This chapter analyses bilateral official development assistance and other official flows by DAC members and the extent to which they include gender equality considerations. It also discusses the declining focus of gender equality in DAC members’ development finance against a backdrop of pushback against whole-of-society inclusion and gender equality.
Development Finance for Gender Equality 2024
Abstract
Development Assistance Committee (DAC) members are the main source of development finance for gender equality for which information is available. The bulk of their funding is in the form of official development assistance (ODA), but they also provide other official flows (see Annex A for definitions). This chapter presents the trends of development finance for gender equality by DAC members, as a group and individually, and shares insights about the integration of gender equality into finance for different partner countries, through the various channels of delivery and across sectors.
Bilateral ODA for gender equality has dropped for the first time in a decade
Over the last decade, DAC members have increasingly included gender equality objectives in their bilateral allocable ODA (Figure 2.1) either as the main objective of projects and programmes or as one significant objective. In 2019-20, they reached a record share of 45% of bilateral allocable ODA including gender equality objectives, but this share dropped to 42% in 2021-22. Although the volume of ODA with gender equality objectives increased from USD 57 billion in 2019-20 to USD 60.4 billion in 2021-22, this is in line with overall increases in volumes of ODA. The decrease in the share of ODA with gender equality objectives after a decade of growth is, however, of serious concern as it shows DAC members’ policy intention in providing their aid.
The 42% of bilateral allocable ODA with gender equality objectives represented USD 60.4 billion out of USD 143 billion screened against the gender equality policy marker (see Annex A for a definition). Most of it was for programmes that integrate gender equality as one significant policy objective among others: USD 54.9 billion (38% of total bilateral aid), while USD 5.5 billion (4%) was for programmes where gender equality was the principal objective. Having a principal objective is not, by definition, better than a significant objective: a dual-track approach in the development co-operation portfolio allows dedicating some interventions to gender equality while mainstreaming gender equality across all policy areas, strategies and programming (OECD, 2022[1]). It is noteworthy that 58% of ODA does not aim to have a positive impact on advancing gender equality, reducing gender discrimination or inequalities, or meeting gender-specific needs.
Two-year averages
Note: ODA: official development assistance.
Source: OECD (2024[2]), OECD Data Explorer, Creditor Reporting System (Database), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/a9.
The drop in the share of ODA with gender equality objectives is concerning for several reasons. With five years to go until 2030, evidence shows that the world is not on track to fulfil the promise “to leave no one behind” and to achieve Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 5 on gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls (UN Women et al., 2024[3]). Not achieving SDG 5 also puts at risk the realisation of other SDGs and the 2030 Agenda more broadly. Gender inequalities continue to prevail across countries, including those at the forefront of gender equality policy (2023[4]; OECD, 2024[2]).
It is difficult to establish the direct causes for the recent drop in the share of ODA for gender equality as there are many variables and interdependencies which cannot be isolated. However, the following observations can be made from the available data:
No one single DAC member’s performance is causing the drop. Of the 32 DAC members, 20 decreased the share of their ODA with gender equality objectives from 2019‑20 to 2021-22 (Table 2.1). DAC members providing larger volumes of ODA could skew the average DAC share, but while a couple of the largest development partners have dropped their share, this may have been compensated by significant increases from other large donors. It is noteworthy that the DAC member committing the largest volume of ODA, the United States, has a share of gender equality objectives far below the average DAC share: 15% in 2021-22 (down from 22% in 2019‑20).
ODA to Ukraine was a major factor in the drop. Following the start of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, bilateral allocable ODA to Ukraine went up from yearly volumes of around USD 1.1 billion to a record USD 18.9 billion in 2022. However, less than 10% of this amount in 2022 included gender equality objectives, showing that donor responses to the crisis paid very little attention to gender equality issues. Although the war cannot be singled out as the only factor for the overall decrease in gender focus in ODA, such a large increase in volume with such a low integration of gender equality objectives certainly contributed to a drop in the overall share (OECD, 2024[5]).
No single sector is driving the drop in share. The share of ODA with gender equality objectives fell in several sectors, notably in “government and civil society” and “water supply and sanitation”, but it also rose in others, such as “energy” and “general environmental protection”.
Two aspects which are sometimes raised as potentially impacting the drop in share are in-donor refugee costs and budget support to governments. In-donor refugee costs – the cost of receiving refugees and asylum seekers in donor countries – reached its highest level in 2022 (OECD, 2024[6]). General budget support, or finance that flows directly into a partner government’s budget and enables them to use their own financial management systems and budget procedures, also increased during the COVID-19 crisis (OECD, 2023[7]). However, in-donor refugee costs and general budget support are not allocable aid, so they are not included in this report’s calculations and, therefore, could not have contributed to the drop in the share of ODA with gender equality objectives.
Even gender equality champions are struggling to keep the focus
While the DAC as a group integrated gender equality objectives into 42% of its bilateral allocable ODA in 2021-22, individual DAC members have done so to very different extents (Table 2.1 and Figure 2.2). The Netherlands ranked the highest, with 84%, followed by Ireland and Canada, with 78% and 77%, respectively, reflecting the high priority that these DAC members have placed on gender equality in their development co-operation policies and programmes over several years. While the Netherlands increased its share from 79% in 2019-20, Ireland and Canada dropped from 80% and 88%, respectively. Iceland and Luxembourg also had high shares in 2019-20 but dropped in 2021-22, with Iceland going from 88% to 72% and Luxembourg from 81% to 35%. High shares indicate that gender equality is a clear policy intention for these governments when designing their programmes and projects. It means that most of their interventions were informed by a gender analysis and include at least one explicit gender equality objective backed by at least one gender-specific indicator, that data and indicators are disaggregated by sex where applicable, and that there is a commitment to monitor on the gender equality results. It is concerning that 20 DAC members decreased the share of ODA with gender equality objectives compared to 2019-20 (Table 2.1).
Note: Core funding to UN Women is not included in other parts of the report. An empty cell means that no volume was reported, and zero may be the result of rounding to the nearest million.
Source: OECD (2024[2]), OECD Data Explorer, Creditor Reporting System (Database), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/a9.
The Netherlands and Spain stood out for having the largest shares of ODA for projects dedicated to gender equality, where gender equality is the principal objective, with 28% and 20%, respectively, high above the DAC average of 4%. Interventions that are dedicated to gender equality typically include a results framework with gender-specific indicators to track outcomes and are projects that would not have been undertaken without the gender equality objective.
The EU institutions and Germany provided the largest volumes of ODA including gender equality as a policy objective (principal and significant combined), both with USD 11.4 billion on average per year in 2021-22. They were followed by Japan with USD 7.4 billion and the United States with USD 6 billion. In turn, the Netherlands had the largest volume of ODA dedicated to gender equality as the principal objective, at USD 0.9 billion on average per year in 2021-22.
Source: OECD (2024[2]), OECD Data Explorer, Creditor Reporting System (Database), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/a9.
Beyond bilateral aid, core support to multilateral organisations is critical to advance gender equality
Core support to multilateral organisations – a co-operation modality where the donor gives up the exclusive control of its funds by sharing the responsibility with other stakeholders – is not considered bilateral allocable ODA due to the fact that DAC members are unable to decide on their policy objective. These funds are therefore not reported against the DAC gender equality policy marker and are not included in the figures and analysis in this report.
However, in the specific case of UN Women, the United Nations entity dedicated to gender equality, even if DAC members cannot define the policy objective of their core funding, they are by default supporting efforts to advance the full realisation of women’s rights and opportunities, which is UN Women’s mandate. While some, or much, of the core funding provided for the United Nations Population Fund, the United Nations Children’s Fund, the World Health Organization and others will also help advance gender equality, the exact extent of the focus on gender equality may vary and these data are thus not included here.
Many DAC members provide core funding for UN Women to support their work on gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls; however, volumes have varied over the years and clearly have not increased (Figure 2.3). In 2011-12, DAC members committed USD 168 million on average per year in core funding to UN Women; a decade later they committed USD 157 million. The main contributors of core support in 2021-22 were Switzerland, Finland, Germany and the United States, which together represented close to half of DAC members’ core support to UN Women in the period (Table 2.1). It is important that DAC members continue providing core support to UN Women and other multilateral organisations to ensure their effective functioning, in addition to integrating gender equality objectives into bilateral ODA, which may be channelled through UN Women as well as other multilateral organisations and banks.
In turn, multilateral organisations and banks can assess and report the gender equality focus of their development outflows based on the core support received, to increase transparency and accountability and complete the picture of development finance with gender equality objectives. Chapter 4 provides more information about outflows from multilateral organisations and banks, and the extent to which these actors use the DAC gender equality policy marker.
Two-year averages
Source: OECD (2024[2]), OECD Data Explorer, Creditor Reporting System (Database), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/a9.
Several DAC members have targets to drive more finance for gender equality
Setting quantitative targets for a share of ODA to include gender equality objectives can help direct more resources towards gender equality, create internal awareness on the matter, and enable constructive discussions across teams and development actors involved in development co-operation (OECD, 2022[1]). On the other hand, financial targets also carry the risk of “gender-washing”, since organisations may simulate working on gender equality to ensure funding, or the risk of it becoming a “ceiling” rather than an incentive (OECD, 2022[1]). Targets for gender equality may also be perceived as setting up competition with other cross-cutting issues and sectors. To be effective, it is crucial that financial targets are realistic and accompanied by leadership commitment, human resources and expertise, as well as a clear understanding of the criteria for the DAC gender equality policy marker. Several DAC members have set quantitative targets (Box 2.1) but the DAC as a community does not have a common target for bilateral aid that integrates or is dedicated to gender equality.
Development Assistance Committee (DAC) members’ targets are typically based on the scores of the DAC gender equality policy marker. This box discusses some examples of quantitative targets from DAC members.
In its Feminist International Assistance Policy, Global Affairs Canada commits to integrate gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls into 80% of its bilateral international development assistance and to dedicate 15% to advance gender equality. According to the policy, a targeted approach allows focusing on initiatives that fight poverty and inequality by supporting gender equality. Global Affairs Canada also expects its implementing partners to consult with women and involve them in needs assessments, decision making and planning of initiatives, as well as in the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of projects.
The European Union Gender Action Plan III commits to ensuring that 85% of new EU external actions contribute to gender equality by 2025. The purpose of this gender mainstreaming is to ensure that all policies and programmes maximise their benefits for all and contribute to ending the perpetuation of inequality.
The Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has committed to making efforts to integrate a gender perspective into all of its major initiatives, spanning areas such as climate, renewable energy, food security, health, education, peace and humanitarian efforts, and decent work. In its Action Plan for Women’s Rights and Gender Equality in Norway’s Foreign and Development Policy, the ministry commits to explicitly prioritise gender equality as a principal or significant target in at least 50% of its bilateral aid.
Source: Global Affairs Canada (2021[8]), Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy, https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/priorities-priorites/policy-politique.aspx?lang=eng; European Commission (2020[9]), EU Gender Action Plan (GAP) III – An Ambitious Agenda for Gender Equality and Women's Empowerment in EU External Action, https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-01/join-2020-17-final_en.pdf; Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2023[10]), A Just World is an Equal World: Action Plan for Women’s Rights and Gender Equality in Norway’s Foreign and Development Policy (2023-2030), https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/807b40290fe54663ae1bca5fafae1218/en-gb/pdfs/a-just-world-is-an-equal-world.pdf.
Gender equality is unevenly integrated across partner countries and noticeably low in conflict-affected settings
Africa and Asia receive most of bilateral allocable ODA with gender equality objectives, with USD 19.8 billion and USD 13.9 billion, respectively, on average per year in 2021-22 (Figure 2.4). This corresponds to the regional distribution of overall ODA (with and without gender equality objectives). The main difference is in Europe, where ODA with gender equality objectives is proportionally lower than overall ODA, as a result of the high volume of ODA to Ukraine which has a mostly low gender focus. Projects dedicated to gender equality are more frequent in the Caribbean and Central America (included under America in Figure 2.4), where 7% of ODA has gender equality as the principal objective. The global average is 4%.
Note: Excludes multi-regional and unspecified projects.
Source: OECD (2024[2]), OECD Data Explorer, Creditor Reporting System (Database), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/a9.
The share of ODA with gender equality objectives varies significantly by partner country. A closer look at the top 10 recipients of bilateral allocable ODA in terms of volume in 2021-22 shows striking differences in the level of gender equality integration, with a low focus on gender equality in conflict-affected countries Figure 2.5). While DAC members included gender equality objectives in 42% of their bilateral allocable ODA overall in 2021-22, they did so in less than 10% of their ODA to Ukraine in 2022, the year when Russia’s large-scale aggression against Ukraine started (see Box 3.1 in Chapter 3) (OECD, 2024[5]). Other countries affected by conflict like Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Indonesia, the Syrian Arab Republic and Yemen, which have featured among the largest recipients of ODA from DAC members for several years, also have shares of gender equality integration below the DAC share of 42%.
A case in point is Afghanistan, where women and girls have seen their rights severely curtailed since the takeover of the country by the Taliban in 2021. Over the past three years, more than 70 edicts, directives and decrees have deprived Afghan women and girls from fundamental rights (UN Women, 2024[11]). Women are currently required to cover their entire bodies and faces, are prohibited from singing or raising their voices in public, prohibited from using public transport alone, and are not allowed to attend secondary school or university. Unless there is a concerted effort to include gender equality considerations in every ODA intervention in Afghanistan, development co-operation will contribute to normalising and perpetuating these inequalities and discrimination, harming women and girls. Chapter 3 further discusses to the necessity of maintaining a focus on gender equality in development co-operation to conflict-affected settings.
On the other hand, ODA to Bangladesh, India, the Philippines and Türkiye, which are also among the largest ODA recipients, integrated gender equality objectives to a high extent in 2021-22, well above the DAC total share of 42%.
Note: The share for Ukraine is 11% on average in 2021-22. Broken down by individual year, 39% of ODA to Ukraine included gender equality objectives in 2021 and less than 10% in 2022.
Source: OECD (2024[2]), OECD Data Explorer, Creditor Reporting System (Database), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/a9.
Finance for gender equality is not necessarily going where inequalities are the greatest
One might think that there is a stronger effort to integrate gender equality objectives into ODA to countries where gender inequality is higher. However, crossing information on gender-focused ODA with the United Nations Development Programme’s Gender Inequality Index1 scores does not show such a pattern. If the integration of gender equality objectives into ODA was perfectly responsive to gender inequality, a diagonal line would be evident in Figure 2.6, suggesting higher levels of gender-focused aid for countries with higher levels of gender inequality. However, there is no evidence of this correlation. Guinea-Bissau and Haiti provide a striking example: Both countries have similarly high levels of gender inequality according to the Gender Inequality Index, but while 76% of ODA to Guinea-Bissau includes gender equality objectives, only 39% of ODA to Haiti does. It is beyond the scope of this report to explore the underlying factors, but further analysis of gender equality integration into different sectors and by development partners in these two countries could provide new insights on drivers and barriers for a gender equality focus of ODA. While every development co-operation project should aim to have a positive impact on gender equality, this is even more important in ODA for the most unequal countries.
Note: ODA: official development assistance; UNDP: United Nations Development Programme. Includes the 114 countries where both the ODA data and the index score were available.
Source: OECD (2024[2]), OECD Data Explorer, Creditor Reporting System (Database), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/a9.
UNDP (2024[12]), Gender Inequality Index, https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/thematic-composite-indices/gender-inequality-index#/indicies/GII.
Gender equality remains unevenly integrated into ODA across sectors
As in previous years, gender equality remains unevenly integrated across the various sectors supported by bilateral allocable ODA. “Humanitarian aid” and aid for the “energy” sector continue to have the lowest shares of aid with gender equality objectives (see Chapter 3). Conversely, it is positive that gender equality is well integrated into the “other social infrastructure and services”, “education”, and “agriculture and rural development” sectors.
In terms of volumes of ODA with gender equality objectives, the main sectors benefiting are “health”, “government and civil society”, and “other economic infrastructure and services” (Figure 2.7). The “government and civil society” sector includes areas such as public sector policy, public financial management, human rights and democratic participation. Annual volumes of ODA for this sector (with and without gender equality objectives) did not fluctuate much from 2011 to 2021; however, in 2022, ODA to this sector peaked at USD 21.8 billion, partially related to Ukraine, where gender equality was poorly integrated (see Chapter 3).
Among the largest ODA recipient partner countries, those who integrate gender equality objectives to a high extent (see Figure 2.5) do so in a variety of sectors. In Bangladesh and India, for example, large volumes of ODA with gender equality objectives were committed in the rail transport, urban development, water supply and sanitation, and medical services sectors. In Türkiye, large volumes of aid with gender equality objectives were committed to the social protection and employment creation sectors. In the Philippines, large volumes went to rail transport, health policy and environmental policy. This diversity of sectors shows that gender equality objectives can be included in projects under any policy area. The French Development Agency’s programme to finance the extension of Ahmedabad’s metro line in India is an example that reflects the linkages between gender equality and safe public transportation (AFD, 2024[13]). A gender analysis was undertaken, and a gender action plan developed with specific gender objectives and gender disaggregated data. Deliverables included surveillance cameras, lighting, dedicated parking lots and separate facilities for women. Trainings on gender equality and women’s health, involving a local non‑governmental organisation, were also organised as part of the programme.
Source: OECD (2024[2]), OECD Data Explorer, Creditor Reporting System (Database), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/a9.
While multilateral organisations have become more prominent as a channel for ODA for gender equality, civil society organisations have become less prominent
Bilateral ODA by DAC members that includes gender equality objectives is delivered (“channelled”) through different development actors, and these channels may shift over time (Figure 2.8). Public sector institutions have seen a slight increase over the last decade, constantly accounting for at least a third of ODA with gender equality objectives. This includes support by DAC members for programmes run by partner country governments, for example the Sustenta programme, which is led by Mozambique’s Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and supported by the Austrian Development Agency (OECD, 2024[2]). This programme aims to ensure food security and increase family income through improved agricultural production with a focus on households headed by women.
Changes are more visible in the multilateral organisations and civil society organisations (CSO) channels. While multilateral organisations were utilised to channel 21% of the ODA with gender equality objectives in 2011-12, this went up to 29% in 2021-22. At the same time, CSOs went from channelling 27% of ODA with gender equality objectives in 2011-12 to 19% in 2021-22. Private sector institutions, which did not feature as a channel for ODA with gender equality objectives a decade ago, are currently utilised to deliver 6%.
Two-year averages
Source: OECD (2024[2]), OECD Data Explorer, Creditor Reporting System (Database), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/a9.
It is important to note that these channels can and may transfer funds they receive onwards to other actors, so they are not necessarily the end recipient of the funds, but the intermediary through which the funds are channelled. For example, in programmes or funds managed by multilateral organisations such as the Women, Peace and Humanitarian Fund; the UN Trust Fund to End Violence Against Women; or the Global Partnership for Education, CSOs and other actors are likely to be involved in implementation. The increased used of multilateral organisations to channel funds with gender equality objectives is, however, in line with a broader trend observed in all ODA by DAC members, that ODA to and through multilateral organisations reached a new record high in 2022. This growth in multilateral contributions has been largely driven by crisis response rather than by long-term sustainable development priorities (OECD, 2024[14]).
Although the share of ODA with gender equality objectives channelled through CSOs decreased, the volume increased steadily over the decade, from USD 6.9 billion on average in 2011‑12 to USD 11.3 billion in 2021-22. Of the USD 11.3 billion, USD 7.2 billion were channelled through CSOs based in donor countries,2 USD 2.7 billion through international CSOs, USD 1.2 billion through CSOs based in partner countries and USD 0.2 billion went through CSOs whose type was not defined at the time of reporting. CSOs based in partner countries have historically received a marginal share of the funding channelled through CSOs (Figure 2.9), despite DAC members’ increasing recognition of the importance of localising support for partner country civil society actors (OECD, 2023[15]). The tendency to channel more funds through international and donor-based CSOs than through CSOs based in partner countries is also seen in ODA more broadly, not only in ODA with gender equality objectives. Chapter 3 discusses this further.
Two-year averages
Note: CSO: civil society organisation. Excludes CSOs whose type was not defined at the time of reporting.
Source: OECD (2024[2]), OECD Data Explorer, Creditor Reporting System (Database), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/a9.
Other official flows are not well screened against the gender equality policy marker and integrate gender equality objectives to a low extent
In addition to ODA, DAC members also integrate gender equality objectives into their other official flows (OOFs). OOFs are official contributions that do not meet ODA eligibility criteria, either because they are not primarily aimed at development or because they are not sufficiently concessional3 (see Annex A for the full definition of OOFs) (OECD, 2024[16]). OOFs by DAC members are often provided by their development finance institutions. OOFs with gender equality objectives include, for example, investment funds lending money to microfinance institutions and farmers' co-operatives, or funds investing in financial and health services. In the 2024 DAC Recommendation on Gender Equality and the Empowerment of All Women and Girls in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance (OECD/LEGAL/5022) (OECD, 2024[17]), members committed to promoting “the availability of different forms of finance for gender equality, including ODA but also other official flows such as those used in blended finance, bonds, guarantees and private investments”.
Although it is not mandatory for DAC members to report their OOFs to the OECD, reporting has improved over the years (Figure 2.10). In 2021-22, total OOFs reached USD 12.1 billion on average per year, with 18 of the 32 DAC members reporting.
Two-year averages
Note: Reporting of types of aid for other official flows became mandatory starting with 2021 flows.
Source: OECD (2024[2]), OECD Data Explorer, Creditor Reporting System (Database), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/a9.
In addition to reporting more OOFs over time, DAC members have also been screening more of their OOFs against the gender equality policy marker, providing greater transparency on the extent to which these funds include gender equality considerations. While in 2011‑12 no funds were examined against the marker, more than two-thirds of them were examined in 2021-22 (USD 8.3 billion out of USD 12.1 billion). From the 18 DAC members who reported OOFs in 2021-22, 13 examined more than half of their OOFs against the marker (Figure 2.11).
Some DAC members are also, or instead, reporting their OOFs to the 2X Challenge, a collective effort to mobilise private sector investments with a gender lens, which tracks gender lens investments using its unique methodology. Efforts are ongoing to map the 2X criteria to the DAC gender equality policy marker scores to facilitate and align reporting. Chapter 4 discusses this further.
In terms of including gender equality objectives in OOFs, the trend has also been positive. In 2021-22, 42% of the OOFs examined against the marker (USD 3.5 billion out of USD 8.3 billion) had gender equality objectives, which is the same share as for ODA flows. So, in addition to the USD 60.4 billion of ODA, DAC members also included gender equality considerations in USD 3.5 billion of their OOFs in 2021-22. The United States was the largest contributor of OOFs with gender equality objectives in 2021-22, with USD 1.9 billion on average per year. Of this, USD 0.3 billion were dedicated to achieving gender equality. One example is a loan by the US International Development Finance Corporation, the development finance institution, to a microcredit company in India to finance the expansion of its investments in the sectors of renewable energy and women’s empowerment, among others (DFC, 2021[18]). Germany included gender equality objectives in USD 0.9 billion of OOFs.
Source: OECD (2024[2]), OECD Data Explorer, Creditor Reporting System (Database), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/a9.
The banking and financial services sector benefits from the largest volume of OOF overall, which is an opportunity for those wanting to strengthen the gender equality focus of their investments. In 2021‑22, USD 5.9 billion in OOFs went for banking and financial services, out of which USD 4.2 billion were examined against the gender marker and USD 2.1 billion included gender equality objectives. One example is Germany’s contribution to the International Monetary Fund’s Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust, which allows loans to low-income member countries at preferential terms (OECD, 2024[2]). Loans from the trust can include financial and technical support to women entrepreneurs to launch, consolidate and grow their businesses.
Source: OECD (2024[2]), OECD Data Explorer, Creditor Reporting System (Database), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/a9.
References
[13] AFD (2024), Phase II of the Ahmedabad metro, https://www.afd.fr/en/carte-des-projets/phase-ii-ahmedabad-metro (accessed on 5 July 2024).
[18] DFC (2021), DFC 2021 Annual Report, US International Development Finance Corporation, https://www.dfc.gov/sites/default/files/media/documents/DFC_2021_Annual_Report_Final_Web_508_RO.pdf.
[9] European Commission (2020), EU Gender Action Plan (GAP) III – An Ambitious Agenda for Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in EU External Action, European Commission, Brussels, https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-01/join-2020-17-final_en.pdf.
[8] Global Affairs Canada (2021), Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy, Government of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/priorities-priorites/policy-politique.aspx?lang=eng.
[10] Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (2023), A Just World is an Equal World: Action Plan for Women’s Rights and Gender Equality in Norway’s Foreign and Development Policy (2023-2030), Norwegian Government Security and Service Organisation, https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/807b40290fe54663ae1bca5fafae1218/en-gb/pdfs/a-just-world-is-an-equal-world.pdf.
[17] OECD (2024), DAC Recommendation on Gender Equality and the Empowerment of All Women and Girls in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-5022.
[14] OECD (2024), Multilateral Development Finance 2024, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8f1e2b9b-en.
[6] OECD (2024), ODA trends and statistics, web page, https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/oda-trends-and-statistics.html (accessed on August 2024).
[2] OECD (2024), OECD Data Explorer, Creditor Reporting System Statistics (Database), http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/a9 (accessed on 18 August 2024).
[5] OECD (2024), Official Development Assistance for Gender Equality in Ukraine in 2022, ONE Members and Partners, https://one.oecd.org/document/DCD/DAC/GEN(2024)4/en/pdf.
[16] OECD (2024), Other official flows (OOF), https://doi.org/10.1787/6afef3df-en (accessed on 9 July 2024).
[7] OECD (2023), Development Co-operation Report 2023: Debating the Aid System, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f6edc3c2-en.
[15] OECD (2023), Funding Civil Society in Partner Countries: Toolkit for Implementing the DAC Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance, Best Practices in Development Co-operation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9ea40a9c-en.
[4] OECD (2023), Joining Forces for Gender Equality: What is Holding us Back?, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/67d48024-en.
[1] OECD (2022), Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women and Girls: DAC Guidance for Development Partners, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0bddfa8f-en.
[11] UN Women (2024), “UN Women deeply concerned by new Afghanistan morality law”, https://www.unwomen.org/en/news-stories/statement/2024/08/un-women-deeply-concerned-by-new-afghanistan-morality-law.
[3] UN Women et al. (2024), Are We Getting There? A Synthesis of UN System Evaluations of SDG 5, https://www.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/2024-05/are-we-getting-there-a-synthesis-of-un-system-evaluations-of-sdg-5-en.pdf.
[12] UNDP (2024), Gender Inequality Index (GII), https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/thematic-composite-indices/gender-inequality-index#/indicies/GII (accessed on 15 July 2024).
← 1. The UNDP Gender Inequality Index is a composite metric of gender inequality that reflects gender-based disadvantage in three dimensions: reproductive health, empowerment and the labour market. It ranges from 0, where women and men fare equally, to 1, where one gender fares as poorly as possible in all measured dimensions.
← 2. A donor country-based non-governmental organisation (NGO) is an NGO organised at the national level, based and operated either in the donor country or another developed (non-ODA eligible) country.
← 3. The Principles of ODA Modernisation on private sector instruments (PSI) present PSI as “non‑concessional in nature”; however, they can convey positive grant elements that are used to measure the donor effort included in the ODA grant-equivalent measure under certain eligibility criteria. PSIs include loans to the private sector, guarantees, equity investments, mezzanine finance instruments and reimbursable grants. For more information see the 2024 Converged Statistical Reporting Directives for the Creditor Reporting System and the relevant annex for treatment of PSI.