DOCSLIB.ORG

Efforts and Policies of Bilateral Donors

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Efforts and Policies of Bilateral Donors ISBN 978-92-64-05504-9 OECD Journal on Development: Volume 10/1 Development Co-operation Report 2009 © OECD 2009 Chapter 6 Efforts and Policies of Bilateral Donors Aid continued to increase in 2007, once exceptional debt relief is excluded from the figures. But the increase was only 2% on 2006. This is much too slow if donors are to meet their commitments to increase aid by 2010. Poverty reduction continues to drive the donor community and donors include achieving the MDGs among their key objectives. Donors focus on creating an enabling environment, on building growth, governance and stability needed to achieve the MDGs, and many build their programmes around achieving specific targets. Donors are beginning to reform their systems to implement the aid effectiveness principles and to meet the targets set in the Accra Agenda for Action. They have developed action plans, set up monitoring measures, and pay increased attention to results. They emphasise partner country ownership, and are employing new ways of working: some are trying delegated co-operation, joint programs, and especially direct budget and sector budget support. Donors are meeting their obligations to support the implementation of the Rio Conventions through the Global Environment Facility and the convention secretariats as well as through bilateral environment programmes. While most donors have an environment policy, applied in principle to all their aid, some have also established funds to address climate change and deforestation. In 2008, the DAC conducted four peer reviews – Australia, France, Norway and Luxembourg – as well as a special review of the Republic of Korea. 101 EFFORTS AND POLICIES OF BILATERAL DONORS Introduction: DAC members’ aid performance in 2007 In 2007, total net official development assistance (ODA) from members of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) was USD 103.5 billion. This represents a drop from 0.31% of their combined gross national income in 2006 to 0.28% in 2007, or a fall of 8.5% in real terms. ODA had been exceptionally high in 2005 (USD 107.1 billion) and 2006 (USD 104.4 billion), due to large Paris Club debt relief operations for Iraq and Nigeria. Debt relief diminished in 2007 to USD 9 billion as the Paris Club operations tapered off. Excluding debt relief grants, DAC members’ net ODA rose slightly by 2%. This is a truer reflection of the underlying trend in aid flows. Figure 6.1 shows the impact of debt relief on net ODA in 2005 and 2006. It also shows a small increase in humanitarian aid in 2005 as special assistance was provided in the wake of the Indian Ocean tsunami and earthquake in Pakistan. Bilateral development projects and programmes dipped slightly in 2006 but were on the rise again in 2007, indicating that donors are gradually scaling up their core aid programmes. Figure 6.1. Components of DAC donors’ net ODA Net debt forgiveness grants Humanitarian aid Multilateral ODA Bilateral development projects, programmes and technical co-operation Constant 2006 USD billion 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/520131332628 Source: OECD, "Aid Targets Slipping out of Reach?", November 2008, www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/25/41724314.pdf. Donor performance The largest donors in 2007, by volume, were the United States, followed by Germany, France, the United Kingdom and Japan. Five countries exceeded the United Nations target of 0.7% of GNI: Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. 102 DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION REPORT 2009 – ISBN 978-92-64-05504-9 – © OECD 2009 EFFORTS AND POLICIES OF BILATERAL DONORS In 2007, net ODA by the United States was USD 21.8 billion, representing a fall of 9.8% in real terms. Its ODA/GNI ratio fell to 0.16%. This fall was mostly due to debt relief, which was high in 2006, and a reduction in ODA to Iraq. Excluding debt relief grants, there was an increase in ODA to sub-Saharan Africa (+6.5% in real terms to USD 4.5 billion) and the Least Developed Countries (+4% to USD 4.8 billion). ODA to Afghanistan increased (+5% to USD 1.5 billion) and remained important to Iraq despite a fall in real terms (–24% to USD 3.7 billion). Japan’s net ODA was USD 7.7 billion, representing 0.17% of GNI. The 29.8% fall in real terms was in part due to a decrease in debt relief operations, which were exceptionally high in 2005 and 2006, and to a decrease in contributions to international financial institutions. Japan’s ODA has been on a downward trend since 2000, except for an increase in 2005 and 2006 due to debt relief. The combined ODA of the 15 members of the DAC that are also EU members – which represents nearly 60% of all DAC ODA – fell by 6.6% in real terms to USD 61.5 billion, representing 0.39% of their combined GNI. Again, the fall was mainly due to a decrease in debt relief grants. Excluding these, net ODA from DAC EU members rose by 7.7%. Aid rose in real terms in ten DAC EU countries as follows: ● Germany (+6.1%), reflecting an increase in bilateral aid and contributions to international organisations; ● Ireland (+4.8%), raising its ODA/GNI ratio to 0.55% despite the strong increase in Irish GNI; ● Luxembourg (+15.0%), due to the general scaling up of its aid; ● Spain (+19.7%), mainly due to a rise in its multilateral contributions, within a planned process of sustained scaling-up of its aid; and ● Austria (+8.3%), Denmark (+2.9%), Finland (+6.4%), Greece (+5.3%), the Netherlands (+3.2%), and Portugal (+5.9%) also increased their aid. Aid from other DAC EU countries fell in real terms, due mainly to decreased debt relief: Belgium (–11.2%), France (–16.4%), Italy (–2.6%), Sweden (–2.5%) and the United Kingdom (–29.6%). Excluding debt relief, aid rose in these countries with the exception of the United Kingdom, where net ODA decreased slightly due to sales of equity investments. Net ODA by the European Commission rose by 3.1% to USD 11.8 billion mainly due to increased programme and project aid. Humanitarian aid also increased, and the EC’s disbursement capacity continued to improve. ODA from other DAC countries rose or fell from 2006 to 2007 as follows: ● Australia (+9.1%) as bilateral ODA increased; ● Canada (+1.2%); ● New Zealand (+5.1%); ● Norway (+13.4%), in large part due to increased equity investment; and ● Switzerland (–2.5%), due to a lower volume of debt relief. Performance versus commitments At the time of the Gleneagles G8 and UN Millennium +5 summits in 2005, donors committed to increase their aid. These commitments would raise ODA by USD 50 billion in 2010 compared with 2004 (at 2004 prices and exchange rates). Figure 6.2 shows ODA DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION REPORT 2009 – ISBN 978-92-64-05504-9 – © OECD 2009 103 EFFORTS AND POLICIES OF BILATERAL DONORS Figure 6.2. DAC members’ net ODA 1990-2007 and DAC Secretariat simulations of net ODA to 2008 and 2010 % of GNI ODA (2004 USD billion) 0.40 0.37 140 0.35 0.33 0.33 120 0.30 0.28 ODA as a % 0.26 100 0.25 of GNI (left scale) 80 0.20 0.22 0.15 60 Total ODA 0.10 (right scale) 40 0.05 ODA to Africa 20 (right scale) 0 0 199091 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 0708 09 10 1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/520141316201 levels since 1990 and the increase that needs to be achieved to attain the 2010 levels. Excluding debt relief and humanitarian aid, which are expected to return to their historical levels by 2010, the annual growth required to reach the target is 11%. A recent OECD survey1 of donors’ forward spending plans showed that, at country or regional levels, donors have already programmed an additional USD 17 billion by 2010 compared to 2004 levels. Record replenishments of IDA and the African and Asian Development Banks will add about another USD 4 billion to this figure in 2010. Thus, about USD 21 billion of the USD 50 billion promised by 2010 has already been delivered or has been planned. This leaves nearly an additional USD 30 billion in 2004 dollars – about USD 34 billion in 2007 dollars – to be programmed into donors’ aid budgets if their aid commitments for 2010 are to be realised. Aid pledge With the current financial crisis and economic slowdown in most donor countries, there is a general fear that aid budgets will be cut – as happened after the recession in the early 1990s. Between 1992 and 1997, ODA from DAC donors fell from 0.33% to 0.22% of gross national income. The fall was smaller in volume, representing about 20% in real terms, because growth resumed over this period. The OECD’s Secretary-General, Angel Gurría, and the Chair of the DAC, Eckhard Deutscher, have issued a statement2 calling upon the world’s major donor countries to stand by their development pledges in order to prevent the “… financial crisis from generating an aid crisis”, which would have a serious impact on developing countries already struggling with the global food crisis and rising oil prices. The “Aid Pledge” (based on the “OECD Trade Pledge” in the mid-1970s, which helped maintain an open trading system after the first oil price shock), urges DAC members to “… reaffirm their aid commitments and refrain from any budgetary action that is inconsistent with such commitments.” The Follow-up Conference on Financing for Development (Doha, 29 November-2 December) aimed to clarify donors’ future intentions in regard to aid volume.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Rise and Fall of Israel's Bilateral Aid Budget 1958-2008
    A mere ten years after Israel gained its independence from British mandatory rule in 1948, it launched an official development cooperation program. At a time when Israel was itself still a developing country, it began a training and technical assistance program that expanded within a few short years to include the dispatch of hundreds of Israeli technical assistants to other developing countries and the training of thousands of Africans, Asians and Latin Americans annually. Driven by both political necessity and the moral vision of Israel’s leaders, the program rapidly grew in size and scope. At its height, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, MASHAV, the government body responsible for managing the aid program, was the largest department in Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Israel had, per capita, one of the most extensive technical assistance programs in the western world. Unfortunately, this vision of cooperation, at least as far as Africa was concerned, proved to be short-lived. Within 15 years of the establishment The Rise and of Israel’s official aid program, the "golden age" of Israel's development cooperation came to an abrupt end, as all but four African countries Fall severed relations with Israel in the wake of the October 1973 Arab-Israeli War. Africa’s rejection of Israel dealt a deep blow to Israeli public and of Israel's political support for its aid program, marking a turning point from which Bilateral Aid Israel technical assistance has never recovered. The rupture of relations led to an immediate 50% drop in MASHAV’s operational budget and further Budget substantial budgetary cuts over the past 35 years.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Global Inequalities Report | SGI Sustainable Governance Indicators
    Global Inequalities Report Global Social Policy m o c . e b o d a . k c Sustainable Governance o t s - e g Indicators 2020 e v © Sustainable Governance SGI Indicators SGI 2020 | 2 Global Inequalities Indicator Global Social Policy Question To what extent does the government demonstrate an active and coherent commitment to promoting equal socioeconomic opportunities in developing countries? 41 OECD and EU countries are sorted according to their performance on a scale from 10 (best) to 1 (lowest). This scale is tied to four qualitative evaluation levels. 10-9 = The government actively and coherently engages in international efforts to promote equal socioeconomic opportunities in developing countries. It frequently demonstrates initiative and responsibility, and acts as an agenda-setter. 8-6 = The government actively engages in international efforts to promote equal socioeconomic opportunities in developing countries. However, some of its measures or policies lack coherence. 5-3 = The government shows limited engagement in international efforts to promote equal socioeconomic opportunities in developing countries. Many of its measures or policies lack coherence. 2-1 = The government does not contribute (and often undermines) efforts to promote equal socioeconomic opportunities in developing countries. Sweden Score 10 Promoting global social justice is an overarching policy goal for Swedish governments regardless of their ideological orientation. Sweden combines bilateral strategies with an active involvement in multilateral efforts toward those objectives. Additionally, public spending for development issues is comparable high. There has been a gradual shift from conventional aid to developing countries, mainly sub- Saharan countries, toward aid directed at countries that are closer to Sweden.
    [Show full text]
  • Israel 2019 Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals
    IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS National Review ISRAEL 2019 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS National Review ISRAEL 2019 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Acknowledgments are due to representatives of government ministries and agencies as well as many others from a variety of organizations, for their essential contributions to each chapter of this book. Many of these bodies are specifically cited within the relevant parts of this report. The inter-ministerial task force under the guidance of Ambassador Yacov Hadas-Handelsman, Israel’s Special Envoy for Sustainability and Climate Change of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Galit Cohen, Senior Deputy Director General for Planning, Policy and Strategy of the Ministry of Environmental Protection, provided invaluable input and support throughout the process. Special thanks are due to Tzruya Calvão Chebach of Mentes Visíveis, Beth-Eden Kite of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Amit Yagur-Kroll of the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, Ayelet Rosen of the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Shoshana Gabbay for compiling and editing this report and to Ziv Rotshtein of the Ministry of Environmental Protection for editorial assistance. 3 FOREWORD The international community is at a crossroads of countries. Moreover, our experience in overcoming historical proportions. The world is experiencing resource scarcity is becoming more relevant to an extreme challenges, not only climate change, but ever-increasing circle of climate change affected many social and economic upheavals to which only areas of the world. Our cooperation with countries ambitious and concerted efforts by all countries worldwide is given broad expression in our VNR, can provide appropriate responses. The vision is much of it carried out by Israel’s International clear.
    [Show full text]
  • MASHAV - Israel’S Agency for International Development Cooperation Ministry of Foreign Affairs
    MASHAV - Israel’s Agency for International Development Cooperation Ministry of Foreign Affairs Inter-regional Workshop and Study Tour on Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Projects and Policies, February 2015 MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS • International organizations • Economics • Eurasia • MASHAV 2 MASHAV 1957 - MASHAV was established in 1957 Aim - To share with developing countries the know-how and technologies which provided the basis for Israel’s own development in order to empower them in their own development efforts Participants- Over 270,000 professionals , average of 2,000 per year Areas of Expertise Rural and Urban Medicine and Agriculture and Education Public Health Food Security Development Community Gender Development Equality Humanitarian Aid • Renewable energy • Smart cities • Environment and Climate Change 5 The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) Sustainable Development Goals 6 International organizations Rome: Washington: UNWFP New York World Bank FAO UN IFAD YABT UNDP UNWOMEN UNICEF Paris: Abu OECD Dhabi: UNESCO IRENA Geneve: WHO Vienna: UNECE Nairobi OSCE UNAIDS UNEP IOM UNHABITAT UNODC So what does MASHAV do? Capacity Building & Trainings, in Israel and Abroad MASHAV Projects Consultancies MASHAV Extension Centers Gender equality The Golda Meir Mount Carmel and Community International Training Centre (MCTC) development. Agricultural Centre for International development and Agricultural Development Food Security Cooperation (CINADCO) The Aharon Ofri International Education Training Center 7 Affiliated Centers 9 Projects • Comparative advantage • Demand driven • Strong country ownership • Triangular Partnerships • Holistic view • 2-5 years • Model Centers • Long Term Expert, or Consultancies 10 Consultancies and Trainings • Comparative advantage • Demand driven • Practical demonstrations and training • Short term & repetitive if needed 11 Holistic Approach MASHAV alumni – future בגלל leaders • Enjoy it!.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethiopia FTF Strategy Overview
    Ethiopia FTF Strategy Overview March, 2013, by Semachew Kassahun Context USAID / Ethiopia’s CDCS 2 Context USAID / Ethiopia’s DO 1 3 Who is in the Ethiopia Feed the Future Team? US Government: Combined Joint Task Force - HoA Partners and Implementers: • Government of Ethiopia ATA, MOA, MOH • National and International Research Institutions • NGOs • Private contractors/ consulting firms • Private Sector (Public Private Partnerships) 4 Where is the focus? 5 WHAT is the approach? Development Hypothesis: Increased investment in Productive Ethiopia can spur overall rural economic growth, which will lead to increased prosperity across all three Ethiopias when linked to efforts to promote greater economic opportunities for vulnerable populations in Hungry and Pastoral Ethiopias. 6 How is the Strategy going to achieve food security and nutrition objectives? COMPONENT 1 COMPONENT 2 Growth-led Sustainable Food livelihoods for Linking the Security Agricultural chronically Vulnerable Link productive growth vulnerable /high potential Link vulnerable Ethiopia to populations in markets “Productive Ethiopia” COMPONENT 3 Policy development and Policy and learning Capacity Enabler Cross Cutting: 7 Nutrition, Climate Change, Governance, Gender CAADP POLICY AND INVESTMENT FRAMEWORK PRIORITY INVESTMENTS – GOE PLATFORM PROGRAMS 1) Agricultural Growth Program (AGP)- agricultural productivity and market access for key crop and livestock products in the productive highlands. - FTF Strategy component 1 • Geographic Area: 83 woredas in Productive Ethiopia • Five years (2011-15), $320 million program • Donors: World Bank; USG; Canadian International Development Agency [CIDA]; Spain; Netherlands; Finland; UNDP; Global Agriculture and Food Security Program [GAFSP] 2) Sustainable Land Management Program (SLMP)- to improve the livelihood of land users while restoring ecosystem functions and ensuring sustainable land management.
    [Show full text]
  • MASHAV - Israel’S Agency for International Development Cooperation Ministry of Foreign Affairs
    MASHAV - Israel’s Agency for International Development Cooperation Ministry of Foreign Affairs April 2010 1 Facts… • A child dies every 6 seconds • 24,100 people die every day due to under development • 8.8 million people die every year “The silent tsunami” 2 The “four-sided” crisis Four interconnected crises are occurring simultaneously: • Economic • Energy • Climate • Food 3 Crisis factors • Global population growth • Increase of energy prices • Increase of food prices • Food shortage • Industrialization • Desertification and lack of water • Neglect of agriculture and low investments • Speculations – Subsidies • Conflicts • Natural disasters 4 The world’s population • The world’s total population in 2006 was: 6.7 billion people. Forecast for 2050: 10.8 billion • Developing countries: in 2006 population was 5.4 billion people. Forecast for 2050: 8.9 billion • Developed countries: Standstill at 1.9 billion people (international migration to developed countries compensates for low fertility) Implications • Increase of hunger, extreme poverty and diseases • A third of the world’s population will earn less than 2 dollars a day • 40 countries will suffer from hunger and famine • 2 billion people will have no access to potable water • In 2050 over 3 billion people will have no access to water at all 6 Examples of hardships in Sub-Saharan African countries • Total population expectation by 2010: 1.1 billion • Over 40% lives in extreme poverty • Life expectancy: the lowest in the world • Over 25% of the population suffers from malnutrition: over 325 million people expected to be undernourished by 2015 • Over 22.5 million people afflicted by HIV/AIDS (68% of the pandemic global number), 2 million die each year from the disease, 1.5 million of them – children.
    [Show full text]
  • A Nnual R Eport 2012
    cover_2013 19/8/13 11:43 AM Page 1 A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 2 MASHAV ISRAEL ’S AGENCYFOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION http://mashav.mfa.gov.il [email protected] TEL . 972-2- 5303220 FAX . 972-2- 5303727 ISRAEL ’S AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTS GUIDING PRINCIPLES TABLE OF TCONTENTSABLE OF TABLE C OFONTENTS CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 GUIDING PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Triangular Co-Operation in the Era of the 2030 Agenda Sharing Evidence and Stories from the Field
    TRIANGULAR CO-OPERATION IN THE ERA OF THE 2030 AGENDA SHARING EVIDENCE AND STORIES FROM THE FIELD GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVE ON EFFECTIVE TRIANGULAR CO-OPERATION 2 │ Table of contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................ 5 Executive summary ............................................................................................................................... 6 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 10 Chapter 1. Triangular co-operation at a glance ............................................................................... 12 1.1. Triangular co-operation connects all regions and is increasingly multi-stakeholder .................. 16 1.2. Triangular co-operation contributes to all SDGs ........................................................................ 18 1.3. Triangular co-operation provides low-cost, flexible and adapted solutions ............................... 20 Chapter 2. Sharing experiences, good practices and success stories of triangular co-operation in line with the project cycle ............................................................................................................... 21 2.1. Phase 1: Identification – matching demands............................................................................... 25 2.2. Phase 2: Partnership development and negotiation ....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Co-Operation
    ISBN 92-64-03651-2 2005 Development Co-operation Report Volume 7, No. 1 © OECD 2006 Chapter 5 Technical Co-operation Technical co-operation (TC) has always played a central role in aid programmes. It is, however, controversial. In fact, TC programmes have come under repeated criticism for being too costly, inappropriate to recipients’ needs, or fostering dependency. In the past, donors have broadly assumed that they will promote capacity development, but reality has proved much more complex. This chapter explores the extent to which statistics – particularly DAC statistics on aid flows – can throw light on these controversies. It also flags recent proposals for improving the impact of TC, and outlines current DAC work to improve the data. 2005 DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION REPORT – VOLUME 7, No. 1 – ISBN 92-64-03651-2 – © OECD 2006 111 5. TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION What is technical co-operation? Development can be considered to have two broad strands. The first comprises physical infrastructure, including the buildings, utilities, transport and machinery necessary for production. The second consists of the skills and productive aptitudes available in the economy. Technical co-operation (TC) addresses the second strand, and comprises activities designed to increase the capacity of developing countries. It can in turn be divided into two categories, since the increase can be achieved either through direct supply of skills from outside, or by efforts to enhance the capacities of the local population. DAC statistics on TC focus on these latter measures, and have thus been used as a proxy to measure capacity development. These concepts are compared in Box 5.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-OECD Donors
    4. POLICIES AND EFFORTS OF BILATERAL DONORS TURKEY Gross Bilateral ODA, 2003-04 average, unless otherwise shown Change By Income Group (USD m) Clockwise from top Net ODA 2003 2004 2003/04 6 LDCs Current (USD m) 67 339 409.0% 32 Constant (2003 USD m) 67 243 264.5% Other Low-Income In Liras (billion) 100 388 288.2% 0 Lower Middle- ODA/GNI 0.04% 0.11% 6 49 Income Bilateral share 40% 86% Upper Middle- Net Official Aid (OA) Income High-Income Current (USD m) 8 101 1174.0% Unallocated Top Ten Recipients of Gross 66 ODA/OA (USD million) By Region (USD m) 1 Kyrgyz Rep. 19 Sub-Saharan 2 Kazakhstan 15 2 Africa 3 Azerbaijan 13 31 South and Central Asia 4Iraq 13 Other Asia and 5 Turkmenistan 11 Oceania 6 States Ex-Yugoslavia Unsp. 7 Middle East and 17 72 North Africa 7Iran 7 Latin America and 8 Russia (OA) 6 Caribbean 0 9 Bulgaria (OA) 6 Europe 10 Mongolia 5 Unspecified By Sector 28 8 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Education, Health & Population Other Social Infrastructure Economic Infrastucture Production Multisector Programme Assistance Debt Relief Emergency Aid Unspecified Non-OECD donors Estonia In 2004, Estonia disbursed USD 4.9 million in ODA, of which USD 0.6 million was bilateral and the rest multilateral, with a USD 3.3 million contribution to the EC. OA flows amounted to over USD 3 million. Estonia shares its reform experiences and practical knowledge with countries interested in learning from its know-how, mainly the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and Balkan countries, including Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Tajikistan and Ukraine.
    [Show full text]
  • The Indo-Israeli Agriculture Project
    State of Israel The Indo-Israeli Agriculture Project MASHAV Israel’s Agency for International Development Cooperation F oreword MASHAV – Israel’s Agency for International Development Cooperation is dedicated to providing developing countries with the best of Israel’s experience in development and planning. As a country that transitioned from an underdeveloped state in the 1950s, to becoming a new member of the OECD in 2010 we feel that we can share with others our firsthand experience in development. We are proud to be one of the oldest international development agencies in the world. Founded in late 1957, MASHAV is responsible for the design, coordination and implementation of the State of Israel’s development cooperation programs. Since its inception, over 275,000 professionals from around the world have participated in MASHAV’s professional activities. In its programs and philosophy, MASHAV adheres to the accepted international principles. MASHAV’s programs focus on technical assistance and are closely connected to implementation on the ground. Since its establishment, MASHAV has promoted the centrality of the individual, human resource enrichment and institutional capacity building in the development process – an approach which has attained global consensus. MASHAV’s activities focus primarily on areas in which Israel has a comparative advantage including agriculture and rural development; dry lands development; water resources management; micro- enterprise development; entrepreneurship; innovation and development; community development; medicine and public health; empowerment of women and education. MASHAV’s agricultural and rural development programming deals with the introduction of modern technologies and agro-technical methods designed to increase the levels, sustainability and quality of agricultural production to ensure food security.
    [Show full text]
  • Development Co-Operation Report 2007 – Volume 9, Issue 1
    OECD OECD Journal on Development, 1 9, No. Volume OECD Journal on Development, Volume 9, No. 1 OECD Journal on Development Development Co-operation Report 2007 The Development Co-operation Report, issued by the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC), is the key annual reference document for statistics and analysis on the latest trends in Development international aid. Five years ago, in his fi rst Report as DAC Chair, Richard Manning proposed a dozen indicators to Co-operation measure the development community’s efforts to reduce poverty. This year, in his last year as Chair of the DAC, Manning takes a step back and assesses how the world has actually fared: “Overall, we are seeing clear signs of robust though uneven progress in many countries […]; the annual Report 2007 number of infant and child deaths appears fi nally to have fallen below 10 million.” How did this come about? Manning explores the reasons for this encouraging news, pointing to lessons to be learned about strategy, organisational management and the way aid is delivered. The Report also describes ongoing efforts to put the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness into practice, with a particular focus on health. The DAC prides itself on being the defi nitive source of bilateral statistics on the global aid effort, including DAC members and other donors. This Report offers an overview of the full scope of the work undertaken by the DAC, demonstrating why this is the place “where governments come together to make aid work”. This issue is also published on line as part of our efforts to improve the accessibility of key OECD DAC work.
    [Show full text]