1 / 11

Simon Scott, OECD International Conference on MDG Statistics, Manila, October 2011

MDGs and Donor Behaviour. Simon Scott, OECD International Conference on MDG Statistics, Manila, October 2011 . What would we expect if MDGs had made a difference?. Overall increase in aid Shifts towards social sectors (especially health) Adoption of MDGs as targets

marly
Download Presentation

Simon Scott, OECD International Conference on MDG Statistics, Manila, October 2011

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MDGs and Donor Behaviour Simon Scott, OECD International Conference on MDG Statistics,Manila, October 2011

  2. What would we expect if MDGs had made a difference? • Overall increase in aid • Shifts towards social sectors(especially health) • Adoption of MDGs as targets • Demand for MDG-related indicators

  3. Note: Total ODA excludes exceptional debt relief to Iraq and Nigeria in 2005-06.

  4. Shift towards social sectors

  5. Adoption of MDGs as targets and demand for MDG indicators • UK, Netherlands and Denmark produce MDG reports (heyday early 2000s) • DAC tried a "sector approach" to measuringaid to MDGs (2002-3) • Slower growth of interest in USA, Japan, Australia  • Demand for indicators: IAEG, MDG reports, Global Monitoring Report etc.

  6. MDG 1: A special case • Halve the share of very poor people in developing countries • Not from a UN conference • More "growth focused" than other MDGs, though still social

  7. MDG 1 results • Will be achieved, unlike other MDGs • Mostly not thanks to aid • Food security element neglected until 2008 food security crisis and 2009 L'Aquila G8

  8. The “sectoral” MDGs - key donor responses • MDG2 - budget support to allow abolition ofschool fees • MDG3 - gender mainstreaming reversed - Danish torch campaign, Dutch MDG3 Fund • MDG4 - GAVI and rise of MNCH - Canada most recently in lead • MDG5 - Muffled reaction: MMR reduction target unrealistic; data controversies

  9. The “cross-cutting” MDGs • MDG6 - Health spending skewed to AIDS; use of vertical funds (GFATM, PEPFAR); progress on malaria hobbled by DDT controversy; tuberculosis only now taking off • MDG7 - Environment spending skewed to climate change, with niche funding of other issues - e.g. Switzerland on forestry, New Zealand on fisheries.  Water management still broadly supported.

  10. Conclusions • MDGs have been a major mobilising force for aid donors • Overall, MDGs a positive influence, though lobbying and special interests still present • Can't judge MDGs' impact only from 2000: UN conferences in 1990s set agenda

  11. Thank you For more informationwww.oecd.org/dac

More Related