Non-DAC Donors

  1. Why is there an increased interest in non-DAC donors?
    • Growing significance in terms of overall input - estimates vary widely 8-25% of total ODA ($11billion-$41billion)
    • The role of the global economic crisis: gaining a "place at the table", increased contributions to IMF
  2. Non DAC donors: OPEC countries
    Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and UAE - others e.g. Turkey, Russia? New EU?
  3. Non-DAC donors: "South-south donors"
    BRICS and others: Brazil, China, Chile, Colombia, Egypt India, Malaysia, Mexico, South Africa, Thailand and Venezuela
  4. Non-DAC donors: How much do non-DAC donors donate?
    • 8-25% of total ODA
    • ($11billion-$41billion per year)
  5. Non-DAC donors: Busan:
    • Change from Rome 2003 when non-DAC donors hardly mentioned
    • DAC donor dilemma: Embrace non-DAC players?
    • Risk further fragmentation (and growing irrelevance)
    • 29th Nov-1st Dec 2011 - Busan, South Korea - 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness
  6. Non-DAC donors: What was the Busan Conference?
    The Global Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation, established inBusan, South Korea in 2011, set the international standard on the principles of effective aid and good development to which all development actors should subscribe.
  7. Non-DAC Donors: Busan outcomes:
    • Global partnership? "Shared principles and differential commitments"
    • From "aid effectiveness" to "cooperation and development"
    • Voluntary agreement from BRICs
  8. Non-DAC donors: What did Busan shift the focus from and to?
    From "aid effectiveness" to "cooperation and development"
  9. Non-DAC donors: Brazil: from recipient to donor:
    • Mid 1960s: aid = quarter of external financial flows
    • 60s and 70s: US by far biggest donor (60% bilateral aid)
    • Later germany and Japan but falling overall significance
    • Donor from the late 1980s
    • Recent trends: 16 new embassies in Africa - 2003-2009
    • Emphasis on Lusophone (Portuguese speaking) countries
    • Doubling of development cooperation 2005-2009 from $158-362million
    • Poverty and inequality
  10. Non-DAC donors: Brazil: mid 1960s
    Mid 1960s aid: quarter of external financial flows
  11. Non-DAC donors: Brazil: 60s and 70s:
    US by far the biggest donor (60% bilateral aid)
  12. Non-DAC donors: Brazil: When did Brazil become a donor?
    From the late 1980s
  13. Non-DAC donors: Brazil: How many new embassies in Africa?
    16 new embassies in Africa, 2003-2009
  14. Non-DAC donors: Brazil: What does Lusophone mean?
    Portuguese speaking countries
  15. Non-DAC donors: Brazil: Development cooperation between 2005-2009?
    Doubling of development cooperation 2005-2009 from $158-362 million
  16. Non-DAC donors: China: from recipient to donor:
    • As recipient: from 1970s onwards. By 1993, was the largest single recipient of OECD aid
    • Japan is a big donor
    • As donor: large increases
    • Current estimates range from $2-2.5 billion
    • Aid to Asia: North Korea
    • Aid to Africa: Forum on China-Africa Cooperation
    • Emphasis on infrastructure development
  17. Non-DAC donors: China: When was it a recipient of aid from?
    From the 1970s
  18. Non-DAC donors: China: What happened in 1993?
    By 1993, was the largest single recipient of OECD aid
  19. Non-DAC donors: China: How much do they donate?
    Range from $2-$2.5 billion
  20. Non-DAC donors: China: Aid to Africa:
    Forum on China-Africa Cooperation
  21. Non-DAC donors: China: What do China emphasise?
    Emphasis on infrastructure development
  22. Non-DAC donors: China and Africa
    • Chinese aid to Africa seen as anti-human rights, blind to corruption, commercially driven
    • Distinguish between "aid" (ODA) and commercial ventures
    • The former influenced by foreign policy, the latter more by economic interests
    • Growing presence (growing colonialism)
    • Offering Congo development for minerals
  23. Non-DAC donors: What is Chinese aid seen as?
    Chinese aid to Africa is seen as anti human rights, blind to corruption and commercially driven
  24. Non-DAC donors: China and Zambia
    • Chinese have been there for decades - was once one of the richest countries in Africa
    • No war in 44 years of independence - Chinese copper mine opened 10 years ago
    • Plagued by unemployment 10 years ago
    • Chinese firms pay the lowest wages and dont care about wages or health and safety
    • 46 workers killed - Chinese explosive plant linked to mine
    • ZCCZ (Zambia-china Cooperation Zone) - US$1 billion
    • Massive copper smelter - 300 million copper zones - Zambian builders rioted over pay
    • 5 year tax exemption - only Chinese people have bank start ups
    • Chinese promised a whole free stadium, yet no sign of it
    • Creating some jobs - helping destroy them in manufacturing, particularly textiles
    • All new products are coming from China - China is very cheap
    • China "helped the struggle against colonialism" - Gave Zambia a railroad by Mao
    • Deliberately close down markets so dont have to compete with China and have to reply on China - textile - insist that China is to blame
    • Creating employment for Chinese not the Zambians - everyday jobs are not available
    • Democracy like Zambia - dangerous for Chinese interests
    • Need to put a lot of money into Zambia to benefit the local people
  25. Non-DAC donors: What is so important about Zambia and China?
    Zambia was once one of the richest countries in Africa
  26. Non-DAC donors: When did the Chinese copper mine in Zambia open?
    Opened 10 years ago
  27. Non-DAC donors: Workers killed in Zambia
    46 workers killed - Chinese explosive plant linked to the mine
  28. Non-DAC donors: What does ZCCZ stand for?
    Zambia-China Cooperation Zone
  29. Non-DAC donors: How much does the ZCCZ cost?
    US$1 billion
  30. Non-DAC donors: Zambia - copper zones
    300 million copper zones
  31. Non-DAC donors: Zambia - has long are the tax exemtions
    5 year tax exemptions - but only the Chinese who have bank start ups
  32. Non-DAC donors: What are some of the knock on impacts of the Chinese coming into Zambia?
    • It has created some new jobs, but helped destroy them in manufacturing, particularly textiles
    • All new products are coming from China - China is very cheap and benefiting them
  33. Non-DAC donors: What could solve the Zambian Chinese conflict?
    For the Chinese to put money into more local aspects to benefit the people, as opposed to just benefiting Chinese businesses
  34. Non-DAC donors: China's development co-operation
    • 2000 - $554million
    • 2009 - $1,948million
    • (China's Growing Development Co-operation)
  35. Non-DAC donors: India: From recipient to donor:
    • As recipient: 1960s: large overall amounts of aid but marginal within the economy
    • Infrastructure and communications
    • Support from US, more recently Japan
    • As donor: aid since 1950s
    • Acceleration since 2000s - Indian Development Initiative 2003
    • Emphasis on technical cooperation
    • Particularly to those countries with large Indian diaspora
    • Decrease in overall amount 2008 - 2010, from $609million to $488 million
  36. Non-DAC donors: India: When did they become a recipient of aid?
    • Form the 1960s
    • Large overall amounts of aid, but marginal within the economy
  37. Non-DAC donors: India: Who gives India a lot of aid?
    Japan and US
  38. Non-DAC donors: India: When did India become a donor?
    Since the 1950s
  39. Non-DAC donors: When has India's donor of aid accelerate?
    Acceleration since 2000s - Indian Development Initiative 2003
  40. Non-DAC donors: What do India emphasise their aid on>
    Emphasis on technical cooperation
  41. Non-DAC donors: India: total aid given?
    Decrease in overall amount 2008 - 2010 - from $609million to $488 million
  42. Non-DAC donors: South Africa: from recipient to donor:
    • Prior to 1994: aid to CSOs
    • Post 1994: Focus on "democracy aid" - 95% ODA to strengthening democratic institutions
    • Role as regional force, especially after 1999 (Mbeki) - the notion of "African Renaissance"
    • Effects of financial crisis?
  43. Non-DAC donors: South Africa: Prior 1994
    Prior to 1994 - aid to CSOs
  44. Non-DAC donors: South Africa: Post 1994
    Focus on democracy aid - 95% ODA to strengthening democratic institutions
  45. Non-DAC donors: OPEC donors: More info
    • Priorities: infrastructure and industry; economic growth¬†
    • Supporting religiously motivated giving
    • Mostly bilateral: not using the multilateral system
    • Relatively untied
    • Based on need but also geopolitical considerations
    • Becoming relatively less generous
    • Still significant: Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia - 66% Non-DAC aid
  46. Non-DAC donors: OPEC donors: priorities:
    • Infrastructure and industry
    • Economic growth
  47. Non-DAC donors: OPEC donors: bilateral or multilateral
    Mostly bilateral
  48. Non-DAC donors: OPEC donors: How much of Non-DAC aid?
    Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia - 66% of Non-DAC aid
  49. Non-DAC donors: "Arab"/OPEC Donors: more info: history:
    • Kuwait since before 1961
    • Saudi Arabia, Gulf States and Libya to Egypt, Syria and Jordan after - 1967 Arab-Israeli war
    • Following on oil crisis, huge increase
    • In 1978/1979, OPEC contributed 25-33% of ODA received by non OPEC LDCs
    • Between 1974 and 1994 - more generous (in terms of %GNI) than many DAC donors
    • OFID (OPEC Fund for International Development) founded in 1976
  50. Non-DAC donors: What does OFID stand for?
    OPEC Fund for International Development
  51. Non-DAC donors: When was OFID founded in?
    1976
  52. Non-DAC donors: Arab/OPEC donors: 1978/1979?
    In 1978/1979, OPEC contributed 25-33% of ODA received by non OPEC LDCs
  53. Non-DAC donors: Arab/OPEC donors - betweem 1974-1994
    More generous in terms of GNI than many DAC donors (3.8% of GNI between 1973-1979)
  54. Non-DAC donors: Symbolic claims: From Western donors:
    • Moral obligation to the unfortunate
    • Expertise based on superior knowledge, institutions, science and technology
    • Sympathy for different and distant others
    • Charity: The virtue of suspended obligation, a lack of reciprocation
  55. Non-DAC donors: Symbolic claims: Southern development cooperation partners:
    • Solidarity with other developing countries and rejection of hierarchal/abusive colonial relations
    • Expertise based on direct expertise of pursuing development in poor country circumstances
    • Empathy based on a shared identity and experience of exploitation, inequality and vulnerability
    • Opportunity: The virtue of mutual benefit, and foregrounding of reciprocity
  56. Non-DAC donors: South-South cooperation: more info:
    • The importance of the non-aligned movement
    • Bandung Conference 1955: 29 Asian and African Nations declared desire not to be involved in Cold War
    • Declaration included:
    • Respect for human rights
    • Mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty
    • Mutual non-aggression
    • Mutual non-interference in domestic affairs - respecting the state
    • Equality and mutual benefit
    • Peaceful cooperation
  57. Non-DAC donors: What was the Bandung Conference 1955?
    29 Asian and African Nations declared desire not to be involved in Cold War
  58. Non-DAC donors: When was the Bandung Conference?
    In 1955
  59. Non-DAC donors: Some points of comparison between DAC and non DAC donors?
    • DAC donors:
    • Agreed priorities: MDGs, harmonisation etc
    • Intervention in health and social sectors
    • Geo-politics matters
    • Normally "untied" aid - a morally pure gift?
    • Political conditionality

    • Non DAC donors:
    • Not signed up to those priorities
    • Focus on infrastructure, roads, buildings
    • Geo-politics matters
    • Links to donor economic interests
    • "Respect for sovereignty"
  60. Non-DAC donors: Conclusions: more info
    • Non Dac donors are important players: time to dislodge Western DAC centric view of ODA and aid
    • Changing global political economy and increasing power of non Dac donors necessitate new conceptualisations of what aid is
    • Need to be sensitive to reasons for different interpretations of motives and practices of DAc and non DAC donors. Questions of sovereignty and gain are important
    • Need for suspicion of simplistic arguments that essentialise DAC and non DAC groupings.¬†
    • Differences within both sorts of donors are important
Author
Marie_Andrews
ID
320503
Card Set
Non-DAC Donors
Description
hi
Updated