percentage was highest in 1968 at approximately
0.41%, when GNI was at its lowest point. Since we can see from Figure 1 that total ODA
increased significantly from 1968, it is apparent that these increases were not enough to maintain
the same percentage with regards to GNI. In other words, GNI increased at a faster rate than total
ODA. Figure 4 shows that ODA as a percentage of GNI decreased significantly from 1992 to
1997, and remained relatively consistent until 2004. The decrease in Total ODA in 1992 had
significant impacts on this trend. However, although total ODA increased significantly after
1992, far surpassing funding at that time, total ODA as a percentage of GNI has not followed the
same pattern. OECD countries have yet to reach the percentage of GNI ODA levels of 1992 at
approximately 0.335%, let alone the high of 1968 at 0.41%. In 2011, the percentage of ODA
stands at approximately 0.31%. These are clear indicators that Total ODA as a percentage of
GNI should be used to measure consistency in ODA funding. The targets set out by the UN of
0.7% of GDP are still a distant objective. The earliest data included in this project is from 1968,
and at no point has the UN target been close to being achieved.
This has valid and important implications for ODA funding. Although Total ODA
(especially in constant USD) is an important graph, Total ODA as a percentage of GNI is more
meaningful, as it will tell us if ODA is keeping up pace with GNI growth. The significant
fluctuations in this graph demonstrate the instability in ODA funding from OECD countries, and
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
PercentageOECDTotalGNI
Year
ODA % GNI
OECD DAC Total ODA as a Percentage of GNI
Figure 4

these will be much more evident when looking as a percentage of GNI. A consistent graph for
Total ODA as a Percentage of GNI is important for ODA recipients, and shows a country’s true
capabilities and progress with regards to funding.
Figure 5
Figure 6
Once again, Figures 5 and 6 enable us to examine recent trends in much more detail. As
shown, GNI Trend OECD Countries shows a steady increase except during 2000-2001, where
we see a slight decrease. This may be attributed to the US recession and the dot.com bubble,
which had worldwide implications for GNI. There is a much lower decrease from 2008 to 2009,
no doubt as a result of the 2008 financial crisis. To examine this decrease in more detail allows
0
10000000
20000000
30000000
40000000
50000000
1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
MillionsUSD
Year
GNI Trend OECD Countries
1990, 1995, and 2000-2011 (Current USD)
GNI
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
PercentageTotalGNI
Year
ODA % GNI
DAC Total ODA as a Percentage of OECD GNI
(Current USD)

us to see the actual effect the financial crisis had on OECD GNI. In 2008 and 2009, OECD GNI
was 40,438,100 and 38,482,578 million USD respectively. This represents a loss of almost 5.1%.
Here, the effects of the 2008 financial crisis are clearly established, and resulted in a loss of over
5% of Total OECD GNI. This is a very significant figure. Despite this, Total ODA and Total
ODA as a Percentage of OECD GNI remained constant during this time. Another important
aspect of this graph is the significant decrease of Total ODA and Total ODA as a Percentage of
OECD GNI from 2005-2007 after a rapid increase from 2004 to 2005. From 2004 to 2005, Total
ODA as a Percentage of OECD GNI increased from 0.25% to 0.32%, an increase of 28%. After
this, the percentage decreased from 0.32% to 0.27% during 2005-2007, nearly eliminating this
large increase.
We can say with certainty, however, that Total ODA as a Percentage of OECD GNI does
not show any noticeable trend in more recent times than from 1968. Some periods show a
decrease, others are relatively consistent, while others still demonstrate an increase. The OECD
GNI Trend however does show a clear upward trend, with the exception of 2008, as previously
stated.
As for the costs associated with Figure 7, these also do not show any clear trend. As a
percentage of Total DAC ODA, student costs, debt relief, and refugees in donor countries change
considerably from 1990 to 2011, and we have a significant peak in 2005. In the late 1990’s, early
2000s, and late 2000s, most figures are below or near 10 percent, while we have a peak in 2005
of over 25 percent. This demonstrates the extreme variation in these costs from one year to the
next. It is possible the large peak in 2005 may be attributed to large debt relief packages.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
%TotalDACODA
Year
Student Costs, Debt,
and Refugee as % of
Total DAC ODA
(Constant 2010 USD)
Student Costs, Debt,
and Refugee as % Total
DAC ODA (Current
USD)
Student Costs, Debt, and Refugee (as % of Total DAC ODA)
Figure 7

Figure 8
Figure 8 clearly demonstrates OECD countries favour bilateral aid over multilateral aid.
This implies countries favour ODA transfers directly from one country to another, rather than
through multilateral organizations such as the World Bank. While bilateral ODA may serve the
interest of the donor country, multilateral institutions are more likely to distribute funds where
they are needed the most. Even separating Real ODA from Bilateral ODA, Multilateral ODA is
still significantly less. The trends are interesting; due to the time period and for simplicity,
Constant 2010 USD conversions were used for all figures.
As we can see from Figure 8, support for multilateral ODA does demonstrate an upward
trend from 1968 to 2011 (where funding increased from 8,131.48 to 37,319.31 million USD,
respectively). The increases in Multilateral ODA are very significant, as funding increased by
approximately 450%, even after accounting for Constant USD conversions. For Bilateral ODA,
there is also a clear upward trend from 1968 to 2011 (where funding increased from 36,724.78 to
88,205.48 million USD), but the amounts are significantly higher than for Multilateral ODA.
Figure 8 clearly demonstrates the differences in each type of flow, as both types of flows
maintain an upward trend. However, multilateral flows increase at a relatively steady pace over
the 44 year period, Bilateral ODA experiences significant fluctuations.
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
OECDMultilateralODA
(inmillionsUSD)
Year
Multilateral, Bilateral and Real Official Development Assistance
(capital subscriptions are includedwith grants)
1968-2011 (Constant 2010 USD)
Bilateral
ODA
(Constant
2010 USD)
Real ODA
(Constant
2010 USD)
Multilateral
ODA
(Constant
2010 USD)

Figure 9
OECD funding clearly shows support for Bilateral over Multilateral ODA from 1990-
2011, as shown in Figure 9. During this time period, Multilateral ODA increases slightly and is
relatively constant, while Bilateral ODA experiences significant fluctuations and much greater
increases. When comparing Current and Constant USD conversions as in Figure 10, we have
similar conclusions, although multilateral funding increases significantly more when viewed in
Current rather than Constant USD. Bilateral ODA still increases significantly more, however.
Figure 10
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Funding(MillionsUSD)
Year
Bilateral andReal ODA
1990, 1995, and2000-2011
(Constant 2010 USD)
Multilateral ODA
(Constant USD)
Bilateral ODA
(Constant 2010
USD)
Real ODA (Constant
2010 USD)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
MillionsUSD
Year
Bilateral and Multilateral OECD ODA
(Current and Constant 2010 USD)
Bilateral ODA (Constant
2010 USD)
Bilateral ODA (Current
USD)
Multilateral ODA
(Constant USD)
Multilateral ODA
(Current USD)

Figure 11
When looking at funding during these time periods as a percentage of Total ODA, we can
see from Figure 11 that although Bilateral ODA dominates funding since 1968, there does exist
significant trend variations in both. For example in 1968, while Bilateral and Multilateral ODA
stood at approximately 82% and 18% respectively, by 1977 Multilateral ODA stood at almost
40%. From there, however, funding as a percentage of Total ODA seems to decrease slowly until
it remains relatively steady around 30% from the mid-2000s to 2011. This is confirmed in Figure
12, where Multilateral ODA remains constant around 30% for the entirety of 1990 to 2011.
Figure 12
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100 1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
PercentageofTotalODA
Year
OECD Multi/Bilateral Real Aid as a percentage of Total ODA
(Constant 2010 USD)
% Bilateral
ODA
% Real
Bilateral
ODA
%
Multilateral
ODA
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
PercentageofTotalODA
Year
OECD Multi/Bilateral Aid as a percentage of total ODA
(Constant 2010 USD)
Bilateral
ODA
Multilateral
ODA
Real
Bilateral
ODA

SECTION B
Statistics on development financing - Canadian Official Development Assistance
Laurisse Noel
This section explains the statistical analysis of Canadian Official Development
Assistance. Graphs are complemented with descriptions of influential factors that denote specific
trends or important aspects. The descriptions are based on guiding questions provided by the
Canadian Council for International Co-operation.
Comparison of OECD and Canadian ODA Spending
In an effort to contextualize Canadian ODA spending within the context of OECD
spending, we will revisit the trends exhibited within section A. This will allow for an
understanding of important trends at play.
Since 1968
0
50000
100000
150000
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
MillionsUSD
Year
OECD Total ODA
1968-2011, Current and Constant 2010 USD
ODA Current
USD
ODA
Constant
2010 USD
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
USD$Millions
Canadian Total ODA since 1968 (Net Disbursements)
Constant Prices
(2010 USD
Millions)
Current Prices
(USD Millions)

While the trend is mildly upward, the main similarity is the decrease in ODA in the late
1990’s, increasing again until 2005. Strangely, the 2008 financial crisis had less of an impact on
ODA from all OECD countries, it is much more apparent in Canadian ODA. The three peaks in
Canadian ODA spending before 2000, in 1974, 1978 and 1988 are not reflected on the OECD
scale. The beginning of the millennium demonstrates differences in ODA spending between
OECD nations and Canada, which will be described in further detail in the next section.
1990
The differences are not as pronounced as they seem within the graph of trends from 1968,
both constant and current prices follow a different trend than can be perceived for the OECD
nations. Firstly, the prominent Canadian downward trend after 1990 is not reflected in OECD
ODA trends, instead it remains relatively constant throughout those years. The peak in spending
in 2002 is also uniquely Canadian. The 2005 peak in ODA spending, however, is common to
both OECD nations and Canadian ODA spending.
0
50000
100000
150000
MillionsUSD
Year
Total and Real OECD ODA
a. Current USD
b. Constant USD
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
USD$Millions
Canadian Total ODA (Net DIsbursements)
Constant Prices for 2010
Current Prices

Canadian Total ODA
Since 1968: Current Prices
Canadian Total ODA has progressively increased since 1968. From a current price
perspective, in 1992, aid significantly declined prior to resuming an upward trend in 2001. There
was also a decline in 2008, which may be attributed to the financial crisis. Since then however,
aid has been consistently moving upwards. Current prices present us with an initial amount in
1968 of 194 Million USD, whereas aid consumed 5,457 Million USD in 2010.
Since 1968: Constant Prices
Constant prices demonstrate a slightly different picture, while the upward trend is
present; we perceive the importance of ODA in 1968 with 1,270 Million dedicated to the cause.
Presently our ODA occupies 5,084 Million USD in constant prices. The trend is primarily
upward with brief downward trends in the 1980’s which may be due to the financial crisis and
subsequently in the late 1990’s. From 2005 onwards, we can perceive a seemingly indecisive,
varied trend.
1990: Constant Prices
Since 2000, constant
prices have increased by a little
over 2,000 2010 Million USD
starting at 3,150.41 to 5084.33
2010 Million USD over eleven
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
1968
1971
1974
1977
1980
1983
1986
1989
1992
1995
1998
2001
2004
2007
2010
USD$Millions
Canadian Total ODA since 1968 (Net Disbursements)
Constant Prices (2010 USD
Millions)
Current Prices (USD Millions)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
1990 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
USD$Millions
Canadian Total ODA (Net DIsbursements)
Constant
Prices for
2010
Current
Prices

years. Looking back to the 1990’s, it is interesting to note that prices were following a downward
trend throughout the decade. Since 2001, the trend has been primarily upward, with slight
decreases in 2003, 2006 and 2009. This can perhaps be attributed to the recent implementation of
the Millennium Development Goals and associated efforts to secure their initial success. Since
2010, however, total ODA has decreased, in line with changing Canadian priorities, and the
upward trend at the beginning of the 2000’s was less pronounced near the end of the decade. In
fact, Canadian ODA spending endured a freeze in 2011 and has since been the victim of
spending cuts. When comparing to the constant trend since 1968, we can see that the 1990’s
dipped below 3,000 2010 Million USD, similar to the 1970 total ODA amounts. It is important to
note that the graph focusing upon more recent trends begins with five year jumps between the
first three entries of data, thus only denoting a general trend for the decade. When analyzing the
data since 1968, we can understand the annual variability of the decade, as well as perceive that
the increase in the 2000’s was necessary in order to achieve levels we were at in the 1980’s.
Real Canadian ODA
Real ODA refers to total
ODA less costs attributed to
students, debt and refugees,
which should arguably not be
included in the Official
Development Aid. These costs
are either unrelated to
development (students), or
should simple occur as a result of
compassion and our position as a wealthy state (debt and refugees).
The graph demonstrates less variability in Real ODA costs. This means that highs in
Total ODA spending were heavily dependent on students, refugees and debt costs. Constant
prices demonstrate an increase from 2,965.37 to 4,552.62 2010 USD Millions over eleven years.
Current Prices denote a decrease in the early 2000’s after their initial value of 1814.75, dropping
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
MillionsUSD
Year
Real Canadian ODA
Current Prices
(USD Millions)
Constant Prices
(2010 USD
Millions)

to 1331.35 in 2001 and climbing up to 4925.45 in 2011. The impacts of the financial crisis can
be perceived in 2009 with a decrease to 3600 USD Millions. The decrease in real ODA is less
pronounced in current prices.
When comparing spending on Refugees, students and debt, there are many interesting
trends to note. Debt relief varies significantly and is responsible for the general trend of the total
cost of all three categories. Debt spending is dependent on need which varies tremendously.
Spending associated to refugees in donor countries became a reality post-1990 and remained
relatively constant since then, hovering around 270 Million 2010 USD. Student costs remain the
lowest of all spending, ranging between 145.77 and 189.69 Million 2010 USD. Student costs did
increase however, in 2006, after having remained relatively low (around 100 Millions 2010
USD) from 2000-2005.
Total ODA to
refugees, students and debt
has decreased to 1/6 (10%)
of its predominance as a
percentage of ODA in
1990 (29%), in constant
prices. 1990, 2002 and
2005 are anomalies in this
spending however, at 29%,
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1990
1995
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
8.2 Refugees in donor
countries
5.2 Imputed student costs
6. Debt relief
Total Costs
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
1990
1995
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Refugees, Students & Debt as % of Total ODA
Constant Prices
(2010 UDS…

23% and 20% respectively. Otherwise, costs remain between 10 and 15%. The year 2007 is an
exception, with the lowest spending on students, refugees and debt at 9%.
Comparing OECD and Canadian ODA Spending as a % of GNI
c
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
Canadian ODA as % GNI since 1968
Current
Prices
(USD
Millions)
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
PercentageOECDTotalGNI
Year
ODA % GNI
OECD DAC Total ODA as a Percentage of GNI
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
1990
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Canadian ODA as % GNI since
1990
Current…
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
1990
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
PercentageTotalGNI
Year
O
D…
DAC Total ODA as a Percentage of OECD

Canadian ODA as % of GNI
Defining trends in Canadian ODA as a % of GNI is particularly interesting due to the
goal of 0.7% for OECD nations. Achieving 0.7% of GNI towards ODA has become less of a
priority for Canada and the percentage has been declining since 1975, when we reached 0.54%,
increasing and decreasing until 2001, our lowest point at 0.25%. While our ODA percentage has
been increasing since that point, it is nowhere near the 0.7% goal, or our peak of 1975.
Comparison of Canadian and OECD ODA % of GNI
While the formats of the graphs are different, we can still perceive the main similarity: a
significant decrease in the percentage of GNI in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. This means
that while ODA as a % of GNI is rising in recent years, we have not yet caught up to the
percentage we were at prior to 1992.
Bilateral and Multilateral Funding
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
1968
1971
1974
1977
1980
1983
1986
1989
1992
1995
1998
2001
2004
2007
2010
USDMillions
Canadian Multilateral and Bilateral ODA Flows
Bilateral ODA: Current Prices
(USD Millions)
Bilateral ODA: Constant Prices
(2010 USD Millions)
Multilateral ODA: Constant
Prices (2010 USD Millions)
Multilateral ODA: Current
Prices (USD Millions)

Bilateral ODA has been a priority for Canada, often consuming double when comparing
to Multilateral ODA spending in constant USD Millions. Multilateral spending has remained
relatively constant over the years, in 2011, Canada spent less on Multilateral ODA than in 1990.
Bilateral ODA spending has been climbing steadily over the years while following the same
trends as Total constant ODA, reaching its highest point in 2010. Canadian Multilateral flows
experienced highs and lows, notably in 2001, 2007 & 2009 (lows) and 2008 (high).
Comparison of Canadian and OECD Bilateral and Multilateral ODA Flows
Bilateral ODA trends are very similar between Canada and OECD nations as a whole.
Canadian bilateral ODA experienced a peak, however, in 2002, that was not reflected by OECD
nations. Multilateral spending was not as consistent for Canada compared to OECD spending.
OECD spending started at 24208.48 in 1990 and maintained a constant increase to 37319.31
USD 2010 Millions in 2011.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
1990
1995
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
USDMillions Canadian Multilateral and Bilateral ODA Flows
Bilateral ODA: Current Prices
(USD Millions)
Bilateral ODA: Constant Prices
(2010 USD Millions)
Multilateral ODA: Current
Multilateral: Constant Prices
(2010 USD Millions)
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
MillionsUSD
Year
Bilateral and Multilateral OECD ODA
(Current and Constant 2010 USD)
Bilateral ODA (Constant
2010 USD)
Bilateral ODA (Current
USD)
Multilateral ODA
(Constant USD)
Multilateral ODA
(Current USD)

Canadian Support to Agencies
Canadian support for agencies is primarily axed upon the total amounts dedicated to the
World Bank Group through the International Development Association, the International Bank
for Reconstruction and Development, International Finance Corporation and the Multilateral
Investment Guarantee Agency. United Nations Agencies and Regional Development Banks are
also important recipients of funding. The Global Environment Facility and the Montreal Protocol
receive the least amount of funding, accompanied by the Other World Bank Group Members
(IBRD, IFC & MIGA). A trend of note is the World Bank total amount in 2008, which peaked at
688.82 Million 2010 USD. It is particularly impressive due to the fall in World Bank support that
occurred in 2009, following the financial crisis. It made a quick recovery, however, and was
back to 422.71 Million 2010 USD in 2010.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
1990
1995
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
ConstantDollars(2010USDMillions)
Year
Canadian Support toAgencies 1.1 UN agencies
1.3 IDA
1.4 Other World Bank
(IBRD,IFC,MIGA)
***Memo: World Bank,
Total (1.3.+1.4.)
1.5 Regional
development banks
1.6 Global Environment
Facility (96%)
1.7 Montreal Protocol
1.8 Other agencies

Comparison between Canadian and OECD Support to Agencies
The most notable difference is the lack of the predominant EU institution support in the
Canadian graph. The memo including the sum of World Bank institutions is not included in the
OECD graph, yet we can perceive similar trends between the spending on IDA and Other World
Bank Group Members. Regional Development Banks have recently become important to
Canadian Agency Support, whereas they have only increased slightly within the context of
OECD nation support as a whole. UN agency support interestingly has an opposing trend
between the Canadian and OECD graphs. Support for the Montreal Protocol and the Global
Environment Facility remained low in both cases. Other agency support is varied in the Canadian
Context while it experienced a much more consistent increase over the years for the OECD in its
entirety.
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
MillionsUSD
Year
OECD Annual Net Donor Support
Constant 2011 USD
1.1 UN agencies
1.2 EU institutions
1.3 IDA
(IBRD,IFC,MIGA)
1.5 Regional
development banks
Facility (96%)
1.8 Other agencies

0
1000
2000
3000
4000
1990
1995
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
CIDA Programmatic
Support in Current Dollars
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
1990
1995
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
CIDA Programmatic
Support in Constant Dollars
Statistics on development financing – Canadian aid specifics
Aislynn Row
By comparing CIDA spending over the past 20 years, an overall increase for both current
and constant prices can be observed. If we were to only look at current prices, it would seem that
there has been at least a tripling in programmatic support since 1990, and almost doubled
spending between 2005 and 2011 alone. However, in looking at constant prices which take into
account the effects of inflation on spending, the increase is less dramatic. More specifically, in
current prices the spending on real bilateral programmatic support (total support excluding
Imputed Student costs, Debt relief, Administrative costs and Refugees in donor countries)
increased from $1853.51 million USD, to $3441.38 USD between 2005 and 2011 – a difference
of $1587.87 million. In reality, when the changes in currency value are considered, the increase
is only $778.46 million, which is less than half of the increase in current prices.
In addition to seeing the overall change in spending, there are sizeable differences in
spending year by year. Again, looking at real programmatic support, the spending alternates
between increasing and decreasing amounts, with an overall upward trend. The biggest change is
between 2006 and 2007, going from $2353.17 million, to $3452.98 million. The year with the
largest spending was 2009, with a budget of $3546.37million, which has since decreased to
$3206.27 million in 2011.

$-
$200,000,000.00
$400,000,000.00
$600,000,000.00
$800,000,000.00
$1,000,000,000.00
$1,200,000,000.00
Spending by Thematic Focus
Food Security SEG Children/Youth
CIDA spending by thematic focus
CIDA’s three priority areas are:
Food Security, Sustainable
Economic Growth (SEG) and
Securing the Future for Children
and Youth. The overall trends
depict CIDA’s commitments to
each focus, and which take
priority over one another.
Except for the 2007/2008 fiscal
year, Children and Youth has
consistently received more funds than the other themes since 2005. This area has remained a
priority, and spending has recently increased to over $1 billion in the 2010/2011 fiscal year.
Spending on SEG also peaked at just under $816 million, up just above 2008 levels after two
years of decline. Food Security has been the lowest priority in the past. However, there was a
jump from just over $400 million in 2007/2008, to over $918 million in 2009/2010. This is most
likely attributable to the 2008 food crisis, as spending sharply declined in 2010/2011 to around
$728 million.
Securing the Future for Children and Youth
More specifically, under each thematic focus there are trends and changes that are
indicative of CIDA’s changing priorities. Securing the Future for Children and Youth
encompasses spending in over 40 different sectors, with the main over-arching sections being
Education, Health, Water Supply and Sanitation, Government and Civil Society. The most
spending by far goes to the health sector, averaging at around $531 million per year, with a total
of over $3 billion spent since 2005. In 2005/2006, CIDA spent $615 million on health, an
amount which then dropped to $483 million the following year. Only recently, in 2010/2011,
have spending patterns increased again to reach $614 million. This is the result of the
commitment to the Muskoka initiative, in which Canada committed $2.85 billion over five
years to help save the lives of women, children and newborns in developing countries.
CIDA has officially disbursed $149 million under the Muskoka initiative, and the plan is

$0
$200,000,000
$400,000,000
$600,000,000
$800,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$1,200,000,000
Spending on "Securing the Future
for Children and Youth" by Fiscal
Year
for CIDA to spend $1.1 billion over the next five years. 1 Education receives the next largest
amount, with an average of $296 million per year. Spending to education has steadily increased
since 2005, reaching its peak in 2010/2011 at $356,699,180. Under this sector, basic education
receives the most funding, which is split into Primary Education, Basic Life Skills for Youth and
Adults, and Early Childhood Education.
The most interesting
change in spending
occurred to the
Prevention and
Demobilisation of Child
Soldiers sector. In
2005/2006, CIDA spent
only $433,967 in this
sector. It fluctuates year
by year, generally
between $1 million and
$3 million. However, in 2009/2010, spending increased to $14,997,784. This is a huge jump
from the previous year’s $1.5 million, and likely a result of Canada’s adherence “to the Paris
Commitments and the Principles and Guidelines on Children Associated with Armed Forces or
Armed Groups, which provide guidelines on the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration
of all categories of children associated with armed groups”.2
After education, the most spending goes to STD control including HIV/AIDS, which
peaked in 2005/2006 at $290,802,346, and has remained around $100 million year by year ever
since. Therefore, it is clear that CIDA’s priorities for Securing the Future for Children and Youth
are eradicating HIV/AIDS and supporting Basic Education.
Sustainable Economic Growth
1 http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/ACDI-CIDA.nsf/eng/CAR-616141241-PD4
2 http://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/our-work/paris-principles/

$0
$100,000,000
$200,000,000
$300,000,000
$400,000,000
$500,000,000
$600,000,000
$700,000,000
$800,000,000
$900,000,000
Spending on "Sustainable
Economic Growth" by Fiscal Year
The second largest portion of
CIDA funding goes to
Sustainable Economic Growth
(SEG), which has accounted
for between 24% and 28% of
CIDA’s yearly program
support since 2005. The sub-
sections of this sector are:
Education, Water Supply and
Sanitation, Government and
Civil Society, Infrastructure
and Services, Transport and
Storage, Communications, Energy Generation and Supply, Banking and Financial Services,
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing, Industry, Trade and Environmental Protection. The two
sectors that receive the most aid are Government and Civil Society, as well as Environmental
Protection. The most interesting changes under Government and Civil Society were the increases
in funding to “Decentralisation and Support to Subnation Government”. Decentralisation funding
increased from $40,621 in 2005, to over $15 million in 2010/2011. This is likely a result of
OECD commitment to “administrative, fiscal and political decentralization”, and thus Canada’s
commitment as well.3 This term, as defined in the same OECD document, is “the transfer of
authority to plan, make decisions or manage public functions from the national level to any
organisation or agency at the sub-national level”.
Overall, funding to Environmental Protection has remained fairly stable, but there has
been a dramatic decrease to the least funded section, Environmental Research. In 2005/2006,
$1,870,234 was allocated to this section, an amount that steadily declined to reach its low-point
of $218,047 in 2010/2011. Financing to Environmental Education/Training has deteriorated in
tandem with research funding, declining from $17 million to $8 million. This change in funding
reflects the federal government’s lack of commitment to the environment, as illustrated by their
withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol, and lack of support for scientific research. To illustrate this
3 http://www.oecd.org/development/evaluation/30395116.pdf

point, the office of the Auditor General (a position that has recently been closed, causing much
controversy and scrutiny) has stated:
“The government stated that the economic cost of implementing
measures to achieve the obligations made under the Kyoto Protocol
was prohibitively high. We therefore anticipated that the federal
government would have estimated the cost of its regulatory approach
and identified the least-cost options. Yet we found that Environment
Canada has not conducted a comprehensive analysis to estimate the
combined cost of the sector-by-sector approach to regulating GHG
emissions. Nor has it estimated the impact on or costs to the Canadian
economy of aligning its approach with the United States, or examined
whether this is the most cost-effective option. These analyses are
important in order to establish whether Canada faces proportionally
higher costs than the United States in adopting an aligned regulatory
approach”.
Overall, no sector under Sustainable Economic Growth has seen an increase in funding, just a re-
allocation between sectors.
Food Security
Finally, Food Security is
the thematic focus that
experienced the most
perceivable change in
funding since 2005.
Increasing steadily
through 2006-2008,
spending on Food
Security peaked in the
2009/2010 fiscal year at
$918,028,183. As has been aforementioned, this is most likely a result of the 2008 food crisis, as
emergency food aid more than doubled between 2007/2008 and 2008/2009. Also, spending on
agriculture increased immensely during the same timeframe, going from $240 million to $571
million the following year. This is the year that Food Security almost overtook Securing the
Future for Children and Youth as the most funded thematic focus, with both sectors receiving
around 28% of CIDA program support. While levels of funding to Food Security are not being
maintained at such a high level, they are still higher than all previous years.
$0
$200,000,000
$400,000,000
$600,000,000
$800,000,000
$1,000,000,000
Spending on "Food Security" by
Fiscal Year

$0
$200,000,000
$400,000,000
$600,000,000
$800,000,000
$1,000,000,000
Spending on "Governance"
by Fiscal Year
Spending by crosscutting focus: Governance
Within CIDA’s three thematic priorities, they have also identified three crosscutting
themes: Governance, Equality between Men and Women, and Environmental Sustainability. The
trends in spending for these areas can help to demonstrate CIDA’s changing mandate, in addition
to looking at CIDA’s priority themes. To begin, according to CIDA, governance is linked to their
three key objectives which are: “the promotion of prosperity, the protection of our security
within a stable global framework, and the projection of Canadian values of democracy
and the rule of law, and culture”4. Spending on Governance has not seen any significant changes
in the past six years. However, spending has recently experienced a slight uptake since a decline
in 2009/2010. Under governance, the main sub-themes are Education, Health, Water Supply and
Sanitation, Government and Civil
Society, and Conflict Prevention and
Resolution. Government and Civil
Society, which receives the most
funding, encompasses everything from
Public Finance Management, to Media
and Free Flow of Information. Many
sectors are included in the SEG priority
theme, as CIDA views good governance
as a way to promote economic growth.
Environmental Sustainability
CIDA’s spending on Environmental Sustainability is focused on four main issues:
Climate Change, Land Degradation, Access to Clean Water and Sanitation, and Urbanization.
At the 2009 L'Aquila Commitment for Sustainable Agricultural Development, “Canada
announced … that it is doubling its investments in support of sustainable agricultural
development by committing an additional $600 million over three years, bringing the total to
$1.18 billion over the three-year period”5. Canada was the first G8 country to meet their
commitment in April 20116. Of this government spending, CIDA was allocated and spent $1.15
million on sustainable agricultural development. Also, in 2010, the minister of the Environment
4 http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/INET/IMAGES.NSF/vLUImages/HRDG2/$file/HRDG-Policy-nophoto-e.pdf
5 http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/ACDI-CIDA.nsf/eng/NAD-426114720-LJ5
6 http://www.who.int/pmnch/media/news/2012/20120416_g8watch_2012/en/index4.html

announced a contribution of $238.4 million between 2010 and 2014, to go to the Global
Environment Facility, which increases their previous contributions of $158.94 million (2006 to
2010) by 50%7.
While these are indicators of good progress to Canada’s commitments, deficiencies in
their commitment to the environment are also present. In addition to the lack of support for
environmental research as mentioned above, the Canadian government has been criticized
recently for pulling out of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, despite
CIDA’s claims that land degradation is a key factor in environmental sustainability.8
Equality Between Men and Women
Equality as a crosscutting theme is framed in such a way that equality between men and
women is for the benefit of sustainable development. CIDA has stated that equality is considered
as part of all policies, programs and projects. As such, CIDA has recognized that their programs
affect men and women differently, and that their projects should address these differences. CIDA
created an action plan in 2010 that sets out its goals pertaining to gender equality, and specific
programs and goals to achieving this action plan by the end of 2013. In this action plan, their
two-pronged approach includes integration of gender equality in all CIDA initiatives, as well as
creating programming that targets gender inequality9.
Using the DAC sector codes as was done for the Thematic Priorities is unavailable for
Gender Equality, as there is not specific spending on this. However, CIDA currently funds over
125 projects and organisations with the main objective being to promote equality.10 This is up
from the 76 projects that were open between 2001 and 2012, not including the 56 projects that
are currently in the process of being terminated.11
Conclusion
Although CIDA’s spending has seen a general increase since 2005, the changing nature
of their spending is indicative of smaller ideological changes and commitment to certain issues.
7 http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/ACDI-CIDA.nsf/eng/NAD-52716129-RPP
8 http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/acdi-cida.nsf/eng/JUD-22021421-4FS
9 http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/INET/IMAGES.NSF/vLUImages/Equality/$file/10-141%20Gender%20Equality-E.pdf
10 http://les.acdi-cida.gc.ca/servlet/JKMSearchController
11 http://les.acdi-cida.gc.ca/servlet/JKMSearchController

As can be drawn from the numbers, Environmental Sustainability, and Environmental Research
more specifically, is receiving less attention, despite the growing concern worldwide for
environmental issues. In all other areas, spending has increased accordingly to the increase in
CIDA funds, with the priorities of Securing the Future for Children and Youth remaining the
highest priority, followed by Sustainable Economic Growth. What will be interesting to see is
how spending patterns are altered due to the recent merger with DFAIT, and which specific
industries and countries receive more attention when Canada’s trade priorities become more
pertinent to the aid agenda.
References
Canadian Council for International Cooperation (CCIC). (2012). CCIC initial analysis of budget
2012. Retrieved 02/03, 2013, from
http://www.ccic.ca/_files/en/what_we_do/2012_04_CCIC_Initial_Analysis_Budget.pdf
Canadian International Development Agency. (2012). International development assistance
commitments. Retrieved 02/03, 2013, from http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/acdi-
cida.nsf/eng/CAR-616141241-PD4
These commitments, along with the results of the statistical research, will be useful for the
analysis of the evolution of government priorities and determining whether changes can be
associated with strategy as opposed to the welfare of those who receive assistance.
Foster, A. (2012). CIDA closing regional offices to cut costs. Retrieved 02/03, 2013, from
http://www.embassynews.ca/news/2012/09/26/cida-closes-regional-offices-to-cut-
costs/42525
OECD (2006). OECD Annual Report 2006. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/docserver/download/0106071e.pdf?expires=1366734842&id=id&accname=g
uest&checksum=9D5A446D83B909FF899CD79BF150AEEE
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2012a). Development aid
drops for the first time in 15 years. Retrieved 02/03, 2013, from
http://oecdinsights.org/2012/04/04/development-aid-drops-for-the-first-time-in-15-years/
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2012b). Development: Aid
to developing countries falls because of global recession. Retrieved 02/03, 2013, from
http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/developmentaidtodevelopingcountriesfallsbecauseofglobalr
ecession.htm

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2012c). OECD Stat
Extracts. Retrieved 03/02, 2013, from http://stats.oecd.org/
This is the database we are using to acquire our statistical data. It allows us to manipulate
the data to our specific needs and ensures consistency between all three parts of our
project.
Paul, J., & Pistor, M. (2009). Official development assistance spending. Retrieved 02/04, 2013,
from http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0710-e.htm
Reilly-King, F. (2013). Canadian Council for International Cooperation. For Laurisse Noel,
Aislynn Row and Sebastian Winsor (Ed.), Statistics on development financing -
international context
Fraser created a guiding document for us to ensure we touch upon the questions he is
interested in. It has divided the work into 28 questions which we will respond to with tables
and graphs as a result of the information acquired from the OECD and CIDA data. It is
included as the annex to this paper.
Sanchez, J. (2012). Who will be the biggest losers from this budget? A question of priorities.
Retrieved 02/03, 2013, from http://ccic-ccci.blogspot.ca/2012/03/who-will-be-biggest-
losers-from-this_29.html
Sumner, A., & Tribe, M. (2011). The case for aid in fiscally constrained times: Morals, ethics
and economics. Journal of International Development, 23(6), 782-801. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/905211261?accountid=14701
The World Bank Group (WBG). (2012). Global monitoring report 2012: Food prices, nutrition,
and the millennium development goals (MDGs) Retrieved 02/03, 2013, from
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPROSPECTS/Resources/334934-
1327948020811/8401693-1327957211156/8402494-
1334239337250/GMR2012_Brief_Aid.pdf
United Nations (2002). Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/monterrey/MonterreyConsensus.pdf
United Nations (2008). International Conference on Financing for Development. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/doha

Appendix A:
The following are extraneous graphs that were not included in our analysis but nonetheless
provide valuable information and insight.
0
10
20
30
40
1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
PercentageBilateralODA
Year
Student Costs, Debt Relief and Refugees in Donor Countries
as Percentage of Bilateral ODA
(Constant 2010 USD)
Student, Debt,
Refugees %
(Current USD)
Student, Debt,
Refugees %
(Constant
2010 USD)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Funding(MillionsUSD)
Year
Bilateral and Real ODA
1990, 1995, and 2000-2011
Bilateral ODA
(Current USD)
Real ODA
(Current USD)
Bilateral ODA
(Constant 2010
USD)

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
PercentageofTotal
MultilateralFunding
Year
Multilateral Funding Support as a Percentage of Total Multilateral Funding
UN Agencies (% of
total)
EU Institutions (% of
total)
World Bank (% of
total)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
MillionsUSD
Year
OECD Annual Net Donor Support
Constant 2011 USD
1.1 UN agencies
1.2 EU institutions
1.3 IDA
(IBRD,IFC,MIGA)
1.5 Regional
development banks
Facility (96%)

-15000
-10000
-5000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
MillionsUSD
Year
OECD DAC Other Official Flows
1968-2011 (Current and Constant 2011 USD)
Other Official Flows
(Current USD)
Other Official Flows
(Constant 2011
USD)
-15000
-10000
-5000
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
MillionsUSD
Year
OECD DAC Total Other Offical Flows
1990, 1995, 2000-2011
Current and Constant 2010 USD
II. Other Official
Flows (Current USD)
II. Other Official
Flows (Constant
2011 USD)

[SOURCE: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?datasetcode=TABLE1 – Total Flows by Donor]
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
MillionsUSD
Year
OECD DAC Total Bilateral Private Flows
1968-2011 (Current and Constant 2011 USD)
Private Flows
at Market
Terms (Current
USD)
Private Flows
at Market
Terms
(Constant 2011
USD)
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
MillionsUSD
Year
OECD DAC Total Bilateral Private Flows
Private Flows at
Market Terms
(Current USD)
Private Flows at
Market Terms
(Constant 2011
USD)

Canadian ODA specifics
Real Canadian ODA (ODA less student costs (5.2), debt (6.) and refugees (8.2)
As a percentage of total Canadian ODA (either current or constant dollars)
Canadian bilateral ODA flows (1. A.)
Students (5.2), debt (6) and refugees (8.2))
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
1990
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
Real Canadian ODA (- Student,
Refugee & Debt Costs)
Current
Prices (USD
Millions)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
1990
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
Real Canadian ODA (- Student,
Refugee & Debt Costs)
Constant
Prices
(2010 USD
Millions)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
1990
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
Refugees, Students & Debt as a %
of Total Canadian ODA
Current Prices
(USD Millions)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
1990
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
Refugees, Students & Debt as % of
Total ODA
Constant
Prices (2010
UDS Millions)

1990, 1995 and every year since 2000 (real ODA)
Canadian multilateral (1.B) ODA flows since 1968 (in current, constant dollars)
1990, 1995 and every year since 2000 (in current and constant dollars)
0
200
400
600
800 1968
1976
1984
1992
2000
2008
CurrentPrices(USDMillions)
Year
Bilateral ODA Flows: Student,
Debt & Refugees
8.2
Refugees in
donor
countries
5.2
Imputed
student
costs
0
500
1000
1500
1968
1977
1986
1995
2004
ConstantPrices(2010USD
Millions)
Year
Bilateral ODA Flows: Students,
Debt & Refugees
8.2
Refugees in
donor
countries
5.2
Imputed
student
costs
1035.161126.01965.39998.151061.661051.38
1676.89
2135.232036.16
2824.472886.382740.9
3421.333579.5
1894.692205.591880.361995.862126.931819.22
2612.35
2999.07
2609.2
3320.493267.023365.533678.183579.5
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Real Canadian Bilateral ODA Flows
Current Prices (USD Millions)
Constant Prices (2010 USD
Millions)
0
500
1000
1500
1968
1975
1982
1989
1996
2003
2010
Canadian Multilateral ODA
Current
Prices (USD
Millions)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
1968
1974
1980
1986
1992
1998
2004
2010
Canadian Multilateral ODA
Constant
Prices
(2010 USD
Millions)

1990, 1995 and every year since 2000: UN (a.), EU (b.), World Bank (e.) and RDBs (f.) as a
percentage of the total support for multilaterals (1. B.)
EU: No values for selected years
Canadian other official flows (II.)
Since 1968 in current and constant dollars
0
500
1000
1500
1990
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Canadian Multilateral ODA Flows
Current
Prices (USD
Millions)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
1990
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
Canadian Multilateral ODA Flows
Constant
Prices
(2010 USD
Millions)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
1990
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
1.1 UN Agencies as a %
ofMultilateral ODA
Constant
Prices (2010
USD)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
1990
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
1.3+1.4 World Bank Total as a % of
Multilateral ODA
Constant
Prices (2010
USD)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
1990
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
1.5 Regional Development Banks
as a % of Multilateral ODA
Constant
Prices (2010
USD)

1990, 1995 and every year since 2000 in current and constant dollars
Canadian total bilateral private flows (III. A)
Since 1968 in current and constant dollars
-2000
0
2000
4000
6000
1968
1976
1984
1992
2000
2008
Canadian Other Official Flows
Constant
(2010 USD
Millions)
-2000
-1000
0
1000
2000
3000
1968
1974
1980
1986
1992
1998
2004
2010
Current
Prices (USD
Millions)
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
1990
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
Constant
Prices
(2010 USD
Millions)
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
1990
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
Current
Prices (USD
Millions)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
USDMillions
Canadian Multilateral and Bilateral ODA Flows
Bilateral ODA: Current
Bilateral ODA:
Constant Prices (2010
USD Millions)
Multilateral ODA:
Constant Prices (2010
USD Millions)
Multilateral ODA:
Current Prices (USD
Millions)

0
1000
2000
3000
4000
1990
1995
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
CIDA ProgrammaticSupport in CurrentDollars
Real Canadian ODA in Current Prices
Canadian aid specifics
[SOURCE: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?datasetcode=TABLE1 – Aggregate SectorLevel Data
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
1990
1995
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
CIDA ProgrammaticSupport in Constant Dollars
Real Bilateral Aid in Constant Prices

1. CIDA spending by thematic focus
$0
$100,000,000
$200,000,000
$300,000,000
$400,000,000
$500,000,000
$600,000,000
$700,000,000
$800,000,000
$900,000,000
Spending on "Sustainable
Economic Growth" by Fiscal Year
$0
$200,000,000
$400,000,000
$600,000,000
$800,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$1,200,000,000
Spending on "Securing the Future
for Children and Youth" by Fiscal
Year
$0
$200,000,000
$400,000,000
$600,000,000
$800,000,000
$1,000,000,000
Spending on "Food Security" by
Fiscal Year

Total CIDA Program Support Thematic Focus as % of CIDA Program Support
FoodSecurity SEG Children/Youth
FY2005/06 $2,784,756,457 15% 24% 32%
FY2006/07 $2,780,403,140 17% 22% 29%
FY2007/08 $2,884,925,810 15% 28% 27%
FY2008/09 $3,168,604,199 20% 25% 30%
FY2009/10 $3,326,667,019 28% 22% 29%
FY 2010/11 $3,347,266,184 22% 24% 32%
$-
$200,000,000.00
$400,000,000.00
$600,000,000.00
$800,000,000.00
$1,000,000,000.00
$1,200,000,000.00
Spending by Thematic Focus
Food Security SEG Children/Youth

$0
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
$150,000,000
$200,000,000
$250,000,000
$300,000,000
Spending on "Advancing Democracy"
by fiscal year
$0
$20,000,000
$40,000,000
$60,000,000
$80,000,000
$100,000,000
$120,000,000
$140,000,000
Spending on "Security and Stability"
by Fiscal Year
$0
$100,000,000
$200,000,000
$300,000,000
$400,000,000
$500,000,000
$600,000,000
$700,000,000
$800,000,000
$900,000,000
Spending on "Governance" by Fiscal
Year
Spending by cross cutting focus (aggregate and sub elements) since 2005

Appendix B: Guidelines provided by Fraser Reilly-King -- CCIC
Statistics on development financing – international context
For each of the following, download the full data set. For each question,generate a worksheet of data within a
single Excel spreadsheet and produce a corresponding table.
STUDENT A: OECD donor ODA
[SOURCE: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?datasetcode=TABLE1 – Total Flows by Donor] This Table, and all
OECD DAC tables, can be downloaded in Excel for work on your computer.
1. OECD DAC total donor Official Development Assistance (ODA) since 1968 (I in the Table) (Net disbursements)
a. In current prices (USD$ Millions – less useful, but perhaps still interesting)
b. Constant prices (2010 USD$ Millions – a more meaningful figure, given inflation would distort
size when comparing figures over the years)
c. Real ODA in Current and Constant dollars for 1990[1], 1995, 2000 to present (ODA less student
costs (5.2), debt (6.) and refugees (8.2)
2. Put in a separate Table from 1, OECD DAC total donor ODA , 1990, 1995 and every year since 2000 (I. A. + I. B)
(Net disbursements)(Here current and constant are both worthwhile since it is a shorterexpanse of time)
a. In current prices (USD$ Millions)
b. Constant prices (2010 USD$ Millions)
c. Real ODA (ODA less student costs (5.2), debt (6.) and refugees (8.2)
· What do the figures tell you about aid flows in terms of current prices? What has been the overall trend?
Are there other trends that the statistics reveal?
· In particular in terms of constant prices over the past ten years, are the outcomes the same? What do you
notice that is different?
· What about Canadian real ODA relative to the other calculations?
3. Calculate Student costs (5.2), debt (6) and refugees (8,2) as percentage of Total DAC ODA for 1990, 1995 and from
2000 to present.
4. OECD DAC Total ODA as a percentage of Gross National Income for every year since 1968 (bottom of DAC1
table)
5. Put in a separate Table from 4, OECD DAC Total ODA as a percentage of Gross National Income for 1990, 1995
and every year since 2000 (See also 17. and 18. below)
· What has been the overall trend during these two time periods? Are there any additional trends of note?
6. OECD DAC total annual net bilateral ODA flows (1. A.)
a. since 1968 (in constant dollars and real ODA (separating out students,debt and refugees))
b. for 1990, 1995 and every year since 2000 (in current, constant and real ODA)
c. Student,debt and refugees as a percentage of total bilateral aid for 1990, 1995, and every year
since 2000.
7. OECD donorannual net multilateral (1.B) ODA flows
a. since 1968 (in constant dollars and real ODA)
b. for 1990, 1995 and every year since 2000 (in current, constant and real ODA)

8. Using your figures from 1. and 2., as well as 6. and 7., calculate bilateral ODA and multilateral ODA as a percentage
of total ODA,
a. since 1968 (using either constant orcurrent dollars)
b. since 1968 for real aid
c. Put in a separate table percentages for 1990, 1995 and every year from 2000 for current or
constant ODA and for real ODA.
· For 6. and 7. what do the charts tell you about support for bilateral ODA and multilateral ODA over the
time periods? What trends do you observe in particular for the constant dollar, current dollar and real ODA
comparisons for bilateral aid?
· How has support for bilateral funding over the years compared to multilateral funding? Are there any
interesting general trends to note or recent trends?
· For 8. what do you observe when you compare bilateral and multilateral as a percentage of total? How does
this compare with your conclusions to the questions above?
9. OECD annual net donor support to the following agencies (I.B.: 1.1 – 1.8) for 1990, 1995 and every year since 2000
(in constant dollars):
a. UN agencies
b. EU institutions
c. IDA
d. Other World Bank
e. World Bank total
f. Regional Development Banks
g. Global Environment Facility
h. Other UN Agencies
10. For each year since 2000, calculate the UN (a.), EU (b.), World Bank (e.) and RDBs (f.) net annual totals as a
percentage of the total support for multilaterals.
· What observations can you make in terms of general trends and funding for these different entities...?
Have some multilateral agencies benefitted more than others?
11. OECD DAC total otherofficial flows (II.)
a. since 1968 in current and constant dollars
b. in a separate table from a), calculate for 1990, 1995 and every year from 2000 in current and
constant dollars
12. OECD DAC total bilateral private flows (III. A)
b. in a separate table from a), calculate for 1990, 1995 and every year from 2000 in current and
constant dollars
13. Compare the top level figures of the different types of flows from OECD donors since 2000 (data preceding 2000 is
less reliable):
a. From your responses to 2. a, 11. b. and 12.b. in current dollars in a single chart
b. for 2. b, 11. b. and 12.b. in constant dollars in a single chart
c. for 2. c as a percentage of total official flows plus real ODA
· What trends do you observe around the different types of flows?
· How do real ODA flows compare?
Statistics on development financing – international context

For each of the following,download in excel from the DAC Table the full data set. For each question,generate a
worksheet of data within a single Excel spreadsheet and produce a corresponding table.
STUDENT B: Canadian ODA
[SOURCE: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?datasetcode=TABLE1 – Total Flows by Donor]
14. Canadian Total ODA since 1968 (I) (Net disbursements)
15. From 14 above separate out Canadian Total ODA for 1990, 1995 and each year from 2000 (I) (Net disbursements)
c. Real Canadian ODA (ODA less student costs (5.2), debt (6.) and refugees (8.2)
16. Refugees, students and debt (on one chart, but showing individual totals and aggregate total) as a
percentage of total ODA for 1990, 1995 and every year since 2000.
c. As a percentage of total Canadian ODA (either current or constant dollars)
· What do the figures tell you about Canadian aid flows in terms of current prices? What has been the overall
trend? Are there other specific trends worth noting?
· In particular in terms of constant prices since 2000, are the outcomes the same? What do you notice that is
different?
· What about Canadian real ODA?
· How does Canada compare (14. and 15.) to the OECD donor flows identified in 1. and 2. above?
· Mark these OECD total DAC ODA figures on the respective charts you have created in 14. and 15.
17. Canadian ODA as a percentage of Gross National Income since 1968 (bottom of DAC1 table)
18. Put in separate sheet,Canadian ODA as a percentage of Gross National Income for 1990, 1995 and every
year since 2000.
· What do the figures tell you about overall ODA as a percentage of GNI? What has been the overall trend?
Are there other specific trends worth noting?
· In particular in terms of constant prices over the past ten years, are the outcomes the same? What do you
notice that is different?
· How does Canada compare to the OECD donorfigures identified in 4. and 5. above? Are there other
specific trends worth noting?
· Mark these OECD percentages on the respective charts you have created in 17. and 18.
19. Canadian bilateral ODA flows (1. A.)
a. since 1968 (in current, constant and real ODA, separating out students (5.2), debt (6) and refugees
(8.2))
b. Separate out 1990, 1995 and every year since 2000 (in current, constant and real ODA)
20. Canadian multilateral (1.B) ODA flows
a. since 1968 (in current, constant dollars)
b. Separate out 1990, 1995 and every year since 2000 (in current and constant dollars)

21. Using your figures from 14. and 15., as well as 19. and 20., calculate bilateral ODA and multilateral ODA
as a percentage of total ODA,
a. since 1968 compared to Total ODA (use either constant or current dollars)
b. since 1968 compared to real ODA
c. for 1990, 1995, and every year since 2000
d. for 1990, 1995 and every year since 2000 in real ODA (use either constant or current dollars)
· How has support for bilateral funding over the years compared to multilateral funding? Are there any
interesting general trends to note or recent trends?
· How does Canada compare to the OECD net trends identified in 6. and 7. above? Are there some
differences worth noting in doing the comparison? Are there other specific trends worth noting just for the
Canadian results?
· Mark the corresponding OECD DAC total figures on the respective charts you have created in 19, 20 and
21.
22. Canadian support to the following agencies (1.B.: 1.1 – 1.8) for 1990, 1995 and every year since 2000 in
constant dollars:
a. UN agencies
b. IDA
c. Other World Bank
d. World Bank total
e. Regional Development Banks
f. Global Environment Facility
g. Montreal Protocol
h. Other UN Agencies
23. For 1990, 1995 and every year since 2000, calculate the UN (a.), EU (b.), World Bank (e.) and RDBs (f.) as
a percentage of the total support for multilaterals (1. B.) for 1990, 1995 and every year since 2000.
· From 22. what observations can you make in terms of general trends and funding for these different
entities...?
· How does Canada compare to the OECD donorfigures identified in question 9. above?
· For 23. what do you observe when you compare bilateral and multilateral as a percentage of total?
How does this compare with your conclusions to question 10 above?
· Mark these OECD averages on the respective charts you have created in 22 and 23
24. Canadian other official flows (II.)
b. Separate out from a) 1990, 1995 and every year since 2000 in current and constant dollars
25. Canadian total bilateral private flows (III. A)
b. Separate out from a) 1990, 1995 and every year since 2000 in current and constant dollars
26. Compare the top level figures of the different types of flows from Canada for 1990, 1995 and every year
since 2000
a. for 15. a, 24. b. and 25.b. in current dollars in a single chart
b. for 15 b, 23. b. and 24.b. in constant dollars in a single chart
c. for 15. c as a percentage of total official flows plus real Canadian ODA

Statistics on development financing – Canadian context
For each of the following,download the full data set. For each question,generate a worksheet of data within a
single Excel spreadsheet and produce a corresponding table.
STUDENT C: Canadian aid specifics
[SOURCE: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?datasetcode=TABLE1 – Aggregate Sector Level Data
[Customize the data selection by doing the following:
· select just Canada under“Donors” (Unselect “all” and then underdonors select “Canada”; ]
· select 2000 – 2011 under“Year” (Select data range from “2000” to “2011”)
·
Use historical data set – total programme spending
DAC CRS – Sector spending...as percentage of sectorallocate spending (Equivalent of programme funding is total
sectorallocated funds
1. From 1990 to 2011, calculate CIDA programmatic support for each year
a. In current dollars
b. In constant dollars
For example, Total CIDA less administration costs.E.g. 2005/06: 2862.37-215.39 = 2646.98. In some
years you also have to subtract the loan repayments if they are not already netted out of the CIDA figure.
E.g. 2009/10: 3571.62-248.34-24.02=3299.26.
· Are there any noticeable trends over the past six years?
2. From 2000 to 2011, calculate CIDA spending by thematic focus
(See worksheets for an indication of which DAC sectorcodes are included undereach respective theme)
· Food security (See “food security” worksheet)
· Sustainable economic growth (See “SEG” worksheet)
· Securing the future of children and youth (See “Children and Youth” worksheet)
· (Maternal newborn and child health – perhaps in a separate slide since this is a portion of children
and youth)
· How has spending on each of these thematic areas shifted over the past six years? Is any one priority
clearly more important than another? Can you link this to any political developments (See http://www.acdi-
cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/ACDI-CIDA.nsf/eng/CAR-616141241-PD4)
3. From 2000 to 2011, calculate CIDA spending by thematic focus as a percentage of overall CIDA programmatic
support
a. Using current dollars
b. Using constant dollars
· Are there any noticeable trends over the past six years when the themes are situated within the context of
overall programmatic spending?
4. Calculate spending by cross cutting focus (aggregate and sub elements) since 2005

· Advancing democracy (see “Advancing democracy” worksheet)
· Security and stability (see “Security and stability” worksheet)
· Equality between men and women
· Governance (See “Governance” worksheet)
· Environmental sustainability
· How has spending on each of these thematic areas shifted over the past six years? Is any one priority
clearly more important than another?
5. Calculate spending by cross-cutting focus as a percentage of overall CIDA programmatic support
a. Using current dollars
b. Using constant dollars
· Are there any noticeable trends over the past six years when the cross-cutting foci are situated within the
context of overall programmatic spending?
POSSIBLE EXTRA WORK
Aggregated and disaggregated spending on humanitarian assistance
6. Calculate the sector spending from 2000-2011 on
a. Total humanitarian assistance (700)
b. Emergency response (720) and its sub codes
c. Reconstruction,relief and rehabilitation (730) and its sub codes
d. Disaster prevention and preparedness (740) and its sub codes
7. Calculate the sector spending from 2000-11 for 7 above, disaggregated by Region
· East Asia and Pacific [2]
· Europe and Central Asia[3]
· Latin America and the Caribbean[4]
· Middle East and North Africa[5]
· South Asia[6]
· Sub-Saharan Africa[7]
8. Calculate aggregate humanitarian assistance spending from 2000-11 by channel
a. Public sector
b. NGOs and Civil Society
c. Public-Private Partnerships
d. Multilateral organizations
e. Other
9. Calculate total humanitarian assistance spending from 2000-11 disaggregated by channel and region (i.e. how much
through each channelin each region)
Spending by sector
10. Using the OECD statistics,calculate the aggregate spending by each sectorfrom 2000 - 2011
· Social Infrastructure & Services
· I.1. Education
· I.1.b. Basic Education
· I.2. Health

· I.2.b. Basic Health
· I.3. Population Pol./Progr. & Reproductive Health
· I.4. Water Supply & Sanitation
· I.5. Government & Civil Society
· I.5.a. Government & Civil Society-general
· I.5.b. Conflict, Peace & Security
· I.6. Other Social Infrastructure & Services
· Economic Infrastructure & Services
· II.3. Energy
· II.4. Banking & Financial Services
· II.5. Business & Other Services
· Production Sectors
· III.1. Agriculture (not including Forestry and Fishing)
· III.2. Industry,Mining, Construction
· III.3.a. Trade Policies & Regulations
· Multi-Sector / Cross-Cutting
· VI.1. General Budget Support[BT1]
Of further interest
Spending by sector by branch
Geographic branch
Partnership branch
Spending by region
Spending by region by branch
Spending by region by major sectors (Social, Economic, humanitarian assistance...)
Spending by type of country
Spending by major sectors in type of country
Spending in fragile states (using the list of G7+ members[8])
Spending by sector in fragile states
[1] 1990 is an important year since it is the baseline year against which donor commitments on the MDGs are
measured.
[2] http://data.worldbank.org/region/EAP
[3] http://data.worldbank.org/region/ECA
[4] http://data.worldbank.org/region/LAC
[5] http://data.worldbank.org/region/MNA
[6] http://data.worldbank.org/region/SAS
[7] http://data.worldbank.org/region/SSA

[8] Afghanistan,Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea,
Guinea Bissau, Haiti, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Papua New Guinea, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South
Sudan, Timor Leste, Togo.
[BT1]The historical project database has information on CIDA’s use of program approaches which is broader than
general budget support in the DAC codes which misses out sector wide programming for example.

ODA Analysis

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (17)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to ODA Analysis

Similar to ODA Analysis (20)

ODA Analysis