To measure bilateral ODA for promoting GPGs and tackling consequences of global challenges we have drawn inspiration from existing methodologies by Development Initiatives and the OECD to measure development finance for global public goods. Our approach is somewhat narrower in focus on global public goods. Additionally, we emphasize the distinction between provision of GPGs and for tackling the consequences of global challenges. This exercise is not precise, but we have made an approximate classification.
The data for this exercise is based on the OECD DAC’s CRS data,1 which provides an overview of DAC countries’ bilateral ODA. To identify the relevant activities in the CRS database, we use a range of sector codes and Rio markers. We have used the CRS sector codes to categorize activities for the provision of GPGs and for tackling consequences of global challenges, and the categorisation is available here.
In addition to sector codes, we have used the OECD Rio markers for Climate Change Adaptation, Climate Change Mitigation, and Biodiversity. These are activities not already included using the sector codes.
-
Activities with Climate change adaptation as a principal objective is included as tackling consequences of global challenges.
-
Activities with Climate change mitigation as a principal objective is included as promoting GPGs
-
Activities with Bio-diversity as principal objective in DAC sector 41010 General Environmental Protection is included as GPG promotion.
In Figure 2 and Figure 3, we have created grouped categories for contributions for provision of GPGs and tackling the consequences of global challenges. We have ensured that there is no overlap of activities between the two figures, and within each figure, overlapping activities do not involve double counting of funds. In Figure 2 for example, there is for example some overlap between the categories of Climate Mitigation and Biodiversity, and we have chosen to register such activities as a contribution to Climate Mitigation.
The categories Peace and Security and Biodiversity appear in both Figure 2 and Figure 3. Activities in the Peace and Security category that promote GPGs include, for example, participation in international peacekeeping operations, while activities addressing the consequences of global challenges include landmine removal. In the Biodiversity category, activities promoting GPGs include air pollution control, whereas activities addressing consequences are more national in scope, primarily with local effects.
An important limitation of our measurement of bilateral ODA for the provision of GPGs and addressing the consequences of global challenges is that core support to multilateral organizations is not included.
In Figure 1 we provide an estimate of the share of bilateral ODA from OECD DAC-countries for privision of GPGs and tackling global challenges.
The provision of GPGs has increased at the same pace as other bilateral ODA, maintaining its share of just below 20 percent, with a slight increase from 2019. In contrast, ODA for addressing global challenges has increased more significantly from below 10 percent to 20 percent in 2022, and a spike in 2016.
Figure 1: ODA for provision of GPGs and tackling consequences of global challenges
Figure 2 and Figure 3 examines ODA for provision of GPGs and tackling consequences of global challenges, measured in amounts disbursed. From 2010 to 2018, the increase in amounts for ODA provision was primarily driven by climate mitigation. However, from 2019 onward, the increase has been driven by infectious diseases.
Figure 2: ODA for provision of GPGs
As shown Figure 3, the significant rise in funding to tackle the consequences of global challenges is primarily related to refugee expenses in donor countries. The latter is an example of expenditure that we consider as ‘tackling the consequences of global challenges’ and not actively promoting a solution. Nevertheless the cost related to housing refugees in donor countries is included as GPG provision by the OECD in their working paper from 2023. The current asylum system and quota refugee system is both rivalrous and excludable: The vast majority of refugees are not helped by this system, and of the very few who make it to safe high-income countries – often as a result of a perilous journey – around 40 per cent are allowed to stay. Latest Asylum Trends | European Union Agency for Asylum
Figure 3: ODA for tackling consequences of global challenges
Footnotes
-
This exercise is focused on ODA to extend the time series, but for more recent years, a broader focus on TOSSD could also be relevant. ↩