The document details a formal meeting held on July 1-2, 2019, discussing reporting practices among various development co-operation providers, including OECD-DAC members, non-DAC countries, and multilateral organizations. It highlights recent data trends and improvements in reporting transparency and engagement, emphasizing the importance of accurate statistics for effective development cooperation. Additionally, the document outlines the status of philanthropic foundations' reporting and future plans for enhancing data standardization and collaboration.

1. Reporting issues.
Providers of development co-operation
beyond the DAC (countries, multilateral
organisations and philanthropic foundations)
WP-STAT formal meeting
1-2 July 2019
Marisa Berbegal Ibáñez
Tomas Hos
Cécile Sangaré

2. STRUCTUREOutline
 Coverage of OECD-DAC statistics and level of detail in
reporting
 Reporting by non-DAC bilateral providers
 Reporting by multilateral organisations
 Increasing statistical engagement & improving
transparency through TOSSD
 Reporting by philanthropic foundations

3. STRUCTUREOutline
 Coverage of OECD-DAC statistics and level of
detail in reporting
 Reporting by non-DAC provider countries
 Reporting by multilateral organisations
 Increasing statistical engagement & improving
transparency through TOSSD
 Reporting by philanthropic foundations

4. 30
DAC Members
41
Multilateral
organisations
20
Non-DAC
countries
26 Private
foundations
1. Coverage and level of reporting
Reporting on 2017 flows Multilateral Multibilateral Bilateral
Reporting for the first time
CAF (Development Bank of
Latin America)
Central Emergency
Response Fund (CERF)
Multi-Purpose Trust Fund
Office (MPTFO)
Global Partnership on
Education (GPE)
Conservation International
Croatia (activity-level)
Saudi Arabia (activity level on
2015-2017 data)
Number of activity level/aggregate reporters 39 / 2 10 / 10
Estimated coverage of total 2016 flows 90% 95.1%

5. STRUCTUREOutline
 Coverage of OECD-DAC Statistics and level of detail in
reporting
 Reporting by non-DAC provider countries
 Reporting by multilateral organisations
 Increasing statistical engagement & improving
transparency through TOSSD
 Reporting by philanthropic foundations

6. 2.1 Coverage of OECD-DAC statistics for
development co-operation provider countries
 Coverage of OECD-DAC Statistics for most relevant bilateral providers : 95.1% of bilateral
flows.
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 (% of total)
ODA from 29 DAC countries 151.8 151.1 143.1 157.6 161.4 86.0%
ODA from 20 reporting countries beyond the DAC 16.8 25.2 12.1 16.4 17.0 9.1%
Estimated development co-operation flows from ten
non-reporting countries beyond the DAC
6.8 7 6.9 6.5 9.2 4.9%
Subtotal flows from non-DAC providers 23.2 31.7 24.6 22.9 26.2 14.0%
Estimated global total 157.9 169.1 156.0 180.5 187.6 100%
Estimated global development co-operation flows, 2013-17
(Gross disbursements, current prices, USD billion)

7. 2.2 Reporting by non DAC Countries
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Azerbaijan 14 13 14 19
Bulgaria 37 45 44 41 69 62
Chinese Taipei 281 249 250 258 333 319
Croatia 20 41 66 52 41 54
Cyprus 23 19 17 18
Estonia 23 29 34 36 46 43
Israel 208 212 206 254 375 408
Kazakhstan 8 30 44 31 35
Kuwait 166 212 253 308 1,100 570
Latvia 20 21 22 25 32 32
Liechtenstein 26 26 25 25 25 24
Lithuania 50 46 41 52 61 59
Malta 17 17 19 17 21 25
Romania 132 123 195 160 207 220
Russia 331 494 683 1,327 1,522 1,190
Saudi Arabia 1,200 5,205 12,438 586 966 908
Thailand 11 33 63 63 171 133
Timor-Leste 3 4
Turkey 1,834 2,406 2,789 3,505 5,961 8,121
United Arab Emirates 701 4,947 4,635 4,437 4,318 3,957
TOTAL 5,079 14,132 21,827 11,227 15,292 16,178
*Shaded countries are those reporting on aggregate level only.
Non-DAC countries' Net ODA disbursements, 2012-17
Constant Prices, USD million

8. 2.3 Transparency indicator
Country
Timeliness
Comprehen
siveness
Accuracy Assessment comments
Azerbaijan 2 2 1
Reporting is complete, of good general quality and in standard-format. The country could
improve the timeliness of its reporting, the use of channel and purpose codes, and start
reporting on policy markers.
Croatia 3 2 1
Being the first time that the country reports activity-level, the reporting was very timely, in
standard-format and the quality of first submision good. In the future, the country could
improve the use of purpose codes and put more attention to report under ODA only
activities with clear developmental objectives.
Estonia 3 2 2
Reporting was timely, complete, in standard format and with meaningful descriptions. The
country could improve timeliness of responses to Secretariat's comments and the use of
types of aid.
Kazakhstan 3 2 1
Reporting was timely and responsiveness was high. The reporting on purpose codes is of
good quality. However, only a limited number of fields are reported. In particular,
descriptions are not provided.
Kuwait 3 1 1
Kuwait reports very early in the year, and report on grants, and loans, including financial
information. Reporting could be greatly improved by using the CRS format and by providing
information on grant commitments.
Latvia 2 3 3
Reporting is of good quality, coherent, complete and accurate. The timeliness could be
improved.
Lithuania 3 3 2
Reporting was timely, coherent and complete. The country could improve the use of types
of aid and purpose codes.
Romania 3 3 3
Romania. Timely, complete and of high quality. Could be more specific in the description
fields so as to alleviate any ambiguity regarding ODA eligibility.
Saudi Arabia 3 2 2
Being the first time that the country reports activity-level, reporting was timely, the quality of
the first submission was good and the country responded on time to questions. The
reporting could be improved by being complete (only partial reporting was submitted). The
use of purpose codes and types of aid could be also improved.
UAE 2 3 2
UAE reporting, which includes a large volume of data, is provided in a timely manner. The
data is generally of good quality. However, some improvements could be made. Several non-
eligible activities are reported. The reporting on several fields can be further improved

9.  DAC Participant status: Bulgaria, Kuwait, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia,
United Arab Emirates
 Profiles on Development Co-Operation had been elaborated for countries
that report in CRS for the Development Co-Operation Report 2019.
 Statistical flyers: Financing for development in Europe and the
Commonwealth of Independent States (ECIS). Financing for education and
water & sanitation prepared for the Arab-DAC Dialogue
 Statistical seminars/presentations:
 UK-Gulf Co-operation Council Best Practices Workshop on Aid Reporting and
Transparency. July 2018, London.
 Brazil: International Seminar on Methodologies and Tools for International
Cooperation Measurement, presentation of reporting on CRS and TOSSD,
September 2018
 Meeting of Iberoamerican Programme on Strenghtening South-South Co-operation
Programa Iberoamericano para el Fortalecimiento de la Cooperación Sur-Sur
(PIFCSS).
 Latvia : January 2019
 United Nations: presenting CRS & TOSSD reporting at the UN Workshop on Data
Standards. Bilateral meetings with UN agencies. Geneva, March 2019, and New
York, April 2019.
2.4 Outreach activities & Statistical Seminars

10.  Azerbaijan disclosed for the first time activity-level
information (previously reporting was in CRS but
disclosed at semi-aggregate level)
 Croatia reported for the first time activity-level
 Saudi Arabia reported for the first time activity-level
data for the 2015-2017 period. It is currently
compiling historical information
2.5 Improvement in reporting of non DAC
countries (2017 flows)

11. STRUCTUREOutline
 Coverage of OECD-DAC statistics and level of
detail in reporting
 Reporting by non-DAC provider countries
 Reporting by multilateral organisations
 Increasing statistical engagement & improving
transparency through TOSSD
 Reporting by philanthropic foundations

12. 3.1 Reporting by Multilateral organisations
(Gross Disbursements, USD Million, 2017 flows)
Agency Name Concessional Flows Non-Concessional Flows
Adaptation Fund 31
African Development Bank 2,681 5,191
Arab Fund (AFESD) 769
Asian Development Bank 2,558 9,188
Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank 715
Caribbean Development Bank 30 78
Center of Excellence in Finance 1
Central Emergency Response Fund 418
Climate Investment Funds 345
Council of Europe Development Bank 90 205
Development Bank of Latin America
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development 4,374
Food and Agriculture Organisation 448
Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization 1,679
Global Environment Facility 428
Global Fund 4,252
Global Green Growth Institute 21
Green Climate Fund 503 685
IDB Invest 2,011
IFAD 686 132
IMF (Concessional Trust Funds) 1,211
Inter-American Development Bank 1,350 7,557
International Atomic Energy Agency 76
International Labour Organisation 270
Islamic Development Bank 339 1,958
Nordic Development Fund 43
OPEC Fund for International Development 509 583
OSCE 109
UN Peacebuilding Fund 58
UNAIDS 165
UNDP 352
UNECE 14
UNFPA 215
UNHCR 522
UNICEF 1,524
UNRWA 893
WFP 286
World Health Organisation 533
World Tourism Organisation 13
World Bank (IDA + IBRD) 13,976 16,120
TOTAL 36,446 48,111

13.  Significant improvement of multilateral reporting over
the last few years.
 Examples of improvement:
– UNICEF – Improved use of purpose codes: activities
previously classified as multi-sector were assigned specific
purpose codes
– IsDB – started reporting on climate finance
– UNDP reported on the gender marker for the first time
– UNECE reported much more elaborate descriptions this year
Challenges:
– Improvements depend upon Secretariat’s work
– Many multilateral agencies report in a non-standard format
3.2 Improvement in reporting by Multilateral
organisations (2017 flows)

14. STRUCTUREOutline
 Coverage of OECD-DAC statistics and level of
detail in reporting
 Reporting by non-DAC provider countries
 Reporting by multilateral organisations
 Increasing statistical engagement & improving
transparency through TOSSD
 Reporting by philanthropic foundations

15.  Many statistical seminars were on both CRS and TOSSD
Reporting
 E.g. International Seminar on Methodologies and Tools for
International Cooperation Measurement, in Brazil. OECD
presented the methodology to report in-kind technical co-
operation both in the CRS and in TOSSD.
 TOSSD pilot study conducted in Costa Rica in September
2018
 LAC-DAC Dialogue (February 2019): several LAC countries
supported transparency brought by TOSSD
 TOSSD Consultation with LAC countries (June 2019)
allowed us to engage with countries and increase their
awareness and knowledge of development co-operation
statistics
4.1 Opportunities for engaging with non-DAC
providers on TOSSD

16. As a result of engagement activities, several non-DAC provider
countries and multilateral organisations participated in the TOSSD
data survey
 Brazil tested the TOSSD Methodology with SDG 13 Climate Action
 Participation from non-DAC providers in TOSSD Survey
 Costa Rica
 Estonia
 Kuwait
 Saudi Arabia
 Turkey (first time activity-level)
 United Arab Emirates
 Participation from multilateral organisations
 Not previously reporting in CRS: SESRIC, UN Secretariat, GPE, MPTFO
 Previously reporting in CRS
 MDBs: IADB
 UN Agencies: WHO, WFP, UNHCR, UNFPA, UNRWA
4.2 Making Development Co-operation statistics
more comprehensive

17. STRUCTUREOutline
 Coverage of OECD-DAC statistics and level of
detail in reporting
 Reporting by non-DAC provider countries
 Reporting by multilateral organisations
 Increasing statistical engagement & improving
transparency through TOSSD
 Reporting by philanthropic foundations

18. 5.1. Private philanthropy
26 foundations reported to the OECD in 2018
• The BMGF has been reporting to the OECD since 2010
• The 2016/17 Survey on Private Philanthropy for Development: 143
foundations
• 26 of the largest philanthropic foundations shared data on their
development grant making and investments:
– CRS format, following the DAC statistical standards and definitions
– 95% of the Survey annual average (commitments)
• Activity level data are published through OECD.Stat

19. 5.2. Private philanthropy: next steps
• Maintaining the number of reporting foundations also
this year and:
– Further data standardisation, CRS format, with less assistance by
the Secretariat
– Improvement of reporting on the DAC Gender Marker
• Furthering statistical engagement with philanthropy,
focusing on the largest foundations.
• Update of 2016/17 Survey, complementing the regular
data collection

20. Thank you.