Sections:
Statistics on International Development 2006
Section 3
Where does the UK expenditure on International Development go?
1. This section shows the destination countries of bilateral aid, and for multilateral aid, the organisations to which flows are directed. It also reports on flows from the UK’s aid budget to Civil Society Organisations1 (CSOs). The rationale for classifying assistance as bilateral or multilateral is explained in Section 1.
2. In this section, Tables 7 to 15 show aid flows to individual countries,
regions and country groupings (e.g Commonwealth countries, Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
(HIPC) and
low, middle and high income countries). Tables 14
(50 kb) and
15(28 kb) also give details of
multilateral expenditure as does Table 16(31 kb).
Table 17(29 kb) shows UK flows to Civil
Society Organisations. Some tables report DFID/ GPEX data and others ODA, as
indicated by the table titles.
Major recipients of UK aid
3. Tables 7(26 kb),
8(27 kb) and
9(26 kb) highlight the top twenty recipient countries of DFID
bilateral aid and UK ODA (the former is shown including and excluding
humanitarian assistance2 and Table 10(25 kb) shows the top ten recipients of DFID
humanitarian assistance.
4. India continues to receive by far the greatest amount of DFID bilateral
aid to an individual country (£253 million in 2005/06), with Bangladesh in
second place (£123 million) and Sudan third (£117 million). In total, the top
twenty recipients of DFID’s bilateral aid received 68% of the total bilateral
programme (Table 7(26 kb)).
5. Looking at UK bilateral ODA, Nigeria, Iraq and India were the top three
recipients in 2005; the first two countries received substantial sums of debt
relief in this year, which explains their unusually high ranking (Table 8(27 kb)).
6. Sudan received by far the largest amount of DFID humanitarian assistance
in 2005/06 (£98 million) (Table 10(25 kb)). Sudan ranked third in terms of its overall
receipt of DFID bilateral aid, however excluding humanitarian assistance, it was
not one of the top twenty recipients (Table 9(26 kb)).
7. Some major changes to country rankings in Table 10(25 kb) can be attributed to humanitarian assistance allocated in order to meet
immediate relief needs following recent natural disasters. Pakistan became the
third largest recipient of humanitarian assistance in 2005/06 as a result of the
earthquake of October 2005. The UK also allocated £75m aid expenditure to the
countries affected by the tsunami of December 2004. Most of the expenditure
could not be allocated to individual countries and is classified as bilateral
humanitarian aid to Asia region in Table 12
Bilateral DFID, GPEX and ODA Flows to Individual Countries and Country Groups
8. Table 11(30 kb) summarises data on DFID bilateral expenditure and GPEX for
regions and a range of country groupings (e.g commonwealth countries, HIPC
countries and low, middle and high income countries). Table 12 expands on Table
11 and reports on the destination countries.
9. Figure 10 based on Table 11(32 kb) data shows that in 2005/06 45 per cent of DFID’s
bilateral programme was spent in Africa, 38 per cent in Asia, 2 per cent in each of Europe and
the Americas and less than 1 per cent in the Pacific. The remaining 13 per cent was not
allocated to a particular region as it benefited all partner countries. DFID’s
bilateral aid to all regions has increased over the last five years.
 |
Expenditure in Low Income Countries
10. Table 13(24 kb) breaks down the DFID programme by the income group of the
recipient countries and is used to report progress towards a DFID target to
spend 90% of bilateral aid (excluding humanitarian assistance) in low income3
countries by 2006. In 2005/06 82 per cent of bilateral aid excluding
humanitarian assistance was spent in low income countries.
11. Table 14(50 kb) shows how bilateral ODA from the UK and all DAC donors was split
among different countries and regions in 2004 (the last year for which data are
available for all columns in the table). This table also shows the total amount
of multilateral ODA provided to each country and an estimated value for the UK’s
share of this multilateral ODA.
12. Table 15(28 kb) compares the percentages of bilateral ODA given to low, middle
and high income countries for all DAC donors and for multilateral agencies in
2004. It can be seen that the UK gave a considerably higher proportion of ODA
(83 per cent) to low income countries than all DAC donors, with the exception of
Ireland who gave 86 per cent. Six countries gave less than 50 per cent of their ODA to low
income countries; Greece, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Spain, and United States.
Contributions to Multilateral Organisations
13. Table 16(31 kb) shows DFID contributions to different multilateral organisations
alongside contributions from other UK Government Departments. In 2005/06 DFID spent £1,674m through multilateral agencies with the greatest amounts being channelled through the EC, World Bank Group
and UN agencies. DFID increased payments through UN agencies by £98m to £299m in
2005/2006. Almost half of this increase (£40m) can be attributed to the UK,s
contribution to the UN Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF). CERF is a new
multi-donor humanitarian response fund launched in March 2006 and is
administered by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). Total contributions in 2005/06 and 2004/05 were less than in
2003/04 due to lower payments to the World Bank Group– in particular to IDA (the
World Bank’s concessional lending department). The change in the attribution of
EC aid for new EU member states from DFID to the Treasury also reduced the level
of DFID’s EC contributionsfrom 2004/05 (while increasing the level of those of
‘other government departments’).
14. There were small reductions in contributions to the Regional Development Banks as a group and Commonwealth agencies compared with the previous year.
DFID Expenditure through Civil Society Organisations
15. CSOs are non-governmental organisations which play a vital role in
building global alliances in support of eliminating world poverty.
Table 17(29 kb) sets
out allocations in the last financial year to these agencies and the types of
arrangements through which funds were given (terms are explained in the
glossary).
16. In total funds disbursed through this channel increased slightly in
2005/06 (£261m) compared with 2004/05 (£233m). The British Red
Cross was the single largest recipient of DFID funding (£52m), followed
by VSO (£29m) and Oxfam (£21m). It should be noted that these
funds appear as ‘grants and other aid in kind’ in
Tables 1(27 kb) and
12(60 kb).4
Income Groups
Low Income Group Afghanistan, Angola, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Burma, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Congo (Dem Rep), Congo, Cote D’Ivoire, East Timor, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Korea, Dem Rep (North), Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Moldova, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Rwanda, Sao Tome & Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe. Lower Middle Income Group Albania, Algeria, Belarus, Belize, Bolivia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cape Verde, China, Columbia, Cuba, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Macedonia (FYR of), Maldives, Morocco, Namibia, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia & Montenegro, South Africa, Sri Lanka, St Vincent & Grenadines, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, West Bank & Gaza. Upper Middle Income Group Anguilla, Antigua & Barbuda, Argentine Republic, Barbados, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Czech Republic, Dominica, Estonia, Gabon, Grenada, Hungary, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mayotte, Mexico, Montserrat, Oman, Panama, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Slovak Republic, St Helena, St Kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, Trinidad & Tobago, Turks & Caicos Islands, Uruguay, Venezuela. High Income Group Bahamas, Bahrain, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Brunei, Cayman Islands, Cyprus, Falkland Islands, French Polynesia, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Israel, Korea, Rep (South), Kuwait, Libya, Malta, Netherlands Antilles, Qatar, Singapore, Slovenia, Taiwan, United Arab Emirates. Income Group Status |