Financing for Development Series: Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (ECIS)

1. 1
FINANCING FOR DEVELOPMENT SERIES: EUROPE AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES
FINANCING FOR DEVELOPMENT SERIES:
EUROPE AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF
INDEPENDENT STATES
These statistics draw on the latest reporting by selected providers from Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (ECIS). The group of
analysed countries includes Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania,
the Russian Federation, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Turkey. Project-by-project data, when available, can be found at https://stats.oecd.org
ECIS countries
annual net ODA
disbursements
averaged USD
6.2 billion
between 2013
and 2016
ECIS countries
concentrate
their
development
activities
in fragile
contexts
ECIS countries
mainly provide
grants for
emergency
and social
infrastructure
projects
ECIS countries
increasingly
make use of
innovative
partnerships for
development
The Official Development Assistance (ODA) and other net concessional development
finance flows of Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (ECIS) averaged
USD 6.2 billion per year over 2013-16 (constant prices).
These flows increased over 2013-16 by 132%, an increase in line with (but greater
than) other providers of development co-operation over this period.
Turkey is the largest bilateral provider of development co-operation among ECIS
countries (providing an annual net average of USD 4 billion at constant prices over
2013-16), followed by Poland, the Russian Federation and the Czech Republic.
An estimated 65% of ECIS countries’ ODA gross disbursements over 2013-2016
targeted the Middle East, principally due to Turkey’s humanitarian assistance to
Syrian Arab Republic refugees.
ECIS providers are active in fragile contexts, which received 53% of ODA gross
disbursements over 2013-16. Syria, Somalia, Afghanistan and the Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea were the main fragile partners of ECIS countries.
About 53% of all ECIS countries’ allocated gross ODA went to Lower Middle
Income Countries (LMICs).
Bilateral development co-operation activities of ECIS providers are concentrated
in the emergency response sector (63%), primarily driven by Turkey’s disbursements.
ECIS providers also focus on social infrastructure (education, health, governance),
which mirrors the trends in ODA disbursed by other providers.
ECIS providers disbursed USD 203 million on aid-for-trade over 2013-16, with
Poland disbursing the bulk (USD 137 million).
ODA grants are the most important instrument that ECIS countries use (93%).
This is also the case with DAC members (85%) and other providers beyond the DAC
that report to the OECD (78%).
ECIS countries have been engaging in triangular co-operation for over a
decade, be it as pivotal, facilitating or beneficiary partners. Yet, their triangular
activities need to be better researched and recorded.
ECIS providers (minus Turkey) channelled a total of USD 173 million to and
through non-governmental and civil society organisations over 2013-16.
OECD DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION DIRECTORATE

2. 2
Development Co-operation Directorate
The ECIS region is increasingly important in development co-operation – disbursements
reached USD 9.6 billion in 2016.
ECIS providers are a diverse group, some of them having provided ODA for many years,
others being emerging providers, and others being “dual” recipient-provider countries.
Awareness about their activities is relatively limited: This flyer highlights development finance
volumes and trends from this region using OECD data.
FINANCING FOR DEVELOPMENT IN EUROPE AND THE
COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES (ECIS)
2013-2016
provided
2013-2016
provided
Disbursements
increased by
105%
Disbursements
increased by
148%
USD 2.2 billion (net) USD 4 billion (net)
on average on average
1. Russian
Federation
2. Poland
3. Czech
Republic
4. Hungary
5. Slovak
Republic
Primarily providing to
other countries in the
ECIS region and former
Communist countries
such as Cuba,
Kyrgyzstan,
Moldova or
Ukraine.
EAST-EAST
PROVIDERS
8% ODA
in fragile
contexts
Mainly providing
technical
assistance on
education,
government &
civil society,
agriculture,
forestry and
fishing
42% ODA
to LMICs
Mainly
engaged in
emergency
response to
the Syrian
Arab Republic
in the form of
bilateral grants
Information
is still
aggregate-level -
the OECD
would welcome
more information
on Turkey’s
ODA!
%
The present analysis draws on the development finance flows (activity- and aggregate-level)
reported by fifteen ECIS countries. Project-by-project data, when available, can be found at
https://stats.oecd.org
!
Reached 0.76%
ODA/GNI (2016) –
above the
0.7% UN mark
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Croatia
Czech Republic
Estonia
Hungary
Kazakhstan
Latvia
Lithuania
Romania
Russian Federation
Slovak Republic
Slovenia

3. 3
FINANCING FOR DEVELOPMENT SERIES: EUROPE AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES
WHO ARE THE ECIS PROVIDERS OF DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION?
Figure 1 identifies the ECIS providers of development co-operation: 11 countries that are members of the European
Union (Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic,
Slovenia), five other European countries (the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Ukraine,
Turkey) and four countries that belong to the Commonwealth of Independent States (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan,
the Russian Federation). Some of the countries mapped in Figure 1 are providers with a dual ‘recipient-provider’ role. As
such, they are not only ODA-eligible but also provide technical assistance (e.g. Ukraine), work in triangular co-operation
arrangements (e.g. Montenegro), have established units (e.g. Kazakhstan and Serbia) or agencies (e.g. Azerbaijan and
Turkey) to deliver development co-operation.1
The OECD receives activity- or aggregate-level data from some of these providers (see Table 1). Activity-level data is
available from five members of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC), as well as five non-DAC members.
Additionally, the OECD collects aggregate-level data from five other non-DAC providers. The present analysis draws
on the development finance flows (activity- and aggregate-level) reported by fifteen ECIS countries. For the section on
triangular co-operation, moreover, the present analysis also draws on the OECD repository of triangular co-operation
projects.2
1. Several European countries are eligible to receive Official Development Assistance, namely: Albania, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, the Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Moldova, Serbia, Ukraine and Turkey.
2. For further information see: www.oecd.org/dac/dac-global-relations/triangular-co-operation-repository.htm
Activity-level
reporting
Aggregate-level
reporting
Not
reporting
Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia,
Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia,
Lithuania, Poland, Romania,
Slovakia, Slovenia
Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, The Russian
Federation, Turkey
Armenia, Former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia,
Ukraine
Note: Azerbaijan reports at activity-level but does not disclose the information yet. Bulgaria reports at a semi-aggregate level.
Table 1. Statistical information on concessional finance from ECIS providers
Figure 1. ECIS providers of development co-operation
Note: This map is without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of
international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.

4. 4
Development Co-operation Directorate
The OECD statistical database contains detailed information on over 1600 activities from ECIS providers over 2011-16 and
the OECD Repository of Triangular Co-operation Projects lists over 700 triangular co-operation activities since 2000. For
further information on the present analysis, see Box 1.
Box 1: Methodological remarks
The present analysis relies on data reported through the OECD’s Creditor Reporting System (CRS). Although most
providers covered by this analysis report their Official Development Assistance (ODA) to the OECD, not all providers
consistently employ the CRS, but instead report aggregate information (by country, sector, etc.) in DAC tables and at
different levels of aggregation. As a result, the present analysis can only offer a partial picture of the development
co-operation flows provided by ECIS countries, a situation that is gradually improving and that can improve as and
when more ECIS providers report their development finance to the OECD. For example, Croatia started reporting its
development finance statistics to the OECD in 2012, Kazakhstan did so in 2013 and Azerbaijan in 2014. Some ECIS
countries also improve the quality of the data reported to the OECD over time, e.g. when they report activity-level
information instead of aggregate-level information. This was the case of Estonia in 2014, Romania in 2015 and Croatia
in 2017. The DAC tables offer less information about, e.g. types of disbursements and projects, which explains why
data is sometimes missing. Footnotes under each chart provide further information when data is missing.
Given the substantial size of Turkish ODA relative to other ECIS countries, Turkey is treated separately in this analysis.
The figures in the first part of this analysis thus represent the data provided by Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, the Czech
Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation, Slovakia and
Slovenia for the years 2013-16 (unless otherwise stated).
HOW MUCH DO ECIS PROVIDERS DISBURSE?
The net ODA flows by the fourteen countries covered by this analysis averaged USD 2.2 billion over 2013-16
(Turkey is treated separately below). In 2016, net disbursements amounted to a total of USD 3.1 billion, doubling from 2013
(see Chart 1).
Chart 1. Trends in ECIS Providers’ Official Development Assistance
2011-16, net disbursements, USD billion in constant prices
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
USD billion
Russia
Poland
Czech Republic
Romania
Hungary
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Lithuania
Bulgaria
Croatia
Estonia
Latvia
Kazakhstan
Azerbaijan
Note: No data was available for Croatia in 2011, Azerbaijan over 2011-13 and Kazakhstan over 2011-12. Turkey is not included here.

5. 5
FINANCING FOR DEVELOPMENT SERIES: EUROPE AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES
Chart 2. Thirty largest bilateral providers of net concessional financing for development
Net ODA flows in volume and as percent of GNI, 2016
For reference, the 50 providers of concessional development finance reporting to the OECD, both DAC and non-DAC
members, disbursed USD 159 billion in 2016 (net disbursements). The net ODA disbursed by ECIS countries (save
Turkey) over 2013-16 represented 12% of all non-DAC providers’ and 2% of all DAC providers’ net disbursements (USD
73 billion and USD 549 billion respectively).3
Over the same period, the share of ECIS net ODA (save Turkey) increased
by 11 percentage points (from 9% to 22%) relative to the non-DAC providers and 1.1 percentage points (from 1.1% to
2.2%) relative to DAC providers.
Between 2013 and 2016, Turkey was the largest bilateral provider of development co-operation among ECIS
countries (USD 7.3 billion net average per year over 2013-16). Given the size of its ODA vis-à-vis other ECIS countries,
Turkey’s concessional finance flows are represented separately here (see last section below). The other main ECIS
providers over 2013-16 were the Russian Federation, Poland, the Czech Republic and Romania.
In 2016, the Russian Federation disbursed USD 1.3 billion, while Poland and Romania disbursed USD 689 million and
USD 269 million respectively (gross disbursements). For the Russian Federation, this represents a threefold increase
when compared to its disbursements in 2013, mainly due to large increases in debt relief to Cuba (USD 658 million) and
USD 107 million to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in 2015-16. In fact, the Russian Federation provided 99.9%
of all the debt relief recorded among ECIS countries over 2013-16 (the remainder was provided by Poland, see Box 3).
The Russian Federation’s debt relief to Cuba also represented 98% of all disbursements to North, Central and South
America combined by ECIS providers over 2013-16.
3. These values, unlike all others, represent extended amounts (values have not been deflated).
0.76
0.10
0.15
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
USDbillion
ODA volume (left axis) ODA/GNI ratio (right axis)
Note: Countries that are not members of the DAC and that do not report to the OECD are represented by grey bars, while non-DAC members that report are
represented by dark blue bars. *Figures based on 2015 data. **Estimates based on available 2015 data. ***Estimates based on available 2013 data. The
dashed lines represent the 0.7% and 0.33% target commitments.

6. 6
Development Co-operation Directorate
Of the ECIS countries covered by this analysis, Turkey, the Russian Federation and Poland ranked among the top
thirty providers in 2016 by ODA volume worldwide (7th, 24th and 28th respectively). Romania, the Czech Republic
and Hungary are in the top 40 (35th, 36th and 38th respectively). In terms of the ODA to Gross National Income (GNI)
ratio, Turkey is the only ECIS provider that surpassed the 0.7% ODA/GNI mark in 2016. The 0.33% ODA/GNI target,
established by the European Union (EU) in 2002, remained elusive in 2016 among the EU-11 countries analysed here:
collectively, these countries reached an average of 0.14% ODA/GNI in 2016.
MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF ECIS PROVIDERS
Between 2013 and 2016, ECIS providers (save Turkey) disbursed their ODA largely through multilateral channels.
Multilateral disbursements steadily increased from a total of USD 535 million in 2013 to USD 1.8 billion in 2016. The
amounts of ODA disbursed through bilateral channels increased in absolute terms throughout the period, from 28.5%
(USD 213 million) in 2013 to 41.5% (USD 1.3 billion) in 2016 (see Chart 3). Kazakhstan and the Slovak Republic saw the
largest increases in their bilateral development co-operation disbursements over 2013-16 (311% and 208% respectively).
With regard to multilateral
channels, the EU-11 countries
disbursed 84% (USD 3.1 billion)
of their ODA to the European
Union, mainly in the form of
assessed contributions to the
European Development Fund.
Various United Nations’ (UN)
bodies (including the Food
and Agriculture Organization,
the International Labour
Organisation and the World
Health Organization) accounted
fora further5%(USD196million)
of their multilateral ODA. Other
international organisations,
such as the World Trade
Organization (WTO)4
and the
Council of Europe, received 2%
(USD 68.8 million) of their ODA
disbursements. Development
banks, including the European
Bank for Reconstruction and
Development, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the European Investment Bank, accounted
for 8% (USD 275 million) of their disbursements. Among the multilateral development banks, the recently created Asian
Infrastructure and Investment Bank is worth noting: Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Poland, the Russian Federation and Turkey
have joined the institution. In 2016, Azerbaijan provided USD 6 million, while Poland disbursed USD 57 million.
The CIS countries (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation), on the other hand, disbursed 31% of their ODA
multilaterally (USD 785 million multilateral ODA vs. USD 1.7 billion bilateral ODA). The International Development
Association, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Black Sea Trade and Development Bank,
the Asian Development Bank, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Islamic Development Bank, accounted
for 28% of their multilateral disbursements (USD 222 million). The Russian Federation was the main provider to most
of these organisations. The UN accounted for 34% of their multilateral disbursements (USD 264 million), while other
international organisations, such as the Council of Europe, accounted for another 7% (USD 58 million).
Chart 3. Share of bilateral vs. multilateral
Official Development Assistance
2013-2016, gross disbursements
Note: No data was available for Bulgaria over 2013-14, Croatia 2013, Hungary 2013, Latvia over 2013-14,
Lithuania 2013, Romania 2013 and the Russian Federation over 2013-14. Turkey was not included in
this analysis.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
2013 2014 2015 2016
bilateral multilateral
4. Core contributions to the WTO are not considered as ODA. Contributions here refer only to the Advisory Centre on WTO Law, Doha Development Agenda
Trust Fund and the International Trade Center.

7. 7
FINANCING FOR DEVELOPMENT SERIES: EUROPE AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES
WHICH COUNTRIES RECEIVE ECIS ODA?
ECIS countries, save Turkey, concentrate their activities in Asia and America: between 2013 and 2016, 35% of total
net ODA from the ECIS providers were allocated to Asia (28% of which to countries in South and Central Asia). Although
26% of ECIS’ countries ODA are allocated to the Americas, the Russian Federation’s debt relief to Cuba accounts for
the bulk of this (25%, see Box 3). Europe accounted for 23%, while Africa received 11% of ECIS flows and 5% went to
the Middle East (see Chart 4). The ECIS providers focused predominantly on Cuba, Kyrgyzstan and Moldova, which
received almost over 52% of total ECIS ODA flows over 2013-16 (see Table 2).
Table 2. Top 10 partners of ECIS providers
2013-16 bilateral gross disbursements, USD million,
constant 2016 prices
Chart 4. Regional distribution of ECIS ODA
2013-16 gross disbursements
Partners Amount
% of country-
specific ODA
Cuba 686 25.7%
Kyrgyzstan 515 19.3%
Moldova 204 7.6%
Ukraine 129 4.8%
Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea
115 4.3%
Ethiopia 102 3.8%
Belarus 86 3.2%
Armenia 80 3%
Angola 72 2.7%
Afghanistan 58 2.2%
Total 2047 76.7%
Note: In Chart 4, 64% unallocated ODA were not included. For Table 2, the percentages next to country labels represent shares of total gross ODA relative to
total country-specific ODA gross flows. In both cases, no data was available for Bulgaria 2013-14, Croatia 2013, Hungary 2013, Latvia 2013-14, Lithuania 2013,
Romania 2013 and the Russian Federation 2013-14. Turkey was not included in this analysis.
Oceania
0.2%
Europe
23%
Africa
11%
America
26%
Asia
35%
Middle East
5%
Box 2: ‘Dual’ provider-beneficiary ECIS countries
Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkey are both providers and beneficiaries of Official Development Assistance. In
2016, Turkey received USD 4.7 billion in gross ODA, while Azerbaijan received USD 184 million and Kazakhstan
received USD 128 million.
Turkey also received ODA from ECIS providers (all, except the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan). In 2016, 89%
(USD 42.4 million) of ECIS disbursements to Turkey were contributions to the EU refugee facility and broader support
for Syrian refugees in Turkey. Interestingly, Turkey was among the top providers to Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan (USD
14 million and USD 19 million respectively in 2016), even though other ECIS providers also contributed to these two
countries in 2016 (e.g. Hungary or Poland).
These intra-ECIS development co-operation flows point at the important contribution that ‘East-East Co-operation’
can have in achieving development outcomes – and the potential that such flows can have to advancing the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development.

8. 8
Development Co-operation Directorate
The development co-operation of ECIS providers is primarily focused on countries and areas where they have a comparative
advantage stemming from their own transition experience in implementing democratic reforms, building independent
state institutions, strengthening civil society and establishing a properly functioning market economy. They share their
accumulating experience with neighbouring countries and countries undergoing transformation in Eastern Europe, the
Middle East, Northern Africa and Central Asia (also see Box 2).
Most of the ECIS disbursements are concentrated in Middle-Income Countries (MICs), which received 78% of total
ECIS (save Turkey) ODA flows over 2013-16, with the largest share flowing to Lower MICs (LMICs, 42%, see Chart 5).
Low Income and Least Developed Countries (LICs and
LDCs) received 20% of ECIS ODA on average between
2013 and 2016, with Ethiopia and Afghanistan receiving
3.8% and 2.2% of total ECIS ODA (see Table 2). However,
the portion of ODA volume received by LICs and LDCs
decreased over 2013-2016 (from 33% of total ODA to
19%), while disbursements to Upper Middle-Income
Countries (UMICs) increased (from 36% of total ODA to
42%).
WHICH SECTORS DO ECIS
PROVIDERS TARGET?
When discounting unallocated ODA and debt relief,
which respectively account for 71.4% and 10.9%
of the concessional finance flows by ECIS providers
over 2013-16, the main sectors for ECIS providers are
education and government and civil society (see Chart
6). These sectors fall under the social infrastructure and
services category, targeting LMICs in Europe, Southern
and Central Asia. For LDCs and LICs, ECIS providers
mainly invest in the agriculture, forestry and fishing
sector. See Box 3 for further information on debt relief
activities.
Chart 5. Income group breakdown of ECIS ODA
2013-16 gross disbursements
Note: 65% unallocated ODA were not represented here. No data was available
for Bulgaria over 2013-14, Croatia 2013, Hungary 2013, Latvia over 2013-14,
Lithuania 2013, Romania 2013 and the Russian Federation over 2013-14. Turkey
was not included.
LMICs
42%
UMICs
38%
LDCs & LICs
20%
Chart 6. Five main sectors for total ECIS ODA
2013-16 gross disbursements in USD million
Note: Unallocated ODA, which represents 71.4% of ECIS ODA, was not included. ODA to refugees in donor countries (1.8%) and emergency response
(0.4%) exceeded other social infrastructure and services, but was also not included, as these are not sectors. No data was available for Bulgaria over
2013-14, Croatia 2013, Hungary 2013, Latvia over 2013-14, Lithuania 2013, Romania 2013 and the Russian Federation over 2013-14. Turkey was not
included in this analysis.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Education Government
& Civil
Society
Agriculture,
Forestry &
Fishing
Other Social
Infrastructure &
Services
USDmillion
UMICs LMICs LDCs & LICs

9. 9
FINANCING FOR DEVELOPMENT SERIES: EUROPE AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES
Box 3: Action relating to debt
ECIS ODA flows to the sector Action related to Debt amounted to USD 820 million in 2016. This ODA is entirely
composed of bilateral debt forgiveness, provided by Poland and the Russian Federation between 2015 and 2016.
Poland disbursed USD 0.1 million to Cambodia in 2016, while the Russian Federation cumulatively disbursed USD
685 to Cuba, USD 107 million to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, USD 8.9 million to Madagascar, USD
15.6 million to Mozambique and USD 2.6 million to Tanzania. The Russian Federation provided USD 394 million in
debt relief in 2015.
SECTORAL EXAMPLE 1: ODA TO THE EDUCATION SECTOR
ECIS ODA flows to the education
sector averaged USD 108 million
a year between 2013 and 2016
(excluding Turkey).
These countries’ ODA is heavily
concentrated in higher education
(64%), education facilities and
training (28%), and in education
policy and administrative
management (4%, see Chart 7).
Most of the contributions to higher
education were provided in the form
of scholarships (61%) and imputed
student costs (28%).
Most of the ODA flowing to the
education sector between 2013 and
2016 was delivered through grants
(85%) in Europe and mainly targeted
lower middle-income countries
(notably Moldova, which accounts
for 24% of grant disbursements to
the education sector.)
Chart 7. ECIS ODA to the education sector
2013-16 annual average, gross disbursements
Higher
education
64%
Education
facilities &
training
28%
Education policy &
administrative
management
4%
Vocational
training
2%
Advanced
technical &
managerial
training
1.4%
Secondary
education
0.8%
Note: No data was available for Bulgaria over 2013-14, Croatia 2013, Hungary 2013,
Latvia over 2013-14, Lithuania 2013, Romania 2013 and the Russian Federation over 2013-14.
Turkey was not included in this analysis
Box 4: Education project by Poland
Education reform is an important element of the democratic process. Responding to the needs expressed by the
Ukrainian Ministry of Science and Education, the Polish Ministry of Education supported Ukraine in the process
of a comprehensive curriculum reform. In 2016, a Polish-Ukrainian team of specialists developed a project on
the basic curriculum of general education for all types of schools. Polish experts provided technical assistance
and presented recommendations on the system of monitoring the quality of education to the Centre for Quality
Assessment of Education of Ukraine. The project is correlated with the activities of the OECD, which in the near
future will initiate a procedure to review the Ukrainian educational policy.

10. 10
Development Co-operation Directorate
SECTORAL EXAMPLE 2: ODA TO THE GOVERNMENT AND CIVIL SOCIETY SECTOR
Note: No data was available for Bulgaria over 2013-14, Croatia 2013, Hungary 2013,
Latvia over 2013-14, Lithuania 2013, Romania 2013 and the Russian Federation over
2013-14. Turkey was not included here.
Box 5: Civil society engagement in Kazakhstan
The government of Kazakhstan has positioned itself as a regional leader in advancing long-term economic and
social development, for instance in the areas of citizen participation and civil society-government partnerships.
Since 2014, Kazakhstan’s Association for the Development of Civil Society (ARGO), a regional network of
organisations that support NGOs, has applied innovative methods of civil society development, e.g. trainings,
consultations, monitoring and evaluation services throughout Central Asia. ARGO is a member of the Advisory
Board under Kazakhstan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and a member of working groups and public councils
under the auspices of the government and of Parliament. Its aim is to strengthen the institutional capacity of
civil society by enabling effective communication channels and spaces between the authorities and civil society
organisations, both at national and regional levels. It regularly provides trainings for local government officials, to
educate them on the advantages of working with civil society.
Note: for more information see http://argonet.org/en
The sector Government and Civil Society
represents the flows that support governance
and civil society purposes overall, and
can include ODA to governments, civil
society organisations, NGOs or multilateral
organisations working on governance issues.
The Government and Civil Society sector
covers policy management, local government
administration, tax collection, democratic
participation, immigration, police services,
supporting human rights institutions and
women’s equality organisations, the removal
of land mines and international peacekeeping
operations. Sectoral Example 2 will illustrate
the areas where ECIS countries focus their
ODA flows.
ECIS ODA flows (save Turkey) to the
government and civil society sector
steadily increased from USD 26 million
in 2013 to USD 31 million in 2015, then
reached USD 96 million in 2016. This
ODA was concentrated in public finance
management (44%), media and the free flow
of information (18%, see Chart 8).
Most of the ODA flowing to the government
and civil society sector between 2013 and
2016 was delivered through grants (63%),
largely to Europe (56%, mostly to Moldova,
Belarus and Ukraine).
Chart 8. ECIS ODA to the government and civil society sector
2013-16 annual average, gross disbursements
Publicfinance
management
44%
Media& freeflow of
information
20%
Democraticparticipation
& civil society
12%
Publicsector policy&
administrative
management
10%
International
peacekeeping
operations
9%
Civilian peace-building &
conflict prevention
5%

11. 11
FINANCING FOR DEVELOPMENT SERIES: EUROPE AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES
EXAMPLE 3: ECIS ODA TO THE AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHING SECTOR
ECIS ODA flows to the agriculture,
forestry and fishing sector averaged
USD 36 million a year between 2013
and 2016. ECIS ODA flows to agriculture,
forestry and fishing increase hugely
over 2013-16, from USD 5 million in
2013 to USD 81.7 million in 2016.
This ODA was largely concentrated in
agricultural development (92.2%), and to
a lesser extent in providing livestock and
veterinary services (2.2%) and forestry
development (1.6%, see Chart 9).
In terms of volume, most of this ODA was
delivered through loans (80%), targeted
towards LDCs in Africa, namely Ethiopia,
Tanzania and Kenya, which accounted for
59%, 15% and 5% of total disbursements
respectively.
Grants, on the other hand, were large
in number (466 in total) but small in
volume, with an average size of USD
62 000. These were largely concentrated
in Europe and Africa. Moldova was the
top recipient of ODA grants in this sector
(18%), followed by Ethiopia (12%) and
Bosnia-Herzegovina (11%).
Chart 9. ECIS ODA to the agriculture, forestry
and fishing sector
2013-16 annual average, gross disbursements
Note: No data was available for Bulgaria over 2013-14, Croatia 2013, Hungary
2013, Latvia over 2013-14, Lithuania 2013, Romania 2013 and the Russian
Federation over 2013-14. Turkey was not included here.
Agricultural
development
92.2%
Veterinary
services
2.2%
Forestry
development
1.6%
Agricultural
extension
1.5%
Agricultural
training
1.4%
Agricultural policy and
administrative management
1.1%
WHAT FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS DO ECIS PROVIDERS USE?
The ECIS providers mostly use grants (94%) in their development co-operation. Grants are mainly allocated
to countries in Europe (39%) and target lower middle-income countries (55%), while loans are used mainly in Africa
(Ethiopia 32%, Angola 24%, Tanzania 8%, Kenya 3%) and Eastern Europe (Moldova 24%). Loans are also allocated to
China (8%) and Vietnam (1.2%).
ECIS financial commitments for development are broader than ODA and also include other types of official flows such
as non-concessional developmental flows. These flows could potentially be part of Total Official Support for Sustainable
Development (TOSSD), an international statistical standard for measuring officially-supported resources for sustainable
development, which is currently being developed by the development co-operation and development statistics
communities through the international “TOSSD Task Force”, facilitated by the OECD.5
DO ECIS PROVIDERS ENGAGE IN TRIANGULAR CO-OPERATION?
Another modality used by ECIS providers is triangular co-operation. The OECD introduced a code for tracking triangular
co-operation in its Creditor Reporting System in 2015. The code has not yet been used by most of the countries reporting
to the OECD. The OECD is currently compiling the available information based on what countries reported on 2017 flows,
which will be ready in 2019.
5. For further information see http://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-standards/tossd-task-force.htm

12. 12
Development Co-operation Directorate
In parallel to these efforts, the OECD has been building the evidence base on triangular co-operation through surveys.
The latest triangular co-operation survey, launched in 2015, and additional analytical work, has helped uncover over 700
triangular co-operation activities since 2014. A triangular co-operation project repository also covers ECIS countries,
in fact there are 22 projects from: Azerbaijan, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania,
Slovenia, Poland, the Russian Federation and Turkey.
These are some of the preliminary findings on triangular co-operation by ECIS providers:
• Around half of their project budgets range between USD 1 and 5 million, but there are also many small-scale
activities (budgets under USD 100,000).
• The length of the projects ranged widely, from less than a year to seven years, but with an average of 32 months
per activity.
• Projects are concentrated in Eastern Europe and Southern and Central Asia (the so-called ‘East-East Co-operation’
modality), although many projects are multi-regional and involve East and Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa
and Latin America.
• Projects provide solutions to pressing global development challenges, such as forced migration or climate change.
They focus on training and sharing knowledge on governance-related issues, as well as projects in a range of
sectors, including energy, food security or water and sanitation.
Experts involved are from neighbouring countries or countries with similar experiences, which should provide more
adapted solutions to the development challenges addressed.
Box 6: Triangular Co-operation Project Example
Since 2011, the EU-funded Clima East pilot projects, supported by the UNDP, have explored approaches to low
carbon development among eight partner countries, including Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova,
the Russian Federation and Ukraine. The pilots have helped introduce innovative technologies and advanced
scientific research on rehabilitating ecosystems and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Clima East Policy
project supported participating countries in fostering improved climate change policies, strategies, and market
mechanisms.
In 2013, the members of the Clima East regional community of practice, including Azerbaijan and the Russian
Federation, engaged in knowledge exchanges with Moldova to learn from its experience.
Note: for more information see http://www.climaeast.eu/
Typical facilitating actors in these triangular co-operation projects are the European Union, the World Bank, the OPEC
Fund for International Development, DAC members (e.g. United States, Germany, Spain, Hungary, the Netherlands) and
international organisations (e.g. International Labour Organisation, UN bodies like the UNDP Regional Hub Istanbul, or
the United Nations Industrial Development Organization).
HOW DO ECIS PROVIDERS ENGAGE IN AID FOR TRADE?
Aid for Trade is an initiative that leverages trade-related interventions to reduce poverty in developing countries,
particularly in the least developed ones. By helping build their trade capacity and infrastructure, aid for trade helps
developing countries to benefit from trade opening. Trade-related programmes and projects relating to ODA are collected
and categorised in the OECD Aid for Trade database.6
Aid for Trade is a common modality for the disbursement of
concessional finance for development by ECIS countries. Chart 10 shows that ECIS providers primarily engaged in Aid
for Trade interventions for agricultural development over 2013-16, primarily from Poland.
6. For further information see http://www.oecd.org/dac/aft/

13. 13
FINANCING FOR DEVELOPMENT SERIES: EUROPE AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES
Chart 10. Aid for Trade Sectors by ECIS provider
2013-2016, gross disbursements, USD million in constant prices
Note: No data was available for Bulgaria 2013-2016, Croatia 2013-2016, Azerbaijan 2013, Hungary 2013, Lithuania 2013 and Romania 2013.
The Russian Federation and Turkey are not included here.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Agriculture
Energy generation and supply
Business and other services
Industry
Forestry
Communications
Trade policy and
administrative management
Mineral resources and mining
Others
USD million
Azerbaijan Czech Republic Estonia Hungary Kazakhstan
Latvia Lithuania Poland Romania Slovak Republic Slovenia
Between 2013 and 2016, ECIS
providers disbursed USD 203 million
(gross in constant princes), of which
74% in agriculture. ECIS providers’
disbursements increased from USD
13.6 million in 2013 to USD 191.5
million in 2016, representing 0.6% of
their total gross ODA disbursements
in 2016 (constant prices). Their
2016 disbursements (USD 191.5
million) represent 0.5% of the ODA
disbursements by all donors in the Aid
for Trade area (USD 38.7 billion).
In the same year, Poland was the top
provider of Aid for Trade, disbursing
USD 75.5 million, followed by the
Czech Republic (USD 5.9 million) and
Hungary (USD 3.7 million).
Box 7: Aid for Trade project example
The Development of Micro- and Small Enterprises in Rural
Areas and Small Towns in Belarus was the first enterprise
development project implemented by the Polish Ministry of
Foreign Affairs in co-operation with a Belarusian partner. The
aim was to transfer knowledge and experience of institutional
support systems for micro, small and medium enterprises from
Poland to Belarus. Research visits and internships provided
Belarusian entrepreneurs with information about the necessary
instruments to support start-ups, the role of local and regional
centres in supporting entrepreneurship, implementing service
standards and improving the competencies of consultants
working in business support centres. The success of the
project led to more knowledge sharing and the establishment
of further joint ventures and internships between Polish and
Belarusian entrepreneurs.

14. 14
Development Co-operation Directorate
Box 9: Mobilisation of private finance by the
Czech Republic
The Czech Republic is engaged in a number of
programmes that aim to mobilise private finance.
These include the B2B Technical Assistance
Programme that has been helping build partnerships
between businesses in the Czech Republic and in
partner countries since 2013, and the Challenge Fund,
also known as “Czech solutions for SDGs”, which was
established in co-operation with UNDP and supports
innovative ideas relating to feasibility studies and
business partnerships. In 2019, the Czech Republic,
in partnership with its National Development Bank,
will launch the Guarantee Programme to support
sustainable private investment in developing
countries. It will also help fund the above mentioned
programmes and will involve the private sector,
academia, research institutes and NGOs.
ECIScountriesdisburseODAtoCSOsinareasasdiverse
as energy, transport and emergency response, besides
democratic participation The means of disbursing
this ODA are twofold, either to or through CSOs.
Funds channelled to CSOs are core contributions and
programme-specific funds that are then programmed
by the relevant CSOs, while funds channelled through
CSOs and other private bodies are used to implement
donor-initiated projects.
Between 2013 and 2016, ECIS providers channelled a
total of USD 173 million to and through CSOs. Of the
ECIS ODA channelled through CSOs, USD 128.5 million
were directed at national NGOs, USD 11 million at NGOs
and civil society in general, USD 6.9 million at local and
regional NGOs. The largest amounts of ODA channelled
to CSOs were directed at the International Committee of
the Red Cross (USD 5.4 million) and national NGOs (USD
3.2 million). The top recipients of the ODA channelled
to and through CSOs were NGOs in the Ukraine (USD
22.4 million), Moldova (USD 14.1 million) and Georgia
(USD 11.1 million). Of the total, most resources were
directed at projects related to material relief assistance
(30.5%), democratic participation and civil society
(27%), promotion of development awareness (12.5%),
social welfare services (11.4%) and vocational training
(9.1%).
Chart 11. ECIS ODA flowing to and through CSOs
2013-16 annual average, gross disbursements
HOW DO ECIS PROVIDERS ENGAGE WITH CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANISATIONS?
Note: No data was available for Bulgaria over 2013-14, Croatia 2013, Hungary
2013, Latvia over 2013-14, Lithuania 2013, Romania 2013 and the Russian
Federation over 2013-14. Turkey was not included here.
Material relief
assistance and
services
30.5%
Democratic
participation
and civil
society
27.0%
Promotion of
development
awareness
12.5%
Social welfare
services
11.4%
Sectors not
specified
9.5%
Vocational
training
9.1%
As illustrated above, ECIS providers are important
providers. We can therefore expect them to also
mobilise private finance through public sources.
However, ECIS providers do not report to the OECD
on the amounts their official finance is mobilising
additional private finance. As a result, ECIS providers
are not represented in the OECD blended finance
flows. ECIS providers could consider reporting on
these amounts, which would link with the OECD DAC
Blended Finance Principles.7
Remittances also represent a substantial part of
ECIS providers’ finances to developing countries.
Between 2013-2016 all ECIS countries, including
Turkey, provided a total of USD 8.6 billion. 78% of the
remittances from EU-11 countries were directed at
developing countries in Europe, mainly at Bosnia and
Herzegovina and Ukraine (USD 2.7 billion and USD 2.6
billion, respectively) and while 48% of the remittances
from Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation
and Turkey focused on Central Asia (USD 3.5 billion).
7. For further information, see: https://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-topics/OECD-Blended-Finance-Principles.pdf
WHAT OTHER TYPES OF FINANCE DO ECIS PROVIDERS MOBILISE?

15. 15
FINANCING FOR DEVELOPMENT SERIES: EUROPE AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES
TURKEY
Turkey is the 7th largest ODA provider worldwide. Turkey’s net disbursements over 2013-16 amounted to USD 16
billion in constant prices, which account for 22% of the net ODA flows by non-DAC providers and 3% of DAC providers.
During this period, Turkey’s net disbursements increased 148% from USD 2.6 billion in 2013 to USD 6.5 billion in 2016
(see Chart 12). Turkey provides almost exclusively bilateral ODA (97% of total ODA flows), of which 80% are allocated
to emergency response, specifically material relief assistance for the Middle East region (primarily the Syrian Arab
Republic, which receives 87% of Turkey’s ODA, see Chart 13 and Table 3).8
Chart 12. Trends in Turkish Official
Development Assistance
2011-16, net disbursements in USD billion
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
USDbillion
Box 10: Turkey’s Aid to Refugees
Turkey hosts the largest refugee
population in the world, i.e. 3.4 million
people. With the support of the European
Union (EU), the Turkish government has
allocated substantial funds to the support
of refugees and host communities in
Turkey. Together with several partners,
Turkey has spearheaded innovative
projects to help refugees access the
services they need most. For example,
in 2016, the Turkish government, in
collaboration with the Turkish Red
Crescent, the EU and the World Food
Programme launched the Emergency
Social Safety Net, reaching 1 million
refugees in 2017.
Chart 13. Regional distribution of Turkey’s ODA
Oceania
0.01%
Europe
4% Africa
5% Asia
6%
Americas
0.2%
Middle East
85%
8. The latter figures refer to gross disbursements between 2015 and 2016. No information was available for earlier years.
Table 3. Top 10 partners of Turkey 2015-2016
Partners Amount
% of country-
specific ODA
Syrian Arab Republic 8471 87%
Somalia 366 3.8%
Kyrgyzstan 121 1.2%
Albania 94 1%
Afghanistan 88 0.9%
West Bank and Gaza Strip 72 0.7%
Bosnia and Herzegovina 55 0.6%
Former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia
44 0.5%
Kazakhstan 43 0.4%
Sudan 31 0.3%
Total 1395 96.8%

16. 16
Development Co-operation Directorate
OECD SUPPORT TO ECIS PROVIDERS ON DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION
T
he OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) collaborates with bilateral providers of development co-
operation beyond its membership to respond to the challenges in the global development landscape, and to make
the Committee more relevant and inclusive, in line with the DAC Global Relations Strategy and the 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development. The DAC is open to exchanging of views and experiences with other bilateral providers of
development co-operation, such as the ECIS countries.
The Development Co-operation Directorate (DCD) supports the DAC in carrying out its mandate to help increase
financing for development and to improve the effectiveness of development co-operation for sustainable development.
The DCD promotes innovative approaches to development through policy dialogue and outreach, with the aim to inform
the international discourse and supporting the global sustainable development agenda. The DCD can also support
members and other bilateral providers, such as the ECIS countries, in advancing strategic planning and programming
for development co-operation, monitoring and evaluation, increasing information exchange regarding the principles of
effective development co-operation and other thematic issues, such as working with the private sector and the results-
based agenda.
The Foresight Outreach and Policy Reform Unit (F.O.R) of DCD is tasked with identifying collaboration opportunities with
countries within and beyond the DAC, based on clear criteria. Dialogues for collaboration are on-going with Bulgaria,
Latvia, Kazakhstan, Poland and Romania.
This note was prepared by Juan Casado-Asensio, Marisa Berbegal Ibañez, Rebecca McKimm and
Iwona Krzeszewska, with inputs from Karin Fällman, Ana Fernandes, Frans Lammersen and Nadine Piefer.
For further information contact:
juan.casadoasensio@oecd.org