Global Monitoring Report 2010: The MDGs after the Crisis

Page 151

GLOBAL MONITORING REPORT 2010

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIT Y AND DE VELOPMENT

IBRD 37742 APRIL 2010

nland en)

Iceland

Faeroe Islands (Den)

Norway Sweden

Finland

Russian Federation Estonia Isle of Man (UK) Latvia Denmark Russian Fed. Lithuania United Ireland Kingdom Germany Poland Belarus Belgium Channel Islands (UK) Ukraine Kazakhstan Luxembourg Moldova Mongolia Liechtenstein Romania Italy France Switzerland Bulgaria Kyrgyz Georgia Uzbekistan Andorra AzerD.P.R. Rep. of Korea Turkey Armenia baijan Turkmenistan Portugal Spain Tajikistan Monaco Greece Syrian Cyprus Rep. of Gibraltar (UK) Islamic Rep. Afghanistan Arab China Tunisia Malta Korea Lebanon of Iran Rep. Iraq Israel Morocco Kuwait Jordan Bhutan Pakistan West Bank and Gaza Bahrain Nepal Algeria Qatar Libya Arab Rep. Former Saudi of Egypt Spanish Bangladesh United Arab Arabia Sahara India Emirates Myanmar Lao Mauritania Oman P.D.R. ape Verde Mali Rep. of Niger Thailand Vietnam Eritrea Senegal Yemen Chad Sudan The Gambia Burkina Cambodia Philippines Djibouti Faso Guinea Guinea-Bissau Benin Sri Nigeria Ethiopia Côte Ghana Sierra Leone Central Lanka Brunei D’Ivoire African Rep. Liberia Somalia Cameroon Malaysia Togo Maldives Equatorial Guinea Uganda Kenya Congo Singapore Gabon São Tomé and Príncipe Rwanda Seychelles Dem. Rep. of Burundi Indonesia Congo Comoros Tanzania The Netherlands

Japan

N. Mariana Islands (US) Guam (US)

Marshall Islands

Federated States of Micronesia Palau Nauru Papua New Guinea

Solomon Islands

Timor-Leste Angola

Zambia

Botswana

Slovak Rep.

Ukraine

Germany

Poland

Austria

Mayotte (Fr)

Zimbabwe

Namibia

Czech Rep.

Malawi

Madagascar

Mozambique

Vanuatu

Tuvalu Fiji

Mauritius Réunion (Fr)

Swaziland South Africa

Kiribati

Australia

New Caledonia (Fr)

Lesotho

Hungary New Zealand

Bulgaria

Slovenia Romania Croatia Bosnia and San Herz. Serbia Marino Montenegro Kosovo FYR Macedonia Vatican Italy Albania Greece City

developing-country ownership of aid. Numerous studies confi rm that goods, works, and services procured under tied aid regimes that restrict procurement to suppliers from the donor country cost 15–25 percent more on average and are more influenced by supplier interests and capacities. Since the landmark agreement by DAC donors in 2001 to untie fi nancial aid to the least developed countries, there has been good progress. DAC donor countries have formally untied more than four-fifths of their ODA to the least developed countries, and a wider process of untying aid is under way. As of

2007, 79 percent of ODA was untied, 17 percent was still tied, and the status of 4 percent was not reported. Donors have recommended several changes, such as removing the thresholds below which untying is not required and including highly indebted poor countries not classified as least developed countries. Other provisions invite non-DAC donors to untie their aid as much as possible and to respect internationally agreed principles of environmental sustainability and corporate social responsibility. Donors have committed to untying aid in categories traditionally regarded as difficult

133


Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.