<p> Submission to the Aid Review | Appendices</p><p>Appendix 1: Geographic Focus 1.1. AID AND POVERTY ACROSS REGIONS a) Distribution of Australia’s aid compared to poverty in Asia and Pacific Region</p><p>Source: Does Aid work?, World Vision, 2006</p><p> b) Regional distribution of world aid by population</p><p>Source: Development Aid at a Glance 2010: Statistics by Region, OECD Data</p><p> c) Distribution of world aid by income group in Asia and Pacific Region Asia Pacific</p><p>Source: Development Aid at a Glance 2010: Statistics by Region, OECD Data</p><p>Jenni Downes February 2010 Page 1 of 10 Submission to the Aid Review | Appendices</p><p>1.2. POVERTY FOCUS OF AUSTRALIA’S AID a) Australia’s aid by select Comparing HDI ranking, ODA per capita, ODA/GNI with Australian aid allocations suggests a number of countries currently receiving support from Australia are underfunded, including Laos, India, Cambodia, Burma, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal. Each of these countries has a low HDI, receives relatively small amounts of ODA from the global community and receives only a relatively small aid allocation from Australia.</p><p>Source: Micah Challenge, 0.7% Report, We can meet the Challenge!, 2008, p.43-44</p><p> b) Comparison Of Australia’s Country Focus By Child Mortality</p><p>High aid per capita but low child mortality</p><p>Low aid per capita but high child mortality</p><p>Jenni Downes February 2010 Page 2 of 10 Submission to the Aid Review | Appendices</p><p>Source: Make Poverty History, Goal 8 Review, 2007 1.3. TOP DONOR COUNTRIES TO ASIA AND PACIFIC Asia Pacific</p><p>Source: OECD, Development Aid at a Glance 2010: Statistics by Region</p><p>1.4. SUGGESTED GEOGRAPHIC ALLOCATION OF FUNDING</p><p>Source: Micah Challenge, The World We Want To See, 2010</p><p>Jenni Downes February 2010 Page 3 of 10 Submission to the Aid Review | Appendices</p><p>Appendix 2: Sectoral Focus 2.1. PROGRESS OF THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS </p><p>Source: Make Poverty History, Goal 8 Report, 2009</p><p>Jenni Downes February 2010 Page 4 of 10 Submission to the Aid Review | Appendices</p><p>2.2. AUSTRALIA’S FAIR SHARE BY SECTOR COMPARED WITH CURRENT FUNDING </p><p>Source: Make Poverty History, Goal 8 Report, 2009 Note: Fair share calculation is based on Australia’s fair share being 2% of the best available estimate of total aid required for each sector and 70c exchange rate with US dollar. Australia has approximately 2% of OECD donor income.</p><p>2.3 SUGGESTED SECTORAL ALLOCATION OF FUNDING</p><p>Source: Micah Challenge, The World We Want To See, 2010</p><p>Jenni Downes February 2010 Page 5 of 10 Submission to the Aid Review | Appendices</p><p>Appendix 3: Aid to Least Developed Countries (LDCs) 3.1 AID TO LDCS AS PROPORTION OF TOTAL ODA Australia Canada New Zealand United Kingdom</p><p>Source: OECD, Aid at a glance graphs, 2008-09</p><p>3.2 AID TO LDCS AS PROPORTION OF GROSS NATIONAL INCOME (GNI)</p><p>Source: Make Poverty History, Goal 8 Review, 2007</p><p>Jenni Downes February 2010 Page 6 of 10 Submission to the Aid Review | Appendices</p><p>Appendix 4: Multilateral funding 4.1 PROPORTION OF AID TO MULTILATERALS AMONGST DAC DONORS The following table sets out the proportion of Official Development Assistance (ODA) given bilaterally and multilaterally, as recorded by the OECD. 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Av. Australia 22% 20% 18% 14% 15% 15% 10% 16% 16% Austria 30% 55% 48% 22% 27% 27% 28% 56% 36% Canada 25% 34% 23% 25% 31% 23% 30% 21% 26% Denmark 37% 41% 41% 36% 35% 36% 35% 32% 36% Norway 32% 28% 30% 27% 27% 23% 23% 22% 27% NZ 25% 22% 25% 18% 22% 23% 20% 27% 23% Switzerland 19% 27% 23% 21% 24% 25% 24% 24% 23% UK 29% 39% 32% 24% 30% 43% 36% 33% 33% DAC Total 28% 32% 23% 26% 30% 29% 30% 28%</p><p>Source: Table and graph constructed from data from OECD.STAT, Aggregate Aid Statistics, ODA by Donor</p><p>Jenni Downes February 2010 Page 7 of 10 Submission to the Aid Review | Appendices</p><p>4.2 DISTRIBUTION OF AUSTRALIA’S MULTILATERAL FUNDING a) Australian aid contribution to multilateral and b) Comparison of Australian multilateral funding regional organisations, 2007-08 compared to the DAC donor average</p><p>Source: AID/WATCH, Where is your aid money going? Source: OECD, DAC Peer Review – Australia, 2008 Multilateral aid</p><p>4.3 CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT BANLS World Bank Asian Development Bank</p><p>Source: Aid/WATCH, Where is your aid money going?, Multilaterals undemocratic</p><p>Jenni Downes February 2010 Page 8 of 10 Submission to the Aid Review | Appendices</p><p>Appendix 5: NGO funding 5.1 Funding for Australian NGOs a) AusAID funding for NGOs and volunteers, 2006–07 b) International aid and development funds to 2010–11 managed by Australian NGOs, 2005–2009</p><p>Source: ACFID, Facts and Figures, AusAID Funding Source: ACFID, Facts and Figures, Australian giving to aid</p><p>5.2. PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL VALUE OF AID CONTRACTS, 2007/07 – 2009/10</p><p>Source: AidWatch, Where is your aid money going? Non Government Organisations</p><p>Jenni Downes February 2010 Page 9 of 10 Submission to the Aid Review | Appendices</p><p>Appendix 6: Paris Declaration Survey Monitoring Results 6. 1. AUSTRALIA’S PROGRESS ON THE PARIS DECLARATION MONITORING INDICATORS The following table shows Australia’s actual position and progress between 2005 and 2007 compared to other donor countries. </p><p>Survey Actual Position Progress Indicator Results Aus All 2005 2007 Aus All Can Den NZ Nor UK 3. Are government budget estimates comprehensive and 30% 45% WR 29% 25% -4 5.9 -5 +16 -33 +4 +21 realistic? 4. How much technical assistance is co-ordinated with 38% 59% OT 23% 36% +13 +12.5 +27 +30 +48 -14 +10 country programmes? 5a. How much aid for the government sectors uses 41% 47% NOT 6% 13% +6 +5.6 +33 +25 +50 -1 -0 country public financial mgmt systems? 5b. How much aid for the government sectors uses 24% 44% NOT 5% 16% +11 +3.7 -6 +24 +39 +7 -10 country procurement systems? 6. How many PIUs are parallel 52 - WR 25 14 -11 -5 -28 -25 +0 +4 -19 to country structures?^ 7. Are disbursements on schedule and recorded by 21% 43% WR 33% 39% +6 +4.9 +6 +5 -30 +41 +13 government? 8. How much bilateral aid is 100% 90% OT 54% 100% +46 +13 -5 +12 +56 +1 +0 untied? 9. How much aid is programme- 32% 44% NOT 30% 20% -11 +3.7 +4 +5 +48 +12 +11 based? 10a.How many donor missions 33% 31%* NOT 7% 41% +35 +10 -3 +10 +42 -27 +15 are co-ordinated? 10b.How much country analysis 70% 51%* NOT 25% 78% +53 +4.9* -14 +9 -100 +9 -0 is co-ordinated? Source: Data is taken from the 2008 Survey on Monitoring the Paris Declaration (Tables B.3-B.10b, p.92-100 and C.3, p.107). * Calculated from available data (ie. figure not provided in Report) ^ Key inverted (ie. negative number indicators progress)</p><p>Key: NOT – Not on track | WR – Within reach | OT – On track -20 or less -6 to -19 -5 to +5 +6 to +19 +20 or more [Very Poor] Poor Average Good Excellent</p><p>Jenni Downes February 2010 Page 10 of 10</p>