Presentation on Decentralised Development Cooperation ODA Extended by local and regional governments made at the 5th Assises of Decentralised Cooperation, held in Brussels, Belgium on 10 July 2017. Presentation by Aziza Akhmouch and Jens Sedemund

1. Aziza Akhmouch
Head of Unit, OECD
Jens Sedemund
Senior Policy Analyst, OECD
5th Assises of Decentralised Cooperation
Brussels, 10 July 2017
ODA EXTENDED BY LOCAL AND REGIONAL
GOVERNMENTS AND
EMERGING PARADIGMS IN DDC
Supported by

2. Rationale for an OECD Study on Decentralised
Development Cooperation (DDC)
• Evolving context in EU countries (territorial reforms, fiscal consolidation, etc.)
• Increasing recognition of LRGs as key actors in development cooperation
• Changing DDC patterns and modalities – time to take stock
• Localising Global Agendas (SDGs, COP, Urban): which role for DDC?

3. Statistical update of the OECD 2005 report (DAC Journal)
Aid Extended by local and state governments
Analyse recent trends and evolutions in DDC
• DDC-related ODA flows
• Legal and institutional frameworks
• Key actors and strategic partners
• Core motivations, thematic/geographical priorities
• Multi-level governance
• Evaluation of DDC results
• Best practices/challenges
Identify emerging paradigms
Propose policy recommendations for effective DDC across levels of
government
Objectives of the OECD Study

4. ODA extended by LRGs
(DAC Credit Reporting System)

5. • Countries views vary on role of sub-national players
• Varying data coverage across countries
• 9 countries in 2005 – 13 countries in 2017
Evolving work on DDC
Reporting on DC 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Austria
Belgium
Canada ##### ##### #####
Czech Republic ##### ##### ##### ##### ##### #####
France ##### ##### ##### ##### #####
Germany
Greece
Italy
Japan
Portugal
Spain
Switzerland
United Kingdom ##### ##### ##### ##### ##### ##### #####

6. • DDC volumes over the past 10 years have continued to increase
despite the 2008 financial and economic crisis (+1% per year over
the period 2005-15) - from USD 1.7 billion in 2005 to USD 1.9
billion in 2015
DDC data analysis : 2005, 2010 & 2015
DDC volumes 2005, 2010 and 2015
USD million, disbursements, 2015 prices
Donor comparison in 2005,
2010 & 2015
DDC volumes and growth rates
0
500
1000
2005 2010 2015
USD million
DDC volume 2005 2010 2015
rate of
growth
2005-15
Germany 1012.9 933.4 975.5 -4%
Canada .. 90.8 253.9 ..
Spain 473.6 570.1 209.5 -56%
Austria 36.8 22.7 169.5 360%
Belgium 74.0 97.6 85.8 16%
France .. 69.6 63.6 ..
Switzerland 43.3 48.9 62.6 44%
Italy 19.9 26.3 27.7 39%
United Kingdom .. 0.0 18.5 ..
Japan 6.2 3.7 3.3 -46%
Czech Republic .. 0.0 0.3 ..
Portugal 4.7 0.0 0.1 -97%
Greece 0.8 0.0 0.0 -100%
Total 1672.5 1863.7 1870.3 12%

7. • China figures as the top recipient in 2005, 2010 and
2015 (representing 15%, 10% and 11% of total DDC
respectively). This mainly because of imputed student
costs in Germany.
DDC data analysis: 2005, 2010 & 2015
China
15%
Unspecified
9%
Morocco
5%
Turkey
4%
India
4%
Cameroon
4%
Ukraine
3%
Peru
3%
Iran
2%Bolivia
2%
Indonesia
2%
Other
47%
2005 Unspecified
26%
China
11%
India
5%
Asia,
regional
5%
Iran
3%
Cameroon
2%
Turkey
2%
Morocco
2%
Syrian Arab
Republic
2%
Ukraine
2% Brazil
2%
Other
38%
2015Unspecified
17%
China
10%
Haiti
3%
Peru
3%
Morocco
3%
Cameroon
3%
Turkey
3%
India
2%
West Bank
and Gaza
Strip
2%
Ukraine
2%
Syrian Arab
Republic
2%
Other
50%
2010

8. • China completely disappears from the ranking.
Other countries emerge in both 2010 and 2015
as Peru, Bolivia, El Salvador, The West Bank of
Gaza Strip and Senegal.
DDC data analysis: excluding imputed
student costs
Unspecified
30%
Haiti
6%
Peru
5%
West
Bank and
Gaza Strip
3%
Guatemal
a
3%
El
Salvador
3%Bolivia
2%
Senegal
2%
Rwanda
2%
Nicaragua
2%
Ecuador
2%
Other
40%
2010
Unspecified
59%
Malawi
3%
Peru
2%
Morocco
2%
Senegal
2%
Nepal
2%
Mozambi
que
1%
West Bank
and Gaza
Strip
1%
Dem Rep.
of Congo
1%
Bolivia
1%
El
Salvador
1%
Other
25%
2015

9. • Social sectors concentrated 59% of sector
allocable DDC in 2010 and 34% in 2015.
DDC sectors: 2010 vs. 2015
sector-allocable basis
Education,23% Multisector, 13%
Agriculture, 10%
Gov. & civil society,
12%
Health, 12%
Unspecified, 7%
Other social, 7%
Humanitarian
assistance, 6%
Water, 5%
Other, 5%
2010
Multisector,21% Unspecified, 20%
Gov. & civil society, 8%
Health, 12%
Education, 8%Agriculture, 10%
Other, 10%
Water, 6%
2015
Humanitarian
assistance, 5%

10. • In 2014-15, climate change-related DDC
amounted to USD 41 million, representing 11%
of total bilateral allocable DDC volumes
screened by the climate markers
• Climate adaptation activities are highly targeted
among DDC projects. In 2014-15 “adaptation
only” aid activities represented 44% of the total
DDC climate-related amounts while these
account for only 28% for non-DDC activities.
Policy objectives in DDC: climate
change-related aid

11. • In 2014-15, total gender-focused aid reached
43% of total sector allocable DDC (38% for
non-DDC aid).
• Spain is leading on DDC focusing gender
equality (with USD 122 million on average
per year in 2014-15 or 66% of the total
volumes of its DDC).
Policy objectives in DDC: Gender
equality and women’s empowerment

12. Channels of delivery
• Over the 2010-15 period, universities and research
institutes represented the top channel through
which DDC financing was provided, reaching USD
1.1 billion in 2015
• Belgium, Canada and Spain have channelled the
highest proportions of DDC through multilateral
institutions, throughout the 2010-15 period (16-
18%, 3-4%, and 3-2%, respectively)

13. Emerging Paradigms beyond ODA
(OECD 2017 Survey to 12 DAC)

14.  Most countries have legal or institutional frameworks for DDC
 Specific laws mentioning LRGs for development cooperation
 Strategic frameworks
 Decrees
 Half countries have DDC guidelines at national level and one fourth
have a standard definition for DDC
 Highest level of interaction is between local actors in provider and
partner countries
 All countries reported the existence of evaluation mechanisms to
assess the impact, costs and benefits of DDC projects (e.g. reports)
Legal and institutional frameworks

15. Main kind of DDC technical assistance
Note : Austria, Belgium, Italy, Portugal, Spain, France, Netherlands and Sweden replied to this question
 DDC activities : mainly peer to peer learning activities and transfer of technology and
know-how
 Others: capacity building, infrastructure, social welfare services, national policy
dialogue, training and professional exchange
0
5
10
15
20
25
2005 2010 2015
Main Kind of DC Technical
Assistance
Cultural co-operation
Students exchange/
research
Others
Transfer of technology
and know how
Peer to peer learning

16. Geographical DDC priorities
Note: Austria, Belgium, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, France, Netherlands and Sweden replied to this question
 Main criteria: level of poverty and addressing global priorities, such as SDGs, G7,
G20, COP,
 Historical and political parameters and priority countries defined by central aid
authorities also key

17. Sectoral DDC priorities
Note : Austria, Belgium, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, France, Netherlands and Sweden replied to this question
 Local governance, democracy and decentralisation and Social inclusion: two
main policy and service areas in 2015, followed by Health
Main policy and services areas for DDC (2005-2015)

18. • A diversity of DDC situations across and within DAC
countries
• An important component of LRGs’ international
cooperation despite the crisis
• DDC goes beyond ODA (peer-to-peer learning,
twinning etc.)
• Global Agendas are gaining traction in the criteria for
DDC priorities and activities
• Relevance of a typology of DDC modalities/ players for
a territorial approach
• Lessons learned : framework conditions provide
common solutions to common problems
Take away messages

19. • Survey to LRGs (ongoing)
• Survey to partner countries (forth)
• 4 case studies
– Water in France
– Gender in the Basque Country, Spain
– SDGs in Tuscany, Italy
– Healthcare, Agriculture and food security in Flanders,
Belgium
• Launch of the final report : Q1 2018
Next steps