The First Tranche

Welcome to the First Tranche, the AidData blog--a forum for analysis and discussion of information about development finance, and how it can be used to improve development practice and research. The First Tranche publishes independent views and analysis from a variety of bloggers who are interested in aid transparency, aid effectiveness, and better/more accessible aid information.
[Read more...]

RSS Feed

Google Reader or Homepage



Blog Roll


The First Tranche | a blog by the staff of AidData

Tuesday, October 23, 2012


Aid Fishing in the Yemen: Tracking Saudi Development Assistance to Its Southern Neighbor


AidData tracks development resource flows from a wide variety of non-DAC sources. This continues our blog series focused on "emerging" and non-DAC actors in the development field. Past posts can be found here. This is also the inaugural post regarding AidData's "media-based data collection" (MBDC) efforts.


Many donors not reporting to the OECD Development Assistance Committee (“non-DAC”) lack either the capacity or the political will to publish detailed information about their development cooperation activities. In order to provide a more comprehensive picture of these development finance activities, a small team of AidData researchers recently began developing, testing, refining, and documenting a set of data collection procedures that extract and codify project-level information from news reports. This summer, we helped pilot this methodology by testing its usefulness in tracking Saudi Arabian aid flows to Yemen, which are not published through official channels.

In recent years, the Kingdom has poured billions of dollars into its smaller, weaker, southern neighbor; analysts estimate that Saudi aid to Yemen ranges between $1-2 billion a year. (See recent reporting from Reuters and the Financial Times here and here.) However, details about the nature of these financial transfers are few and far between. Using media-based methods, we attempted to generate the most detailed, project-level summary of Saudi aid to Yemen to date.

Using Arabic and English news sources, we gathered detailed information on some 45 Saudi loans, grants, and credits to Yemen from 2006 to 2010 worth approximately $1.56 to $1.83 billion. These financial flows supported the following sectors: transportation (23-27%), economic development (9-18%), energy (14-16%), water and sanitation (13-15%), health (10-12%), emergency support (5-6%), and education (3-4%). Most of this funding to Yemen came in the form of grants (65%); the remainder consisted of loans (17%) and import/export credits (12%). 

The data show that, during the period in question, Saudi Arabia provided far more than any single DAC country and nearly as much as the top three DAC donors combined. Additionally, the data suggest that Saudi Arabia favors fewer, larger, infrastructure projects—a significant departure from the trend among DAC countries to support smaller, but more numerous, projects in a variety of sectors. 





Overall, we consider the pilot a success, but we did encounter several difficulties, which reinforce the fundamental point that media-based methods are no substitute for comprehensive official records:
     -  First, our use of ranges in estimating total Saudi commitments to Yemen reflects uncertainty about 
         whether some projects should be considered official development assistance (ODA). 
     -  Second, our data collection efforts suggest that Yemen has received, on average, a little over $300 
         million a year from Saudi Arabia—a large sum, but still only a fraction of the estimated $1-2 
         billion that it reportedly receives each year. 
     -  Third, media-based methods are not useful for documenting financial transfers that governments 
         are actively seeking to conceal. Sarah Phillips of the University of Sydney claims that "[i[n 2009, 
         the Kingdom made a direct payment of $US 2.2 billion to President Saleh." Citing unnamed 
         sources from the local donor community, she also reports that Saudi Arabia made a direct 
         contribution to Yemen's Central Bank in August 2010 worth somewhere between $1 billion and 
         2 billion. 

All of these caveats notwithstanding, the results of the pilot provide a rare window into the world of Saudi development finance. They also point to the woeful inadequacy of existing aid information systems for tracking non-DAC sources of development finance. 

Keep a close eye on The First Tranche in the coming months for more details about AidData's forthcoming media-based methodology. We plan to release a codebook and a dataset for a high profile supplier of non-DAC development finance later in the fall. 


James Juchau is an AidData Research Assistant at the Brigham Young University. Brad Parks is the Co-Executive Director of AidData and Research Faculty at the College of William & Mary.   


***Editor's Note***


It was brought to our attention that the chart above is difficult to read. Big kudos and thanks to Tariq (@tkb) for going out of his way to send us an updated, and even fancier, chart for the post.





Check out the full exchange here: https://twitter.com/tkb/status/261113893538103297

Which chart do you think is easier to read?




Tuesday, October 16, 2012


New 2010 OECD CRS Data Imported Into AidData web portal



AidData seeks to provide accurate and comprehensive data on development finance flows. As such, we are very pleased to announce the addition of the 2010 data from the OECD Creditor Reporting System (CRS) to the AidData data portal. 

For DAC donors and some other CRS-reporting agencies, AidData collects data from the CRS. The OECD is the official source for official development assistance (ODA) from the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) donors countries on the OECD’s ODA recipient list. CRS data are released on a periodic cycle, and AidData recently finished importing this year’s finalized data, which covers flows from 2010. The new data include some new donors, new data fields, and new purpose codes. Below is a brief summary the new CRS and how it is reflected in the AidData web portal. 

New to the CRS

Donors
This summer, several new donors reported to the CRS:
·       Kuwait (only the Kuwait Fund (KFAED) and grants they implement on behalf of the Government)
·       Islamic Development Bank
·       Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development (AFESD)
·       UN Peacebuilding Fund (UNPBF)
·       UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA)

UNPBF and UNRWA also reported some historical commitments – back to 2007 and 2005, respectively.

Purpose Codes
The OECD also added several  new purpose codes:
·       14021: Water supply - large systems
·       14022: Sanitation - large systems
·       14031: Basic drinking water supply
·       14032: Basic sanitation

Data Fields
This summer’s publication also included a few new data fields:
·       Climate Change Adaptation Marker (Rio Marker [Link: http://www.oecd.org/environment/climatechange/48251189.pdf])
·       Commitment, original currency
·       Disbursement, original currency
·       Original currency (numeric code [link: http://www.oecd.org/dac/aidstatistics/dacandcrscodelists.htm])



New CRS Data in the AidData.org Web Portal

Donors
For donors that were new to AidData (UNRWA, UNPBF), AidData has imported new commitments from the OECD CRS. AidData only imports commitments, as  they are more consistently reported across donors and years.

For donors that were not new to AidData (Kuwait, AFESD, Islamic Development Bank), AidData has not published CRS data through the AidData.org portal. Instead, annual report data are published as these offer more historical coverage, and in some cases, offer more detailed descriptions of activities. AidData is exploring options for using CRS and annual report data in complement, but for the time being, mixing and matching introduces many double-counting risks. If you have experience combining data sources in this way, we would welcome your comments below, or at info@aiddata.org.

Purpose codes
The new purpose codes are stored in the data field crs_purpose_code, but they have not been added to AidData’s activity coding scheme (originally derived from CRS purpose codes, because AidData sector codes already capture these more granular purposes:

CRS Purpose Code
AidData Purpose and Activity Codes
      - 14021: Water supply - large systems
      - 14022: Sanitation - large systems
      - 14031: Basic drinking water supply
          - 14032: Basic sanitation

      - 14020: Water supply and sanitation – large systems
o   14020.01: Water supply and sanitation - large systems, activity unspecified
o   14020.02: Water desalination plants
o   14020.03: Sewerage
o   14020.04: Large systems, water facilities, infrastructure
o   14020.05: Waste water treatment plants
o   14020.05: Water supply assessments and studies
      - 14030: Basic drinking water supply and basic sanitation
o   14030.01: Basic drinking water supply and basic sanitation, activity unspecified
o   14030.02: Basic water supply, low-cost technologies
o   14030.03: Small system sewerage


Data Fields
We did not import these new data fields this year, but plan to do so during next year’s data import.


Robert Mosolgo is a Project Manager at AidData. He oversees data management, standardization and quality assurance. He is part of a team at the College of William and Mary, Development Gateway, and Brigham Young University that works closely with partners, including the OECD and non-DAC donors, to provide timely and accurate data on development finance flows. If you have any further questions or concerns, drop us a line at info@aiddata.org.



Thursday, October 11, 2012


Aid and Africa’s Resource Potential

This post is a continuation of AidData's series looking at the relationship between development finance and its impact on the environment. For more on the series, check out here and here.


Last week, Dr. Paul Collier entertained and informed an audience of scholars, practitioners and students at SAIS with a presentation called “Making Natural Resources Work for Development.” Dr. Collier framed his remarks around a fundamental point: African natural resources are largely unexplored and undeveloped. If harnessed correctly by African nations, these resources can be a catalyst for ending chronic poverty.

Collier noted that current estimates give Africa an underground resource value of around $60,000/square mile – compared with $300,000/square mile in OECD countries. But Africa is not abnormally resource-poor; it’s just that its vast mineral, oil, and other resources stores have yet to be fully explored. The real figure is probably at least $300,000/square mile, and perhaps significantly more.

Once the room was appropriately impressed with the magnitude of this opportunity, Dr. Collier highlighted several key points from his book The Plundered Planet, and outlined a number of fundamental economic and political decisions that countries must make to ensure that natural resource rents boost their economies in the long term. But before digging into these issues, Dr. Collier noted that finding and developing underground resources is probably best done by the public sector. Free markets respond to a “gold rush” once deposits are discovered, but a dedicated public sector can put in the long, arduous hours it takes to find and begin extracting resources.

In true AidData fashion, we couldn’t help but wonder what donors are doing to influence the process of natural resource discovery and extraction in Africa. The figure below gives a picture of the total aid directed to underground resource extraction in Sub-Saharan Africa from 1975-2009 as found in the AidData data portal:
Download the data displayed above here.





















Projects with an AidData purpose code relating to mineral extraction or development are included in the analysis. The data are for all OECD donors and all other bilateral and multilateral donors currently included in AidData.

While aid to the sector has fluctuated widely over the years, there appears to be a downward trend for donor support to mineral resource exploration and production.  The major up-ticks during the last two decades have been due to large World Bank investments in a few oil fields; otherwise, donor support to the sector has remained fairly static.

In fairness, this quick analysis provides an imperfect picture of donor commitment to the African natural resource sector. The data do not contain information on investments from China, which are likely heavily tilted toward resource development. But one thing seems clear – If the opportunities for development are as promising as Dr. Collier suggests, it may be time for traditional donors to up the ante on investing in African natural resource development.

Dustin Homer is an Associate with Development Gateway