OECD Development Co‑operation Peer Reviews: Italy 2026

Annex B. Progress against OECD legal instruments under the responsibility of the DAC

Recommendations adopted by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC)

DAC Recommendation on the Terms and Conditions of Aid

The average grant element of Italian official development assistance (ODA) commitments was 97% in 2022 and 99.7% in 2023, both above the grant element norm of 86%, thus meeting the requirements of Paragraph 2 of the Recommendation on the Terms and Conditions of Aid [OECD/LEGAL/5006]. At 0.29% in 2024, Italy’s ODA commitments as a share of gross national income (GNI) were below the DAC average of 0.34%. This percentage does not meet the requirements of Paragraph 3 of the Recommendation.

In 2022-2023, Italy met the commitment on the special terms for least developed countries (LDCs) (Paragraph 8), exceeding the 90% norm. The grant element of bilateral ODA commitments to LDCs reached 99% in 2022 and 97% in 2023.

Table A B.1. Performance against commitments and DAC recommendations

Description	Target	2022	2023	2024
ODA as a proportion of GNI (%)	0.7	0.33	0.27	0.29
Total ODA to least developed countries, as a percentage of GNI (%)	0.15-0.20	0.05	0.04	0.05
Share of untied ODA targeted by DAC recommendation (%)	100	80.4	88.9	92.2
Share of untied ODA (all sectors and countries combined, beyond the scope of the Recommendation on Untying ODA) (%)		87.6	87.3	93.6
Grant element as a proportion of total ODA commitments (%)	>86	97	99.7	96.7

DAC Recommendation on Untying Official Development Assistance

In 2024, the share of de jure untied ODA commitments to countries and territories covered by the Recommendation stood at 92.2% (88.9% in 2023), excluding administrative costs and in-donor refugee costs [OECD/LEGAL/5015]. Overall, Italy’s tied aid went primarily to Italian training and capacity building programmes, scholarships and emergency relief or medical assistance.

On average over the five-year period of 2019-2023, Italy awarded 10% of untied contracts (in terms of value) to domestic entities. This share serves as a proxy for de facto share of untying.

Regarding adherence to the transparency provision of the Recommendation, Italy consistently reports to the DAC Secretariat on its ex post contract awards. It does not, however, report to the DAC Secretariat ex ante.

Beyond the scope of the Recommendation, 93.6% of Italy’s bilateral ODA commitments in 2024 (excluding administrative costs, scholarships and student costs in donor countries, development awareness and in-donor refugee costs), were untied (87.3% in 2023).

DAC Recommendation on the Humanitarian-Development-Peace (HDP) Nexus

Italy has shown progress in implementing the DAC Recommendation on the Humanitarian-Development-Peace (HDP) Nexus [OECD/LEGAL/5019]. The Guidelines on the Humanitarian, Development and Peace Nexus, approved in 2023, help promote the nexus approach in the pilot countries identified in Italy’s 2024-2026 Programming and Policy Planning Document (PPPD), i.e. Colombia, Ethiopia and Lebanon. This includes conducting joint analyses through a consultative process engaging all actors of the Italian development co‑operation system, both locally and centrally, including civil society organisations (CSOs). In Ethiopia, Italy works to apply a fragility and conflict prevention lens to all its programming and the HDP nexus approach is evident in linking the overall country portfolio, including migration policies, with development objectives (Box 3). To support quick, effective and precise implementation, the Italian Agency for Development Co-operation (AICS) adopted two operational tools in consultation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (MAECI), CSOs and academia: the FAQs on the HDP nexus (based on the Nexus academy’s Essentials Course and the DAC-UN Dialogue) and an Operational Manual for Joint Context Analysis in Situation of Crisis and FragilityOperating Manual for Joint Context Analysis in Crisis and Fragility Situations (2025) to guide country offices in drafting joint analyses for conflict and gender sensitive contexts and focusing on the comparative advantage and expertise of the Italian system

Italy endorsed the Compact on Women Peace and Security and Humanitarian Action (WPS - HA). In this framework, Italy committed to supporting local women-led organisations (WLOs) and local women's rights organisations (WROs). In 2023-2024, Italy committed USD 19.45 million to women’s rights organisations and movements (OECD, 2025[1]) and it has supported the Women’s Peace and Humanitarian Fund since 2022, contributing EUR 3 million in 2023. In humanitarian contexts, 70% of commitments assessed against the Gender Marker had gender equality as a principal or significant objective in 2023-2024 (OECD, 2025[1]).

Italy can readily programme and budget in an HDP continuum, with most emergency humanitarian assistance channelled to and through multilateral and civil society partners, while bilateral ODA tends to go towards the combination of relief, development and peace. Italy’s concerted efforts to invest in and advocate for peace dividends in Ethiopia and other places has not necessarily translated into higher ODA for peace, which is defined by a group of sector codes1. Italy continues to show clear leadership in protecting cultural heritage sites in all contexts at risk across the world, including in partnership with UNESCO and the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM). In 2023 and 2024, an annual average of USD 172 million was committed for disability mainstreaming (Disability Policy Marker 1 or 2) in all contexts (not just humanitarian).

Italy funded the Conflict sensitivity operational toolkit, published by We World in December 2022. The Toolkit helps organisations to incorporate conflict sensitivity into their strategic and operational approaches, moving beyond a purely technical application of principles. Its modular design ensures flexibility across different areas of crisis response.

Local CSOs are eligible to receive direct humanitarian funding from the Italian co‑operation and the formats for calls for proposal are currently being translated into English and French to facilitate the participation of local and national responders. Moreover, CSOs can attach specific administrative documents to the application in the official or commonly used language of the intervention country. In 2023-2024, Italy channelled an average of USD 31 million to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC).

Italy plans its contribution using data on current needs and crises from INFORM, the OECD-DAC Fragility framework, the World Bank Fragility Classification, and the EU’s Forgotten crisis assessment. Using data and insights from multiple sources allows for the design of needs-based and context-sensitive HDP financing strategies.

Italy recognises that unearmarked and flexible funding allows for greater adaptability in allocating resources where they are needed the most, and it is committed to gradually increasing humanitarian unearmarked funding. In 2023, it provided USD 18.9 million to the Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF), positioning it as one of the top ten donors in that year. On average, Italy provided USD 28.7 million per year through civil society actors for humanitarian assistance in 2023 and 2024, with projects lasting up to 24 months.

DAC Recommendation on Ending Sexual Exploitation, Abuse and Harassment in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance

Italy has taken meaningful steps to strengthen its prevention of sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment (PSEAH) safeguards, particularly within AICS, but progress on the DAC Recommendation is not yet system wide [OECD/LEGAL/5020]. Recent measures include a review of its Ethics Code and an update of the PSEAH Code of Conduct, the recruitment of an independent Confidential Counsellor with a dedicated helpline, and periodic training for staff. Italy engages in international PSEAH fora, has co-signed several joint donor letters to the UN system, and in 2024 MAECI and AICS endorsed the Common Approach to PSEAH (CAPSEAH). These are significant building blocks, but they remain concentrated in AICS and multilateral policy dialogue, with less evidence that a common standard is in place for other actors involved in Italian co-operation (including the Cassa Depositi e Prestiti S.p.A. [CDP] and line ministries). There is also no evidence that sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment (SEAH) risk assessments are systematically integrated into programme design or operational guidance, nor that minimum standards apply consistently across geographic offices and instruments.

Italy’s reliance on UN agencies, international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) and a wide range of Italian CSOs makes strong partner oversight essential. Italy expects implementing partners to have appropriate SEAH standards, and SEAH clauses are now included in many agreements. Italy started including - in humanitarian aid call for proposals - PSEAH activities among those eligible of receiving funds, to strengthen its partners’ capacity to prevent and respond to SEAH. However, Italy’s PSEAH compliance verification relies heavily on self-reporting, with no clear risk-based mechanism to assess or follow up on partners’ systems, including smaller organisations with weaker safeguards.

Reporting and survivor-centred response mechanisms remain limited in scope and accessibility. The Confidential Counsellor provides an important institutional entry point for complaints and protection advice, and whistleblowing procedures exist, but there is little indication that beneficiaries or local communities are informed of these channels or that procedures are adapted to local contexts. Without accessible, well-communicated reporting options outside Italy, uptake is likely to remain low.

DAC Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance

Civil society remains one of Italy’s strongest assets in development co-operation, with strong evidence of sustained political recognition and operational reliance on CSO partnerships. The legislative framework under Law 125/2014 embeds inclusive multi-stakeholder engagement, broad eligibility for CSOs and structured consultation through the National Council for Development Co‑operation (CNCS). Long-standing partnerships with Italian CSOs, academia, diaspora groups and faith-based organisations contribute to continuity, territorial presence and local trust. Italy also channels a relatively high share of its bilateral ODA directly to CSOs – 7.4% in 2023, above the DAC average of 1% (OECD, 2025[2]) – and recent efforts to expand multi-year funding, streamline procedures and improve transparency reinforce the enabling environment. Italy’s active participation in the DAC Community of Practice on Civil Society, including work on due diligence harmonisation, further demonstrates sustained commitment to Pillar Two of the Recommendation [OECD/LEGAL/5021].

Italy has recently taken additional steps to operationalise the Recommendation, particularly on localisation and equitable partnerships. While direct funding to non-Italian CSOs is not permitted, local partners may manage portions of project budgets and direct funding is possible in the context of humanitarian assistance, provided formal partnership agreements exist. The introduction of multi-year calls and recent simplification efforts – including updated humanitarian procedures that reinforce the “do no harm” principle, strengthen risk sharing, streamline requirements and include faster response modalities – reflect an intent to reduce administrative burdens and improve partnership quality. The large 2024-2025 call for civil society projects in Côte d’Ivoire in education or social protection (EUR 30 million) placed explicit emphasis on local capacity and governance strengthening. In parallel, Italy has expanded its Global Citizenship Education efforts, backed by a National Strategy and Action Plan and a multi-stakeholder working group that helps ensure co‑ordinated implementation and monitoring across ministries, local authorities, CSOs and evaluation bodies. These are meaningful advances, though many reforms remain in an early phase and their system-wide application is not yet assured.

Despite this progress, structural constraints still limit full alignment with the Recommendation. Policy dialogue with CSOs, while active, remains insufficiently institutionalised and is not consistently connected to programming decisions. Heavy reliance on project-based funding – with uneven use of multi-year modalities and calls for proposals launched without predictable annual cycles – undermines long-term planning and disproportionately affects smaller or local CSOs. Legal, linguistic and administrative barriers also continue to inhibit more direct support to local CSOs, even as Italy works to enhance local engagement through new monitoring indicators and a 2025 expert panel on localisation.

Civic space considerations, central to Pillar One, are acknowledged but not yet systematically integrated into country strategies, context analyses, or risk assessments. Italy participates in several co‑ordination fora (COHAFA, INCAF, DAC Community of Practice on Civil Society), yet the translation of insights from these platforms into operational risk mitigation remains limited. As Italy expands its work in politically sensitive areas – including migration co‑operation, private-sector engagement and high-visibility initiatives under the Mattei Plan – embedding structured civic space analysis into planning and dialogue processes will be increasingly important to avoid inadvertently reinforcing restrictive environments.

While Italy has begun strengthening internal accountability systems (Pillar Three) – including updated AICS administrative control guidelines, alignment with EU PRAG standards and participation in the DAC CoP subgroup on due diligence harmonisation – support to CSO-led self-regulation remains limited. Italy’s monitoring framework is still evolving and indicators on local CSO engagement have only recently been introduced. As a result, mechanisms to assess partnership quality, downward accountability and risk-sharing remain nascent.

DAC Recommendation on Gender Equality and the Empowerment of All Women and Girls in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance

Italy demonstrates sustained political commitment to gender equality, grounded in Law 125/2014 and reflected consistently across successive PPPDs. Italy also plays an active role in multilateral gender fora including the Group of Seven (G7), the DAC Network on Gender Equality (GENDERNET), the Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). The approval of the 2020-2024 Gender Guidelines, translated into four languages and developed through a multi-stakeholder process, has strengthened the policy framework, while AICS has expanded operational tools such as a gender glossary, a manual for gender analysis, and ex ante screening of all initiatives by gender focal points. These steps mark an institutionalisation of gender mainstreaming across the development system [OECD/LEGAL/5022].

Despite these advances, implementation remains uneven across instruments and institutions. The Gender Guidelines commit all development actors, including CDP, local authorities, CSOs, universities and the private sector, to mainstreaming gender, but the integration remains stronger in AICS-managed grants than in CDP-managed loans and blended finance, where gender analysis and markers are less systematically embedded. Similarly, while gender focal points and training initiatives have expanded, variations in institutional culture, capacity and mandate continue to limit whole-of-system consistency.

Progress on monitoring and accountability is notable but still partial. Italy systematically applies the DAC Gender Policy Marker, conducts ex ante gender analyses and publishes an annual gender report that enhances transparency. However, there is limited evidence that gender considerations systematically influence priority setting or risk analysis, particularly in fragile contexts where Italy increasingly invests and where gender analysis should be strongest, or that gender results are systematically tracked at outcome level.

Recommendations adopted by the Council under the DAC’s responsibility (joint with other OECD committees)

Recommendation on Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development

Italy has strengthened its institutional commitment to Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development (PCSD), most notably through the National Sustainable Development Strategy (NSDS) and the 2023 National Action Plan on PCSD (PCSD NAP), annexed to the NSDS, which together provide a formal, whole-of-government framework for implementing the Recommendation [OECD/LEGAL/0381]. They provide Italy with a clearly articulated strategic vision, backed by political endorsement from the Interministerial Committee for Ecological Transition (CITE) and supported by Law 125/2014 for the transboundary dimension. The PCSD NAP introduces several promising tools – coherence matrices, coherence fiches and strategic foresight processes – designed to screen policies against NSDS and sustainable development goal (SDG) objectives. It also foresees a sustainability dashboard to integrate monitoring frameworks and track PCSD results across government. These developments represent a significant advance in line with the DAC Recommendation (OECD, 2024[3]). Nevertheless, many instruments are still being piloted or have not reached full operationalisation.

Italy has also expanded institutional mechanisms for whole-of-government co‑ordination. The Interministerial Group for NSDS/PCSD, the National Working Group for NSDS Monitoring and the Interministerial Committee for Economic Programming and Sustainable Development (CIPESS) collectively support strategic alignment and monitoring. However, institutions relevant to development co‑operation, particularly CICS and the CNCS, remain underutilised from a PCSD perspective. CICS, though mandated to arbitrate policy inconsistencies, meets infrequently, and CNCS retains a largely advisory role, with further potential for it to bring a whole-of society perspective to bear on PCSD discussions. Sectoral ministries continue to operate largely under their own mandates, sometimes independently of MAECI or the NSDS framework, creating risks of parallel or uncoordinated international engagement. Moreover, new political initiatives such as the Mattei Plan and the Rome Process increase co‑ordination demands across the system and may also lead to increased scrutiny on policy coherence issues.

Localisation of the SDGs represents a major strength of Italy’s PCSD system. Almost all regions and metropolitan cities have developed Regional Sustainable Development Strategies (RSDSs) within the strategic framework provided by the NSDS and the PCSD NAP. These strategies aim to translate PCSD principles into practice by guiding future planning and sectoral instruments and by linking strategic objectives with budgeting processes and evaluation systems. The RSDSs have also introduced institutional and governance innovations that promote policy integration and encourage inter-institutional collaboration. To this aim, regions have established co‑ordination mechanisms that bring together relevant actors across administrations and oversee the monitoring of RSDS implementation. Framework agreements between individual regions and the Ministry of the Environment and Energy Security (MASE) provide both financial and technical support to develop and implement the RSDSs. Many regions also participate actively in monitoring the NSDS and piloting coherence tools. For example, most regions have used horizontal and vertical coherence matrices for the design of the RSDS to assess positive and negative interactions between existing strategies and the objectives of the RSDSs. The National Forum for Sustainable Development (FSD), with more than 280 stakeholders, also provides an institutionalised platform for whole-of-society engagement.

Monitoring and reporting have significantly improved, particularly through the annual NSDS report, the vertical integrated assessment of RSDS contributions, and Italy’s Voluntary National Review (VNR) process. The PCSD NAP monitoring and evaluation framework further anchors PCSD in Italy’s institutional practice. Still, linkages between PCSD monitoring and development co-operation reporting remain limited, and the system does not yet systematically assess how domestic policies affect partner-country sustainable development. Strengthening these interfaces – especially between MASE, MAECI, AICS and CDP – would support fuller alignment with the PCSD Recommendation. Italy’s increasingly outward-facing strategies (e.g. Piano Mattei, climate and energy partnerships, migration agreements) will require a more robust, routine assessment of transboundary impacts in the years to come, suggesting a need for reinforcing CICS or another body as the central mechanism to resolve trade-offs across government.

Recommendation for Development Co‑operation Actors on Managing the Risk of Corruption

Italy has strengthened its anti-corruption architecture in recent years [OECD/LEGAL/0431], with AICS leading the most substantial developments. An updated code of ethics and a new PSEAH code (2023-2025) set clearer behavioural and safeguarding standards for staff and partners and represent a meaningful step toward professionalising integrity systems. These efforts are supported by an expanding set of oversight mechanisms, including a focal point for preventing corruption and transparency, a public whistleblowing portal, a confidential counsellor, and a guarantee committee for equal opportunities, which together enhance internal accountability and offer multiple entry points for confidential reporting.

Italy has invested heavily in training and awareness raising, with recurrent modules on corruption prevention, procurement, conflict of interest, transparency and risk management delivered across headquarters and field offices. The systematic identification of staff in high-risk situations or areas for dedicated training through the National School of Administration mark progress toward embedding a risk-management culture. Internal control functions have been strengthened through updated audit manuals, multi-year audit plans and operational audits in overseas offices, while the introduction of a risk management manual grounded in enterprise risk management (ERM) principles provides a more preventive and organisation-wide approach to risk mapping.

Contractual safeguards have also been reinforced. Bilateral agreements now include suspension/ termination clauses and allow for on-site checks while due diligence on CSO partners systematically uses Italian compliance databases. In agreements with multilateral organisations, Italy signals a strong commitment to anti-corruption standards, including through provisions related to the recovery or reallocation of misused funds. While this reflects positive intent, such measures should be applied proportionately and in a manner that recognises and trusts the established governance and accountability systems of multilateral organisations. Taken together, these constitute important improvements, particularly as Italy scales up its use of diverse delivery channels and financial instruments.

Despite these advances, progress remains uneven across the broader development co‑operation system. Most recent reforms are concentrated within AICS, while DGCS and embassies follow MAECI anti-corruption and ethics rules and CDP applies standard contractual safeguards against corruption; however, a fully harmonised, system-wide approach to corruption-risk management and shared due diligence tools has yet to emerge. The current whistleblowing and oversight mechanisms would also benefit from greater visibility and accessibility, including by partners, in country offices, where AICS is co-located with other Italian development co‑operation actors, as well as more consolidated reporting across institutions to detect systemic risks. Similarly, while AICS carries out an annual risk mapping exercise, the link between risk assessment and programme design, partner selection and country-level planning remains insufficiently institutionalised.

Finally, Italy contributes to anti-corruption efforts internationally, including support to the Istituto Italo‑Latino Americano’s (IILA) financial crime training and the OECD Academy for Tax and Financial Crime Investigation, showing commitment to addressing corruption risks beyond its own portfolio.

Recommendation on Environmental Assessment of Development Assistance Projects and Programmes

Italy has strengthened the technical basis for integrating environmental assessment into its development co‑operation, particularly through AICS’s revised appraisal system. AICS developed a ten-component development-effectiveness scoring system (currently under review following the introduction of updated appraisal and review procedures) that includes environmental sustainability and is supported by early, informal exchanges between thematic offices and field teams during project design. Two formal technical evaluation steps follow, during which sectoral thematic offices review proposals, including the correct assignment of policy markers and Rio markers. Cross-cutting or multi-sector initiatives trigger the involvement of additional thematic offices as needed. Within this system, the Environment and Land Use Office plays a central role, vetting environment policy markers and Rio markers across the whole grant portfolio and conducting environmental and sustainability assessments primarily for initiatives falling within its mandate to help identify and mitigate potential negative environmental impacts. Italy has also developed an extensive suite of analytical and operational tools such as the 2023 Environmental Mainstreaming and Screening Guidance, the Environmental Sustainability Matrix, sector-specific manuals (water, sanitation and hygiene; slum regeneration), and new guidance for carbon markets, covering all areas identified in the DAC Recommendation’s Appendix [OECD/LEGAL/0458]. These advances represent a meaningful step toward standardising environmental assessment across project design and approval.

However, implementation remains highly concentrated in AICS, with varying approaches across other parts of the system. CDP applies a group-wide impact assessment framework across its own financing and managed instruments, including the Italian Climate Fund and Plafond Africa, while environmental assessments for the Revolving Fund for Development Co-operation are carried out by AICS. Beyond these arrangements, clarity is still needed on how consistently screening tools are mandatory, applied early in the programme cycle, and used at field level. Italy’s progress would be strengthened by formalising whole-of-system requirements for environmental screening, building capacity beyond AICS where needed, and ensuring that new country strategies and PPPD cycles embed environmental assessment as a compulsory, early step rather than an add-on.

OECD-DAC Declarations

OECD DAC Declaration on a new approach to align development co-operation with the goals of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change

Italy has markedly increased its climate ambition in recent years, with the Italian Climate Fund (ICF) emerging as a major driver of its international climate action. The ICF (EUR 4.4 billion over 2022-2026) is managed by CDP and primarily finances mitigation and adaptation projects in agriculture, energy, transport and water infrastructure. Projects to protect biodiversity and combat desertification are also included. It applies Rio marker screening, assesses expected climate impacts ex ante and ex post, and requires consistency with partner countries’ climate strategies. The ICF’s structure, combining grants, loans, blended finance and technical assistance, provides a strong basis for supporting Paris Agreement-aligned transitions in partner countries, particularly in Africa where over half of ICF projects are concentrated. In line with the DAC Declaration [OECD/LEGAL/0466] and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) pillars, Italy has also strengthened engagement on loss and damage, including a EUR 100 million pledge to the new Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage. Italy’s overall climate finance portfolio also reflects a strong focus on LDCs and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) across both bilateral and multilateral channels.

Beyond the ICF, Italy has taken steps to strengthen climate mainstreaming across its development co‑operation tools. AICS requires Rio marker screening for all operations and applies a two-stage process combining compliance checks and the integration of climate objectives, supported by thematic review from headquarters. Italy’s climate-finance reporting framework follows UNFCCC and EU requirements, with AICS responsible for validation and quality control of all climate-relevant financial data reported to the DAC. Italy has also endorsed the Locally Led Adaptation (LLA) principles, introduced a new adaptation performance review tool, and advanced targeted adaptation initiatives such as support to early warning systems and climate-resilient agriculture. Italy continues to play an active role across the Rio Conventions, including a leading position under the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) and sustained engagement on biodiversity, which it increasingly seeks to integrate into a coherent climate-environment portfolio. Multilateral partnerships remain a core strength, including support to UNFCCC COP28 outcomes, the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage, the Green Climate Fund, the Global Environment Facility, the Climate Investment Funds, the Global Shield, and long-standing collaborations with the World Bank’s Energy Sector Management Assistance Program (ESMAP), the Promoting Africa’s Green and Climate Resilient Development (AGREED) programme and the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO).

Italy is also contributing to broader global processes aimed at Paris Agreement alignment. Within Team Europe, it participates in joint programming discussions linked to the Global Gateway, and it plays a leading role in the coffee-climate nexus through the Team Europe Initiative (TEI) on Coffee in Africa, which embeds climate resilience at the core of value chain development. Domestically, Italy’s updated National Sustainable Development Strategy and whole-of-government emphasis on ecological transition offer a supportive framework for international alignment.

CDP applies sustainability sector policies, including exclusion criteria and climate-alignment requirements, across both its own financing and the third-party resources it manages, including the Italian Climate Fund. System-wide Paris Agreement alignment remains incomplete, however, and there is limited evidence of a unified methodology across all actors for assessing whether ODA is consistent with partner countries’ nationally determined contributions (NDCs), national adaptation plans (NAPs) or long-term decarbonisation pathways. Greater clarity on how these approaches are applied and co‑ordinated across all actors would help ensure consistent alignment, in line with the DAC Declaration.

Planning tools pose an additional constraint. The absence of up-to-date country strategies and slow PPPD cycles limit the integration of climate objectives into multi-year programming, particularly in sectors where climate risks are high (agriculture, energy, water, infrastructure). Co‑ordination challenges across ministries further risk fragmentation, as climate-relevant activities may take place in parallel without systematic alignment with MAECI/AICS planning or partner country climate goals.

Further reading

OECD, Recommendation on Terms and Conditions of Aid, OECD/LEGAL/5006, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-5006 (accessed on 9 February 2026).

OECD, DAC Recommendation on Untying Official Development Assistance, OECD/LEGAL/5015, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-5015 (accessed on 9 February 2026).

OECD, DAC Recommendation on the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus, OECD/LEGAL/5019, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-5019 (accessed on 9 February 2026).

OECD, DAC Recommendation on Ending Sexual Exploitation, Abuse, and Harassment in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance: Key Pillars of Prevention and Response, OECD/LEGAL/5020, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-5020 (accessed on 9 February 2026).

OECD, DAC Recommendation on Enabling Civil Society in Development Co-operation and Humanitarian Assistance, OECD/LEGAL/5021, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-5021 (accessed on 9 February 2026).

OECD, Recommendation of the Council on Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development, OECD/LEGAL/0381, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0381 (accessed on 9 February 2026).

OECD, Recommendation of the Council for Development Co-operation Actors on Managing the Risk of Corruption, OECD/LEGAL/0431, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0431 (accessed on 9 February 2026).

OECD, Recommendation of the Council on Environmental Assessment of Development Assistance Projects and Programmes, OECD/LEGAL/0458, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0458 (accessed on 9 February 2026).

OECD, OECD DAC Declaration on a new approach to align development cooperation with the goals of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, OECD/LEGAL/0466, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0466 (accessed on 9 February 2026).

References

[1] OECD (2025), “Development Finance for Gender Equality”, OECD Dashboard, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/dashboards/development-finance-for-gender-equality.html?oecdcontrol-chart-control-bar-ac24d1f311-var1=ITA (accessed on 10 February 2026).

[2] OECD (2025), Official development assistance to civil society organisations (dashboard), https://www.oecd.org/en/data/dashboards/official-development-assistance-to-civil-society-organisations.html (accessed on 11 February 2026).

[3] OECD (2024), “Italy’s strategic approach to policy coherence for sustainable development”, Development Co-Operation TIPs - Tools, Insights, Practices, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/development-co-operation-tips-tools-insights-practices_be69e0cf-en/italy-s-strategic-approach-to-policy-coherence-for-sustainable-development_8093629e-en.html (accessed on 11 February 2026).

Note

← 1.  In the OECD’s fragility framework, ODA to peace-related sectors are tracked using the following Creditor Reporting Sector codes: 15110 (Public sector policy and administrative management), 15111 (Public finance management (PFM)), 15112 (Decentralisation and support to subnational government), 15113 (Anti-corruption organisations and institutions), 15130 (Legal and judicial development), 15150 (Democratic participation and civil society), 15152 (Legislatures and political parties), 15153 (Media and free flow of information), 15160 (Human rights), 15170 (Women's equality organisations and institutions), 15180 (Ending violence against women and girls), 15190 (Facilitation of orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility), 15210 (Security system management and reform), 15220 (Civilian peace-building, conflict prevention and resolution), 15230, (Participation in international peacekeeping operations) 15240 (Reintegration and SALW control), 15250 (Removal of land mines and explosive remnants of war), 15261 (Child soldiers (prevention and demobilisation)).