DOCSLIB.ORG

Dac Members' Gross Oda by World Bank Income

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dac Members' Gross Oda by World Bank Income DAC MEMBERS’ GROSS ODA BY WORLD BANK INCOME CLASSIFICATIONS This flyer presents DAC members’ Official Development Assistance (ODA) in recent years according to World Bank income classifications1,2, instead of according to the groups in the DAC List of ODA Recipients where the United Nations’ Least Developed Countries (LDCs) are listed separately. As the LDC category cuts across income categories, it includes some low income countries as well as some lower middle income countries, two of which are not eligible for World Bank IDA lending (Angola and Equatorial Guinea). All figures are gross bilateral disbursements. Figure 1. DAC members’ gross bilateral ODA by World Bank income classifications, 2006-2015 100 90 0.9 0.2 0.3 1.0 0.2 1.2 0.2 0.4 80 1.0 19 26 0.9 21 17 20 20 22 70 27 19 25 60 High income 50 Upper middle income 37 35 45 37 38 38 36 Lower middle income 40 44 34 32 Low income 30 Billion USD, constant 2014 prices 20 29 31 23 24 26 25 25 25 10 18 20 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 As shown in figure 1, aid to lower middle income countries has consistently represented the largest share of aid allocable by income over the last decade, totalling between USD 35 and 45 billion in constant 2014 prices over the last 5 years, and representing between 40 and 50 percent of bilateral aid allocable by income. As a result of exceptionally high debt relief to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, aid to the low income countries was at its highest in 2011 (USD 31 billion in constant 2014 prices), representing 35% of ODA allocable by income. Since then, aid to low income countries has been stable and represents about 30% of ODA allocable by income. After a low point in 2010, aid to upper middle income countries represented close to a quarter of aid allocable by income in the last 5 years. Aid to high income countries has been relatively insignificant, peaking in 2010 at USD 1.2 billion in constant 2014 prices, and averaging about USD 0.2 billion annually in constant 2014 prices over the last 5 years. 1. The income groups in this flyer are based on the World Bank classifications defined as follows: low-income economies are those with a GNI per capita, calculated using the World Bank Atlas method, of USD 1 025 or less in 2015; lower middle-income economies are those with a GNI per capita between USD 1 026 and USD 4 035; upper middle-income economies are those with a GNI per capita between USD 4 036 and USD 12 475; high- income economies are those with a GNI per capita of USD 12 476 or more. 2. More advanced developing countries and territories (MADCTs) classified as World Bank high income are included in the high income group. ODA to countries/territories which are not World Bank members (Anguilla, Cook Islands, Montserrat, Niue, Netherlands Antilles, Saint Helena, Tokelau, and Wallis and Futuna) has been insignificant in relation to other income categories over the last decade, averaging less than USD 0.3 billion annually in constant 2014 prices, and is not shown in the charts in this flyer... DAC MEMBERS’ OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE BY WORLD BANK INCOME CLASSIFICATIONS Figure 2. DAC members’ gross bilateral ODA, grants and loans, World Bank income classifications Low income Lower middle income 35,000 50,000 30,000 40,000 25,000 20,000 30,000 prices Grants prices Grants 15,000 20,000 10,000 Loans Loans 5,000 10,000 Million USD, 2014 constant 0 Million USD, 2014 constant 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Upper middle income High income 25,000 1,200 20,000 1,000 800 15,000 prices Grants prices 600 Grants 10,000 Loans 400 Loans 5,000 200 Million USD, 2014 constant 0 Million USD, 2014 constant 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Grants represent the larger share of ODA to all income groups in 2015 (Figure 2). Aid to low income countries has been almost exclusively in the form of grants (between 96% and 99% of total ODA) over the last decade. Grants also make up the bulk of aid to lower middle income countries, although loans have been rising steadily over the last decade, more than doubling between 2006 and 2015, and representing about a third of gross ODA in 2015. Grants and loans to upper middle income countries have been relatively stable in recent years, after a steep decline in grants between 2006 and 2010 and the doubling of loan amounts between 2010 and 2011. High income countries saw a drastic drop in grants when Croatia and Mayotte left the DAC List of ODA Recipients in 2011.3 As a result of high loans to Chile and Uruguay in 2014, grants to high income countries were surpassed by loans that year. 3. Barbados, Oman, and Trinidad and Tobago also left the DAC List of ODA Recipients in 2011. DAC MEMBERS’ OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE BY WORLD BANK INCOME CLASSIFICATIONS Figure 3. Sector breakdown of DAC members’ gross bilateral ODA by World Bank income classifications, 2014-2015 average 31% 58% 3% 5% 38% 29% 7% 11% 3% 11% 39% 25% 7% 9% 3% 13% 48% 10% 8% 6% 7% 20% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Social Economic Production Multi-sector Programme assistance Debt relief Humanitarian aid Other The social sectors account for the largest share of gross ODA in the low (almost half) and middle income groups, followed by humanitarian aid in low income countries (one fifth of aid) and the economic sectors in the middle income countries (Figure 3). Humanitarian aid is the third largest sector in the middle income countries. In high income countries, the majority of aid goes to the economic sectors, followed by the social sectors. Figure 4. Top recipients of DAC members' gross bilateral ODA, 2014-2015 average As % of ODA World Bank As % of all allocable by Recipient Income group USD billion ODA income Afghanistan Low 4,104 3.3% 5.1% Turkey Lower middle 3,717 3.0% 4.6% India Upper middle 3,377 2.7% 4.2% Viet Nam Lower middle 2,685 2.2% 3.3% Ethiopia Lower middle 2,141 1.7% 2.7% Pakistan Low 2,025 1.6% 2.5% Indonesia Lower middle 1,948 1.6% 2.4% Syrian Arab Republic Lower middle 1,929 1.6% 2.4% Kenya Upper middle 1,864 1.5% 2.3% Jordan Lower middle 1,839 1.5% 2.3% South Sudan Low 1,697 1.4% 2.1% Morocco Low 1,649 1.3% 2.1% West Bank and Gaza Strip Low 1,611 1.3% 2.0% Tanzania Lower middle 1,576 1.3% 2.0% Democratic Republic of the Congo Lower middle 1,549 1.3% 1.9% Bangladesh Upper middle 1,520 1.2% 1.9% Myanmar Lower middle 1,470 1.2% 1.8% Mozambique Upper middle 1,388 1.1% 1.7% Ukraine Upper middle 1,359 1.1% 1.7% Colombia Lower middle 1,307 1.1% 1.6% The top 20 recipients of gross bilateral ODA from DAC members in 2014-2015 accounted for just over half of bilateral ODA allocable by income and include low, lower middle and upper middle income countries (Figure 4). DAC MEMBERS’ OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE BY WORLD BANK INCOME CLASSIFICATIONS Figure 5. Ten largest DAC providers in terms of ODA grants allocable by income, World Bank income classifications, 2014-2015 average United States 7,784 6,552 3,643 3 EU Institutions 3,367 3,642 2,624 24 United Kingdom 3,245 2,972 532 7 Germany 1,433 2,497 1,382 30 Japan 1,112 1,680 479 9 France 838 1,124 641 17 Australia 223 1,860 12021 Canada 915 651 303 1 Norway 753 513 392 0.1 Sweden 769 572 211 0.2 Other DAC members 3,020 3,058 1,141 7 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 Million USD Low income Lower middle income Upper middle income High income Figure 6. Five largest DAC providers in terms of gross ODA loans allocable by income, World Bank income classifications, 2014-2015 average Japan 117 5,339 1,431 EU Institutions 103 1,166 3,267 12 Germany 2,140 1,886 125 France 331 1,469 1,467 0.3 Korea 144 404 70 Other DAC members 71 499 138 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 Low income Lower middle income Upper middle income High income Million USD DAC MEMBERS’ OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE BY WORLD BANK INCOME CLASSIFICATIONS Figure 5 presents the ten largest DAC providers of grants allocable by income in 2014-2015. The low and lower middle income countries received 39% and 42% respectively of DAC members’ grants allocable by income. Aid from the United States to low and upper middle income groups represented one third of total DAC members’ grants to these groups. The United States also provided a quarter of DAC members’ grants to lower middle income countries. The largest DAC providers of ODA loans allocable by income in 2014-2015 are presented in figure 6. Over half (55%) of DAC members’ gross loans allocable by income went to lower middle income countries and 41% went to upper middle income countries.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Traditional Leadership in the Constitution of the Marshall Islands
    TRADITIONAL LEADERSHIP IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS by C. J. LYNCH Working Papers Series Pacific Islands Studies Center for Asian and Pacific Studies in collaboration with the Social Science Research Institute University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu, Hawaii Joe Lynch is a consultant on legislation and constitutional drafting whose long experience in the Pacific encompasses island areas in Micronesia, Melanesia, and Polynesia. Robert C. Kiste, Director Pacific Islands Studies Program Center for Asian and Pacific Studies University of Hawaii at Manoa Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 TRADITIONAL LEADERSHIP IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS (With Comparative Notes) C. J. Lynch 1984 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface v Introductory 1 Part I. THE COUNCIL OF IROIJ l. The precursors 3 2. Functions of the Council 4 (a) General 4 (b) Relations with the Nitijela 6 ( c) The Council in action 9 3. Composition of the Council 10 4. Procedures of the Council 13 5. Miscellaneous matters 14 6. Comparisons 16 (a) Palau 16 (b) The Federated States of Micronesia 17 (c) Yap 18 (d) Vanuatu 21 (e) Western Samoa 22 (f) The Cook Islands 22 (g) Comment 24 Part II. THE TRADITIONAL RIGHTS COURT 7. The Traditional Rights Court and the judicial system 27 ADDENDUM: Two problems of interpretation 8. Comparisons and comment 34 Part III. CONCLUSION 9. General comments 35 10. Is a traditional input desirable? 37 APPENDIX 42 NOTES 43 iii PREFACE It hardly needs to be said that this paper is written by a lawyer and from a lawyer's point of view. This fact, however , necessarily means that it is selective, firstly in the aspects of its subject that are considered and secondly in the detail (especially on non-legal aspects) into which it goes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Place of Alcohol in the Lives of People from Tokelau, Fiji, Niue
    The place of alcohol in the lives of people from Tokelau, Fiji, Niue, Tonga, Cook Islands and Samoa living in New Zealand: an overview The place of alcohol in the lives of people from Tokelau, Fiji, Niue, Tonga, Cook Islands and Samoa living in New Zealand: an overview A report prepared by Sector Analysis, Ministry of Health for the Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand ALAC Research Monograph Series: No 2 Wellington 1997 ISSN 1174-1856 ISBN 0-477-06317-9 Acknowledgments This particular chapter which is an overview of the reports from each of the six Pacific communities would not have been possible without all the field teams and participants who took part in the project. I would like to thank Ezra Jennings-Pedro, Terrisa Taupe, Tufaina Taupe Sofaia Kamakorewa, Maikali (Mike) Kilioni, Fane Malani, Tina McNicholas, Mere Samusamuvodre, Litimai Rasiga, Tevita Rasiga, Apisa Tuiqere, Ruve Tuivoavoa, Doreen Arapai, Dahlia Naepi, Slaven Naepi, Vili Nosa, Yvette Guttenbeil, Sione Liava’a, Wailangilala Tufui , Susana Tu’inukuafe, Anne Allan-Moetaua, Helen Kapi, Terongo Tekii, Tunumafono Ken Ah Kuoi, Tali Beaton, Myra McFarland, Carmel Peteru, Damas Potoi and their communities who supported them. Many people who have not been named offered comment and shared stories with us through informal discussion. Our families and friends were drawn in and though they did not formally participate they too gave their opinions and helped to shape the information gathered. Special thanks to all the participants and Jean Mitaera, Granby Siakimotu, Kili Jefferson, Dr Ian Prior, Henry Tuia, Lita Foliaki and Tupuola Malifa who reviewed the reports and asked pertinent questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Saint Helena, Ascension, and Tristan Da Cunha
    Saint Helena, Ascension, and Tristan da Cunha NON-INDEPENDENT COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES NO ADVANCEMENT (formerly called Saint Helena) In 2013, Saint Helena, Ascension, and Tristan de Cunha made no advancement in efforts to prevent the worst forms of child labor. Although no information suggests that the worst forms of child labor are a problem, gaps exist in the legal framework to prevent children from involvement in the worst forms of child labor. The Government lacks legislation prescribing a minimum age for work, and it is unclear whether a list of hazardous occupations exists for children. It also is unclear whether laws exist regarding the use of children for drug trafficking or other illicit activities. These gaps may make children vulnerable to the worst forms of child labor. I. PREVALENCE AND SECTORAL DISTRIBUTION OF CHILD LABOR Research found no evidence that child labor exists in Saint Helena, Ascension, and Tristan da Cunha.(1) II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK ON THE WORST FORMS OF CHILD LABOR British Overseas Territories (OTs) are territories under the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the United Kingdom (UK), but they do not form part of the UK. They are self-governing, except in the areas of foreign affairs and defense. Domestic UK Law does not generally apply to OTs, unless explicitly extended.(2) The following conventions have been extended to Saint Helena, Ascension, and Tristan da Cunha (Table 1). Table 1. Ratification of International Conventions on Child Labor Convention Ratification ILO C. 138, Minimum Age ILO C. 182, Worst Forms of Child Labor UN CRC UN CRC Optional Protocol on Armed Conflict UN CRC Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography Palermo Protocol on Trafficking in Persons The Government has established a few relevant laws and regulations related to child labor, including its worst forms (Table 2).
    [Show full text]
  • Tokelau the Last Colony?
    Tokelau The last colony? TONY ANGELO (Taupulega) is, and long has been, the governing body. The chairman (Faipule) of the council and a village head ITUATED WELL NORTH OF NEW ZEALAND and (Pulenuku) are elected by universal suffrage in the village SWestern Samoa and close to the equator, the small every three years. The three councils send representatives atolls of Tokelau, with their combined population of about to form the General Fono which is the Tokelau national 1600 people, may well be the last colony of New Zealand. authority; it originally met only once or twice a year and Whether, when and in what way that colonial status of advised the New Zealand Government of Tokelau's Tokelau will end, is a mat- wishes. ter of considerable specula- The General Fono fre- lion. quently repeated advice, r - Kirlb•ll ·::- (Gifb•rr I•) The recently passed lbn•b'a ' ......... both to the New Zealand (Oc: ..n I} Tokelau Amendment Act . :_.. PMtnb 11 Government and to the UN 1996- it received the royal Committee on Decoloni­ • •• roltfl•u assent on 10 June 1996, and 0/tlh.g• sation, that Tokelau did not 1- •, Aotum•- Uu.t (Sw•ln•J · came into force on 1 August 1 f .. • Tllloplol ~~~~~ !•J.. ·-~~~oa wish to change its status ~ ~ 1996 - is but one piece in ' \, vis-a-vis New Zealand. the colourful mosaic of •l . However, in an unexpected Tokelau's constitutional de­ change of position (stimu- velopment. lated no doubt by external The colonialism that factors such as the UN pro­ Tokelau has known has posal to complete its been the British version, and decolonisation business by it has lasted so far for little the year 2000), the Ulu of over a century.
    [Show full text]
  • Niue Treaty on Cooperation in Fisheries Surveillance and Law Enforcement in the South Pacific Region
    NIUE TREATY ON COOPERATION IN FISHERIES SURVEILLANCE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC REGION THE PARTIES TO THIS TREATY: GIVEN that in accordance with international law as expressed in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, coastal States have sovereign rights for the purposes of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the fisheries resources of their exclusive economic zones and fisheries zones; TAKING INTO ACCOUNT Article 73 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; NOTING that the Parties to the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency Convention, 1979 have agreed under Article 5 of that Convention that the Forum Fisheries Committee shall promote intra- regional coordination and cooperation in fisheries surveillance and law enforcement; CONSIDERING the vast areas of ocean covered by the exclusive economic zones and fisheries zones of coastal States in the South Pacific region and the vital economic significance of such zones to the economic development of South Pacific coastal States; WISHING THEREFORE to enhance their ability to enforce effectively their fisheries laws, and deter breaches of such laws; HAVE AGREED AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE I - DEFINITIONS In this Treaty: (a) 'fishing' means: (i) searching for, catching, taking or harvesting fish; (ii) attempting to search for, catch, take or harvest fish; (iii) engaging in any other activity which can reasonably be expected to result in the locating, catching, taking or harvesting of fish; (iv) placing, searching for or recovering fish aggregating devices or associated electronic equipment such as radio beacons; (v) any operations at sea directly in support of, or in preparation for any activity described in this paragraph; (vi) use of any craft, air or sea borne, for any activity described in this paragraph except for emergencies involving the health and safety of the crew or the safety of a vessel; (vii) the processing, carrying or transhipping of fish that have been taken.
    [Show full text]
  • Biodiversity: the UK Overseas Territories. Peterborough, Joint Nature Conservation Committee
    Biodiversity: the UK Overseas Territories Compiled by S. Oldfield Edited by D. Procter and L.V. Fleming ISBN: 1 86107 502 2 © Copyright Joint Nature Conservation Committee 1999 Illustrations and layout by Barry Larking Cover design Tracey Weeks Printed by CLE Citation. Procter, D., & Fleming, L.V., eds. 1999. Biodiversity: the UK Overseas Territories. Peterborough, Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Disclaimer: reference to legislation and convention texts in this document are correct to the best of our knowledge but must not be taken to infer definitive legal obligation. Cover photographs Front cover: Top right: Southern rockhopper penguin Eudyptes chrysocome chrysocome (Richard White/JNCC). The world’s largest concentrations of southern rockhopper penguin are found on the Falkland Islands. Centre left: Down Rope, Pitcairn Island, South Pacific (Deborah Procter/JNCC). The introduced rat population of Pitcairn Island has successfully been eradicated in a programme funded by the UK Government. Centre right: Male Anegada rock iguana Cyclura pinguis (Glen Gerber/FFI). The Anegada rock iguana has been the subject of a successful breeding and re-introduction programme funded by FCO and FFI in collaboration with the National Parks Trust of the British Virgin Islands. Back cover: Black-browed albatross Diomedea melanophris (Richard White/JNCC). Of the global breeding population of black-browed albatross, 80 % is found on the Falkland Islands and 10% on South Georgia. Background image on front and back cover: Shoal of fish (Charles Sheppard/Warwick
    [Show full text]
  • UK Overseas Territories
    INFORMATION PAPER United Kingdom Overseas Territories - Toponymic Information United Kingdom Overseas Territories (UKOTs), also known as British Overseas Territories (BOTs), have constitutional and historical links with the United Kingdom, but do not form part of the United Kingdom itself. The Queen is the Head of State of all the UKOTs, and she is represented by a Governor or Commissioner (apart from the UK Sovereign Base Areas that are administered by MOD). Each Territory has its own Constitution, its own Government and its own local laws. The 14 territories are: Anguilla; Bermuda; British Antarctic Territory (BAT); British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT); British Virgin Islands; Cayman Islands; Falkland Islands; Gibraltar; Montserrat; Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands; Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha; South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands; Turks and Caicos Islands; UK Sovereign Base Areas. PCGN recommend the term ‘British Overseas Territory Capital’ for the administrative centres of UKOTs. Production of mapping over the UKOTs does not take place systematically in the UK. Maps produced by the relevant territory, preferably by official bodies such as the local government or tourism authority, should be used for current geographical names. National government websites could also be used as an additional reference. Additionally, FCDO and MOD briefing maps may be used as a source for names in UKOTs. See the FCDO White Paper for more information about the UKOTs. ANGUILLA The territory, situated in the Caribbean, consists of the main island of Anguilla plus some smaller, mostly uninhabited islands. It is separated from the island of Saint Martin (split between Saint-Martin (France) and Sint Maarten (Netherlands)), 17km to the south, by the Anguilla Channel.
    [Show full text]
  • ISO Country Codes
    COUNTRY SHORT NAME DESCRIPTION CODE AD Andorra Principality of Andorra AE United Arab Emirates United Arab Emirates AF Afghanistan The Transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan AG Antigua and Barbuda Antigua and Barbuda (includes Redonda Island) AI Anguilla Anguilla AL Albania Republic of Albania AM Armenia Republic of Armenia Netherlands Antilles (includes Bonaire, Curacao, AN Netherlands Antilles Saba, St. Eustatius, and Southern St. Martin) AO Angola Republic of Angola (includes Cabinda) AQ Antarctica Territory south of 60 degrees south latitude AR Argentina Argentine Republic America Samoa (principal island Tutuila and AS American Samoa includes Swain's Island) AT Austria Republic of Austria Australia (includes Lord Howe Island, Macquarie Islands, Ashmore Islands and Cartier Island, and Coral Sea Islands are Australian external AU Australia territories) AW Aruba Aruba AX Aland Islands Aland Islands AZ Azerbaijan Republic of Azerbaijan BA Bosnia and Herzegovina Bosnia and Herzegovina BB Barbados Barbados BD Bangladesh People's Republic of Bangladesh BE Belgium Kingdom of Belgium BF Burkina Faso Burkina Faso BG Bulgaria Republic of Bulgaria BH Bahrain Kingdom of Bahrain BI Burundi Republic of Burundi BJ Benin Republic of Benin BL Saint Barthelemy Saint Barthelemy BM Bermuda Bermuda BN Brunei Darussalam Brunei Darussalam BO Bolivia Republic of Bolivia Federative Republic of Brazil (includes Fernando de Noronha Island, Martim Vaz Islands, and BR Brazil Trindade Island) BS Bahamas Commonwealth of the Bahamas BT Bhutan Kingdom of Bhutan
    [Show full text]
  • Cayman Islands
    Funding Support through OTEP for UNITED KINGDOM Environmental Programmes in the UK Overseas Territories CAYMAN ISLANDS he Overseas Territories Environment NVIRONMENT HARTER OTEPOVERSEAS TERRITORIES ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME Programme (OTEP) was established to E C enable the Governments of the UK and the A PARTNERSHIP FOR CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE USE TOverseas Territories to meet their commitments under the Environment Charters. In 1999, the year of the OF CAYMAN’S ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES White Paper, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) made available an annual funding programme t is a little-known fact that many of the United for environmental projects in the UKOTs. And in 2003, Kingdom’s most significant biodiversity the British Government worked together with Territory Cayman boasts two endemic subspecies of the Cuban Parrot, this one from Grand Cayman and resources are not in the British Isles themselves. Governments and non-governmental organisations to one from Cayman Brac. IThey are to be found in the UK Overseas Territories develop OTEP, a new ring-fenced fund which supports (UKOTs), former colonies and territories scattered environmental projects in the UKOTs. OTEP is a joint initiative of the FCO and the Department for around the world. Endemic species – those which International Development (DFID) which aims to build on the success of earlier FCO-funded occur in only one place in the world – are critically programmes. Bids may be submitted by Overseas Territories governments; NGOs; community-based important to the planet’s overall biodiversity, and organisations; individuals; educational institutions; private sector. Bids may also be submitted by UK- the UKOTs have at least ten times as many endemic based organisations, NGOs and academic institutions if they have been developed in collaboration with species as Britain itself.
    [Show full text]
  • A Solution for the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism: a ‘Fourth’ Option to Obviate the Need for a Fourth Decade?
    A SOLUTION FOR THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL DECADE FOR THE ERADICATION OF COLONIALISM: A ‘FOURTH’ OPTION TO OBVIATE THE NEED FOR A FOURTH DECADE? Elisabeth Perham* I. Introduction Despite concerted efforts by the international community over almost six decades to bring an end to the era of colonialism, 17 territories remain on the United Nations (UN) list of non-self-governing territories.1 In 2011 the UN declared 2011-2020 the Third International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism,2 but few of the non-self-governing territories appear to be getting much closer to completing the decolonisation process.3 For some of the territories this is in large part due to territorial disputes.4 However, for other territories the stalemate may be due to the fact that the UN currently accepts only the three methods of decolonisation prescribed in UN General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 15415 as proof that a territory has become self- governing for the purposes of removing it from the list. This article argues that for the decolonisation process to be completed there needs to be more flexibility in determining when a territory has become self-governing: the Secretary-General himself has recognised the need for a “creative approach” in the quest for decolonisation.6 More * Elisabeth Perham, LLB (Hons), BA (Hons). A version of this article was submitted as part of the requirements for the LLB (Hons) degree at Victoria University of Wellington. Elisabeth is grateful to Professor Tony Angelo for his supervision of that paper. 1 Hereinafter referred to as the list. Anguilla, American Samoa, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, French Polynesia, Gibraltar, Guam, Montserrat, New Caledonia, Pitcairn, St Helena, Tokelau, Turks and Caicos Islands, United States Virgin Islands, Western Sahara.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Commonwealth Countries, British Overseas Territories, British Crown Dependencies and EU Member States
    List of Commonwealth countries, British Overseas Territories, British Crown Dependencies and EU member states Commonwealth countries1 Antigua and Barbuda Kenya St Vincent and the Grenadines Australia Kiribati Samoa The Bahamas Lesotho Seychelles Bangladesh Malawi Sierra Leone Barbados Malaysia Singapore Belize Malta* Solomon Islands Botswana Mauritius South Africa Brunei Mozambique Sri Lanka Cameroon Namibia Swaziland Canada Nauru Tonga Dominica New Zealand Trinidad and Tobago Fiji Nigeria Tuvalu Ghana Pakistan Uganda Grenada Papua New Guinea United Kingdom* Guyana Republic of Cyprus* United Republic of Tanzania India Rwanda Vanuatu Jamaica St Christopher and Nevis Zambia St Lucia Zimbabwe *Although also EU member states, citizens of the UK, Cyprus and Malta are eligible to be registered to vote in respect of all elections held in the UK. 1 Citizens of Commonwealth countries that have been suspended from the Commonwealth retain their voting rights. Their voting rights would only be affected if their country was also deleted from the list of Commonwealth countries in the British Nationality Act 1981 through an Act of the UK Parliament. British Overseas Territories Anguilla Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands Bermuda St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha British Antarctic Territory South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands British Indian Ocean Territory Sovereign Base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia on Cyprus Cayman Islands Falkland Islands Turks and Caicos Islands Gibraltar Virgin Islands Montserrat British Crown Dependencies
    [Show full text]
  • St Helena, an Island Between’: Multiple Migrations, Small Island Resilience, and Survival
    Island Studies Journal, 16(1), 2021, 173-189 ‘St Helena, an island between’: Multiple migrations, small island resilience, and survival Charlotte Parker University of Gloucestershire, UK [email protected] Abstract: St Helena is a non-sovereign British Overseas Territory located in the South Atlantic Ocean. When full British citizenship was removed in 1981, migration destinations were reduced to Ascension Island and the Falkland Islands. The islanders of St Helena are not only transnational; they are trans-islander. With the return of citizenship in 2002, many St Helenians migrated to the UK, depleting the population on the island, creating doubts regarding the island’s future. Whilst the islanders defended their British national identity, they simultaneously questioned it. This paper demonstrates how although St Helena officially economically relies on the British Government, the islanders themselves support their island through economic remittances. This paper offers an insight into how communities survive during times when their national identity is ruptured. The St Helenian community remains intact; the islanders have ensured this. A suit of Bourdieu’s concepts have been utilised for a theoretically driven understanding of islandness. Islander identity is formed as outward- looking desiring opportunity, freedom of movement and capital, and inward-looking with a strong sense of feeling and attachment to the island. Continuity and survival for this small island community is composed of migration, shift, and rupture. Keywords: Bourdieu, Britishness, islandness, islands, migration, St Helena, transnational https://doi.org/10.24043/isj.122 • Received June 2019, accepted February 2020 © 2020—Institute of Island Studies, University of Prince Edward Island, Canada.
    [Show full text]