1. The document discusses data on official development assistance (ODA) extended by local and regional governments from 2005 to 2015. 2. Key findings include that the volume of decentralized development cooperation (DDC) has remained stable over the past 10 years, increasing slightly by 4% from 2005 levels. DDC has also decreased slightly as a proportion of total bilateral ODA, from 6% in 2005 to 4% in 2015. 3. China was the top recipient country of DDC in 2005, 2010, and 2015, mainly due to imputed student costs in Germany. When excluding these costs, top recipients in 2010 and 2015 included Haiti, Peru, and various African and Latin American countries.

1. OECD Regional Development Policy Committee
OECD Development Assistance Committee
EU DevCO
09 June 2017
ODA EXTENDED BY LOCAL AND REGIONAL
GOVERNMENTS: PART OF THE DDC PICTURE
Supported by

2. • The DAC:
– 30 members (21 EU), observers, emerging donor engagement
• Why do we care, and why should you?
– Localising: 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Marrakech COP
22 and the New Urban Agenda (Habitat III)
– Importance of competencies at sub-national level
– Importance of this mechanism for many countries
– Effectiveness agenda
• What can this bring?
– Data analytics
– Insights from respective specialisation
– Policy dialogue – bridging the policy communities
Who we are

3. • Countries views vary on role of sub-national players
• Varying data coverage across countries
• 9 countries in 2005 – 13 countries in 2017
Evolving work on DDC
Reporting on DC 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Austria
Belgium
Canada ##### ##### #####
Czech Republic ##### ##### ##### ##### ##### #####
France ##### ##### ##### ##### #####
Germany
Greece
Italy
Japan
Portugal
Spain
Switzerland
United Kingdom ##### ##### ##### ##### ##### ##### #####

4. • Volumes of DDC have remained stable over the past 10 years.
• Preliminary calculations show a 4% increase from 2005 figures.
DDC data analysis : 2005 vs. 2015
DDC volumes 2005 vs. 2015
(USD million, disbursements)
Donor comparison
DDC volumes and growth rates
DDC volume 2005 2015
rate of
growth
Germany 1012.9 994.3 -2%
Spain 473.6 195.2 -59%
Canada .. 188.2
Austria 36.8 107.8 193%
Belgium 74.0 90.4 22%
France .. 61.6
Switzerland 43.4 57.8 33%
Italy 19.9 23.5 18%
United Kingdom .. 19.0
Japan 6.2 3.0 -51%
Czech Republic .. 0.3
Portugal 4.7 0.2 -96%
Greece 0.8 0.0
Total 1672.5 1741.5 4%
0
500
1000
2005 2010 2015
USD million

5. • DDC has decreased slightly in relative terms: from 6% of total
bilateral ODA in 2005 to 4% in 2015.
• The two largest DDC increases in relative terms are Austria (+19%)
and Spain (+33%).
DDC data analysis : 2005 vs. 2015
Amount
reported
in 2005
as a % of
total
bilateral
ODA
Amount
reported
in 2010
as a % of
total
bilateral
ODA
Amount
reported
in 2015
as a % of
total
bilateral
ODA
DAC members reporting on DDC 1672.5 6% 1863.7 6% 1870.3 4%
Where EU countries 1622.9 11% 1720.3 8% 1532.0 7%
Austria 36.8 3% 22.7 4% 169.5 22%
Belgium 74.0 5% 97.6 5% 85.8 8%
Czech republic .. .. .. .. 0.3 0.4%
France .. .. 69.6 1% 63.6 1%
Germany 1012.9 13% 933.4 13% 975.5 7%
Greece* 0.8 0.4% .. .. .. ..
Italy 20 0.8% 26.3 4% 27.7 2%
Portugal 4.7 2% 0.6 0.2% 0.3 0.2%
Spain 473.6 26% 570.1 17% 209.5 59%
Where non-EU countries 49.6 0.5% 143.4 1% 338.3 1%
Canada .. .. 90.8 3% 253.9 9%
Japan 6.2 0.1% 3.7 0.1% 3.3 0.1%
Switzerland 43.4 2% 48.9 3% 62.6 2%
United Kingdom .. .. .. .. 18.5 0.2%

6. • China figures as the top recipient in 2005, 2010
and 2015 (representing 15%, 10% and 11% of total
DDC respectively). This mainly because of
imputed student costs in Germany.
DDC data analysis: 2005 vs. 2015
China
15%
Unspecified
9%
Morocco
5%
Turkey
4%
India
4%
Cameroon
4%
Ukraine
3%
Peru
3%
Iran
2%Bolivia
2%
Indonesia
2%
Other
47%
2005 Unspecified
26%
China
11%
India
5%
Asia,
regional
5%
Iran
3%
Cameroon
2%
Turkey
2%
Morocco
2%
Syrian Arab
Republic
2%
Ukraine
2% Brazil
2%
Other
38%
2015Unspecified
17%
China
10%
Haiti
3%
Peru
3%
Morocco
3%
Cameroon
3%
Turkey
3%
India
2%
West Bank
and Gaza
Strip
2%
Ukraine
2%
Syrian Arab
Republic
2%
Other
50%
2010

7. • China completely disappears from the
ranking. Other countries emerge in both
2010 and 2015 as Peru, Bolivia, El Salvador,
The West Bank of Gaza Strip and Senegal.
DDC data analysis: excluding imputed
student costs
Unspecified
30%
Haiti
6%
Peru
5%
West
Bank and
Gaza Strip
3%
Guatemal
a
3%
El
Salvador
3%Bolivia
2%
Senegal
2%
Rwanda
2%
Nicaragua
2%
Ecuador
2%
Other
40%
2010
Unspecified
59%
Malawi
3%
Peru
2%
Morocco
2%
Senegal
2%
Nepal
2%
Mozambi
que
1%
West Bank
and Gaza
Strip
1%
Dem Rep.
of Congo
1%
Bolivia
1%
El
Salvador
1%
Other
25%
2015

8. DDC sectors: 2010 vs. 2015
sector-allocable basis
• Social sectors concentrated 59% of sector
allocable DDC in 2010 and 34% in 2015.
Education,23% Multisector, 13%
Agriculture, 10%
Gov. & civil society, 12%
Health, 12%
Unspecified, 7%
Other social, 6%
Humanitarian assistance,
6%
Water, 4%
Other, 7%
2010
Multisector,21% Unspecified, 20%
Gov. & civil society, 8%
Health, 12%
Education, 8%Agriculture, 10%
Other, 10%
Water, 6%
2015 Humanitarian
assistance, 5%

9. 1. Increased from USD 78m (6%) in 2006-07 to USD90m (8%) in
2014-15
2. Main recipients:
3. Main sectors:
Country profiles: Belgium
Unspecified
41%
Malawi
12%
Mozambique
8%
South Africa
6%
Dem. Rep.
of Congo
5%
Other
28%
Health, 29% Multisector, 25%
Unspecified,. 12%
Agriculture, 10%
Industry mining &
construction, 5%
Other, 20%
2015
Health, 24%Multisector, 25%
Unspecified, 9%
Agriculture, 10%
Educ., 8%
Budget
support, 7%
Other, 18%
2010

10. 1. Stable volumes since 2010, approx. USD62-67m (1%)
2. Main recipients:
3. Main sectors:
Country Profile: France
Madagascar
12%
Senegal
10%
Burkina Faso
6%
Mali
6%
Benin
6%
Unspecified
4%
Niger
4%
Morocco
3%
West Bank
and Gaza
Strip
3%
Viet Nam
3%
Lao People's
Democratic
Republic
3%
Other
40%
Multisector, 12%
Gov & civil soc., 11%
Health. 12%
Agriculture, 9%
Other, 20%
Educ., 11%
Hum assistance, 8%
Water, 17%
2010
Multisector, 16%
Gov & civil soc., 9% Health. 8%
Agriculture, 14%
Educ., 8%
Other, 24%Water, 21%
2015

11. 1. Stable at USD 1.1-1.2 billion between 2006-07 – 2014-15, but
diminishing as a proportion (16-10%).
2. Main recipients:
3. Main sectors:
Country Profiles: Germany
Unspecified
57%
China
6%
Rwanda
5%
Ghana
3%
Syrian Arab
Republic
2%
Other
27%
Education, 57% Multisector, 21%
Hum assistance,
3%
Other,
10%
Transport & storage, 4%
Water, 4%2010
Multisector, 34% Education, 31% Health, 23%
Other, 6%
Energy, 4%
Water, 3%
2015

12. 1. Decreased from USD 28 million on average per year in 2008-09 to
USD 16 million in 2012-13, rebounding to USD 24 million on
average per year in 2014-15.
2. Main recipients:
3. Main sectors:
Country Profile: Italy
Unspecified
9%
Tanzania
6%
Somalia
5%
Kenya
4%
Mozambique
4%
Ethiopia
3%Brazil
3%
Albania
3%
South Sudan
3%
Serbia
3%
Peru
3%
Other
54%
Education, 18%
Gov & civil soc., 7%
Health. 16%
Agriculture, 8%
Unspecified, 12%
Other, 15%
Trade & tourism, 5%
Other
social,
13%
Water, 7%
2010
Education, 32%
Gov & civil soc., 4%
Health. 18%Agriculture, 18% Other, 7%
Industry, mining & construction., 4%
Other
social,
13%
Water, 4%
2015

13. 1. Decreased from USD 600 million in 2006-07 (28%) to USD 232
million in 2014-15 (62%).
2. Main recipients:
3. Main sectors:
Country Profile: Spain
Unspecified
42%
Peru
7%
Morocco
6%
El Salvador
4%
Guatemala
4%
West Bank
and Gaza
Strip
4%
Bolivia
4%
Other
29%
Unspecified, 9%
Gov & civil soc., 18% Health. 13%
Agriculture, 13%
Other social, 10%
Other, 10%
Educ., 14%
Hum assistance, 8%
Water, 5%
2010
Unspecified, 40% Gov & civil soc., 15%
Health. 8%
Agriculture, 10%
Other, 9%
Educ., 6%
Hum assistance, 6%
Water, 5%
2015

14. • Do you see yourself in the data? What
rings true? What are the differences?
• What changes have you seen in DDC over
the last 5-10 years? Where is the demand?
• How do you engage with central
government development policy and
priorities?
Questions for discussion

15. Thank you
Cushla.Thompson@oecd.org
Cecilia.Piemonte@oecd.org