Aid to developing countries in 2010 will reach record levels in United States dollar terms after increasing by 35% since 2004. But it will still be less than the world’s major aid donors promised five years ago at the Gleneagles and Millennium + 5 summits. Though a majority of countries will meet their commitments, the underperformance of several large donors means there will be a significant shortfall, according to this OECD review. Africa, in particular, is likely to get only about USD 12 billion of the USD 25 billion increase envisaged at Gleneagles, due in large part to the underperformance of some European donors who give large shares of official development assistance (ODA) to Africa. Other Development Assistance Committee (DAC) countries made varying ODA commitments for 2010, and most, but not all, will fulfill them. The United States pledged to double its aid to sub-Saharan Africa between 2004 and 2010. Canada aimed to double its 2001 International Assistance Envelope level by 2010 in nominal terms. Australia aimed to reach $A 4 billion. New Zealand plans to achieve an ODA level of $NZ 600 million by 2012-13. All four countries appear on track to meet these objectives. Norway will maintain its ODA level of 1% of its GNI, and Switzerland will likely reach 0.47% of its GNI, exceeding its previous commitment of 0.41%.
Resource allocation and health financing
This sheet provides information on public sector health care spending in South Africa. I found that public sector health spending as a share of total government spending has remained relatively constant. However, it has been following a downward trend in that it did not keep pace with inflation or population growth through much of the 1990s, but there have been recent increases. Public sector health personnel employment also declined in the 1990s; there is an urgent need for additional clinical staff. The largest single share of funds is spent on primary care and district hospitals. It argues that meeting one of South Africa's major health challenges, namely HIV and AIDS treatment, will require resources that exceed those currently available.
Responding to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) predictions that 2010 will see overseas aid stand at $21bn lower than promised, Head of Oxfam Campaign, Emma Seery observed that the missing $21 billion could pay for every child to go to school, and could save the lives of 2 million of the poorest mothers and children, "making this failure of the richest countries nothing short of a scandal". Oxfam estimates it would cost $16bn each year to ensure that every child gets the chance to go to school and $5bn would provide improved medical care that would save the lives of about 2 million mothers and children. ‘Rich countries have no excuse for failing to deliver the aid increases they promised’, she added. Collectively the EU-15 who are members of the OECD will miss their 0.51% aid target they committed to in 2005, with OECD projections putting them at just 0.48% average in 2010. Nine out of ten Europeans believe strongly that their leaders must meet their aid promises, despite the economic downturn, according to a recent Eurobarometer study.
Some 300 participants gathered in Bogota, Colombia, from the 24-26 March, for an intermediate international meeting to discuss and agree on policy recommendations ahead of a 2011 High Level Forum on aid effectiveness in South Korea. Capacity development (CD) is strongly embedded in the agenda of the South. This agenda aims to harness broad political leadership, get beyond fragmented and piecemeal approaches, address systemic issues related to state reform and incentives, and make increased use of South-South co-operation and regional/local resources.
Several themes emerged from initial discussions in this consultation, which was convened by the World Health Organization (WHO): determining to what extent, and how, WHO should address the broader social and economic determinants of health; deciding what constitutes good partnership behaviour at global and country level; determining how WHO can match the support it provides more closely and flexibly to the needs of different countries; and improving WHO’s involvement in the field of technical collaboration. Participants agreed that improving performance is intimately linked to the way WHO is financed and this warrants further consideration. They indicated a need to seek the views of all member states on the wider issues raised at this meeting. Questions raised in this report will be used as the basis for a web-based consultation, to which all countries will be invited to contribute their views.
The Global Fund 2010 results report has projected that the virtual elimination of mother-to-child HIV transmission by 2015 is within reach, that malaria may be eliminated as a public health problem within a decade, and that the international target of halving tuberculosis prevalence could be met by 2015. According to the report, Fund-supported programmes saved at least 3,600 lives per day in 2009 and an estimated total of 4.9 million since the creation of the Fund in 2002. By the end of 2009, Fund-supported programmes provided antiretroviral treatment to 2.5 million people with HIV and AIDS, treatment to 6 million people who had active TB, and had distributed 104 million insecticide-treated nets to prevent malaria.
According to this policy brief, European aid donors are taking steps to meet promises to deliver a higher share of development aid directly to governments in the form of budget support. The brief points to positive and negative consequences of budget support. While budget support is argued to enhance local accountability, it may not succeed unless government recipients are accountable to their populations for how the funds are used. A more self-serving reason is argued for donors to turn to budget support – it enables the donor to increase aid delivery, thus meeting disbursement rates, without requiring an enlargement of their own administrative operations, thereby keeping costs down. This motivation has more to do with donors’ institutional dynamics than with poverty reduction. The brief calls for a more nuanced political analysis to ensure that budget support enhances rather than undermines democratic accountability in developing countries.
The WRR Council notes that it is significant that three quarters of Dutch development aid is spent on healthcare and education, and less than a quarter on infrastructure, agriculture and economic activity. Although it is important to provide social care from a humanitarian perspective, the Council adds that it does not automatically lead to the fundamental changes which promote growth and development, and which gradually make countries and peoples self-sufficient. It is important to start approaching development from a far broader perspective. Stability and security, trade conditions that facilitate development, combating tax evasion, a fair tax system which does not entice companies to pay taxes in the Netherlands instead of in developing countries, less stringent intellectual property rights for poor countries, a more productive policy on knowledge exchange, and a more properly thought-out migration policy can all be of greater significance to the development of countries than classical aid provided in situ. The development perspective will have to be better incorporated into policy in these areas, and that calls for more policy coherence for development. Furthermore, attention to global public goods such as financial stability, climate policy and the eradication of contagious diseases will become increasingly important.
This document outlines Greenpeace’s assessment of the decisions taken at the Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change held in Denmark in December 2009. In this, Greenpeace calls for a financial mechanism for dealing with climate change that is transparent and inclusive. At Copenhagen, Governments agreed to establish a Copenhagen Climate Fund, which Greenpeace believes is one step to ensuring that investments take place where they are most needed, noting that developing country action on climate change must have technological and financial support from industrialised countries.
South Africa is reported to be facing large cuts in external funding, such as in falling US funding, for its HIV and AIDS programme over the next five years, despite needing an extra R2-billion a year to reach all those who need antiretroviral treatment. Almost a million South Africans will soon be on lifelong antiretroviral treatment and this number will triple in the next decade if government keeps to its implementation plan. Scenario planning by Treasury indicates that the demand for treatment and care will peak in 2021, when the country would need close to South African Rands 30-billion (about 4.3 billion US dollars).