Private Philanthropy for Development (Third Edition)

Taking Stock of Philanthropy’s Contribution to Development

Report

The Development Dimension

24 March 2026

Download PDF

2. Trends in private philanthropy for sustainable development

Copy link to 2. Trends in private philanthropy for sustainable development

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of philanthropic flows for development over 2020-2023. It summarises the key findings of the report on funding amounts and recipients, as well as geographical and sectoral allocations. The aim is to assess the volume, targeting and priorities of philanthropic funding in comparison with ODA flows over the same period, to situate philanthropy within the global financing for development context. These insights serve as a starting point to better understanding how philanthropic organisations act as partners in delivering sustainable development outcomes.

2.1. The evolution of private philanthropic flows in 2020-2023

Copy link to 2.1. The evolution of private philanthropic flows in 2020-2023

2.1.1. Private philanthropy for development allocated USD 68.2 billion over 2020-2023

Private philanthropic contributions to development totalled USD 68.2 billion between 2020 and 2023, including USD 52.8 billion in cross-border flows and USD 15.4 billion in domestic philanthropic funding (Figure 2.1). This represents an annual average of USD ~17.1 billion.

During the same period, official development assistance (ODA) from official DAC donors1 reached USD 769.8 billion in gross disbursements. Although private philanthropic flows remain relatively modest compared to ODA – accounting for close to 10% of total ODA between 2020 and 2023 – their upward trend is noteworthy. This is particularly significant against the backdrop of persistent reductions in ODA: the OECD anticipates an additional decline of 9-18% in 2025, following a 9% drop in 2024 (OECD, 2025[1]).

Figure 2.1. Private philanthropy for development amounted to ~10% of gross ODA, 2020-2023
Copy link to Figure 2.1. Private philanthropy for development amounted to ~10% of gross ODA, 2020-2023

Total disbursements for development (2020-2023) USD billion (constant 2023)

The total amount of philanthropic flows for the period 2020‑2023 was approximately USD 18 billion higher (in constant 2023 prices) than the funding level reported in the second edition of this report for 2016‑2019. The increase is largely attributable to the expansion of the financial survey sample, which grew from 205 to 506 organisations and now includes more philanthropic actors in emerging markets such as India, China, and Mexico. However, when comparing only philanthropic disbursements for the 110 foundations included in both the 2016‑2019 and 2020‑2023 samples, the overall upward trend in private philanthropy is confirmed, as shown in Box 2.1.

Box 2.1. Analysis of disbursements for the sub-sample of foundations reporting since 2016

Copy link to Box 2.1. Analysis of disbursements for the sub-sample of foundations reporting since 2016

The analysis of philanthropic funding trends across two four-year periods is based on a matched sample of 110 foundations that reported data in both 2016‑2019 and 2020‑2023. Within this sample, overall funding shows an upward trajectory, primarily driven by cross-border giving. This category accounted for the largest share of funding in both periods.

At the aggregate level, cross-border funding from foundations reporting in both periods grew by 27% compared to 2016‑2019, reaching USD 52.8 billion in 2020‑2023. Year-by-year disbursement data reveal that cross-border philanthropy more than doubled, rising from USD 6.0 billion in 2016 to USD 13.4 billion in 2023.

A foundation-level analysis, limited to organisations present in both periods, indicates that the top 10% of foundations by total disbursements did not significantly change the size of their giving. The statistically significant increase observed overall appears to be driven by growth among smaller foundations.

2.1.2. Cross-border philanthropy for development grew – while domestic flows declined

Philanthropic disbursements across domestic and cross-border flows exhibited diverging trends over 2020‑2023, shaped in part by the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. Cross-border philanthropy remained relatively stable, ranging between USD 12.6 billion and USD 13.7 billion annually. In contrast, domestic philanthropy declined steadily, falling from USD 4.6 billion in 2020 to USD 3.5 billion in 2023 – a 24% decrease. This contraction reflected a return to pre-pandemic spending levels after the surge in domestic philanthropic funding in emerging markets during the 2020 COVID-19 response, as well as resource constraints following pandemic-related expenditures and economic disruptions. As a result, total philanthropic flows decreased from USD 17.2 billion in 2020 to USD 16.9 billion in 2023.

Meanwhile, official development assistance (ODA) grew in real terms by 37% since 2020 to address needs created by consecutive crises – the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. ODA increased from USD 163 billion to USD 218 billion (constant 2023 prices), as most DAC members maintained or expanded their budgets to support low- and middle-income countries2 (Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.2. Over 2020-2023, cross-border philanthropy remained stable, while domestic philanthropy declined steadily
Copy link to Figure 2.2. Over 2020-2023, cross-border philanthropy remained stable, while domestic philanthropy declined steadily

Philanthropic and gross ODA disbursements over time (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant)

2.1.3. US-based donors are the largest cross-border funders – but Chinese domestic philanthropy is growing in importance

US-based organisations accounted for nearly half of all financing between 2020 and 2023 (USD 32 billion) (Figure 2.3), with the Gates Foundation alone contributing more than a quarter (28%) of all philanthropy funding for development. The Gates Foundation was the eighth-largest source of funding among bilateral and multilateral ODA donors (Figure 2.4).

China-based organisations were the second-largest providers of philanthropic funding, mobilising USD 8.7 billion, with significant contributions from major domestic foundations such as the Tencent Charity Foundation. Spain emerged as the third-largest philanthropic provider, largely due to the BBVA Microfinance Foundation’s support for cross-border initiatives in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Figure 2.3. Close to half of total philanthropic funding originated from the United States
Copy link to Figure 2.3. Close to half of total philanthropic funding originated from the United States

Total philanthropic disbursements by country of residence (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant)

In terms of ODA, the United States was the largest bilateral contributor over 2020‑2023, providing one quarter of total flows (USD 193 billion), followed by EU Institutions (USD 124 billion) and Germany (USD 122 billion) (Figure 2.4). Together, these three entities accounted for nearly 60% of global ODA.

France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States collectively represented more than half of total ODA in 2020‑2023. However, in 2024, all four countries reduced their ODA budgets for the first time since 1995. Further announced cuts suggest that 2025 could be the first year in which all four countries reduce their net ODA for two consecutive years (OECD, 2025[1]).

Figure 2.4. The Gates Foundation represented the eighth largest source of funding when compared with bilateral and multilateral ODA donors
Copy link to Figure 2.4. The Gates Foundation represented the eighth largest source of funding when compared with bilateral and multilateral ODA donors

Top philanthropic and ODA official donors, by total gross disbursements (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant)

2.2. Geographical allocation and sources of funding

Copy link to 2.2. Geographical allocation and sources of funding

2.2.1. Philanthropy towards the African continent increased, while ODA pivoted towards support to Ukraine

In terms of volume, Asia received the largest annual total of philanthropic disbursements between 2020 and 2023, followed by Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). However, philanthropic flows across these regions showed contrasting trends over 2020‑2023. Asia declined from USD 4.9 billion in 2020 to USD 4.6 billion in 2023, Latin America and the Caribbean from USD 2.7 billion to USD 2.3 billion, while Africa grew steadily from USD 4.0 billion to USD 4.8 billion over the same period, surpassing Asia’s level by 2023. Disbursements to Europe rose sharply from a negligible level to USD 0.5 billion, largely driven by the response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

The regional distribution of ODA shifted significantly between 2020 and 2023, largely due to the international response to the war in Ukraine. ODA-eligible countries in Europe3 saw a substantial increase from USD 10 billion in 2020 to USD 47 billion in 2023, overtaking Africa as the largest recipient region. Africa experienced a gradual decline in funding, from USD 51 billion in 2020 to USD 46 billion in 2022, and further to USD 45 billion in 2023. Asia experienced a modest decrease from USD 43 billion in 2020 to USD 42 billion in 2023, while Latin America and the Caribbean held steady at approximately USD 11 billion per year on average over the four-year period (Figure 2.5).

Figure 2.5. Philanthropic funding to Africa increased, while Asia experienced a decline. ODA funding to Europe greatly increased
Copy link to Figure 2.5. Philanthropic funding to Africa increased, while Asia experienced a decline. ODA funding to Europe greatly increased

Total philanthropic and ODA gross allocable disbursements by continent over time (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant)

2.2.2. Africa continued to receive most international philanthropy, primarily from US-based foundations

Africa was the largest recipient of cross-border philanthropy, with USD 17.6 billion (33% of total cross-border philanthropic flows). Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) ranked second with USD 7.8 billion, followed by Asia at USD 6.2 billion. Europe and Oceania received relatively less private philanthropy funding.

For comparison, in terms of ODA, Africa was also the largest recipient over 2020‑2023 with USD 193 billion, followed by Asia (USD 170 billion) and Europe (USD 107 billion) (Figure 2.6).

Figure 2.6. Africa was the largest recipient of both cross-border philanthropy and ODA
Copy link to Figure 2.6. Africa was the largest recipient of both cross-border philanthropy and ODA

Cross-border philanthropy and ODA gross allocable disbursements by continent (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant)

Top donors to Africa

Cross-border foundations accounted for the bulk of philanthropy to Africa during 2020‑2023, with the top seven donors being international entities. The Gates Foundation was the largest contributor at USD 6.4 billion, followed by the Mastercard Foundation at USD 4.6 billion. Together, these two foundations accounted for USD 11.0 billion, representing 63% of total international philanthropy funding to the region.

This donor concentration is also exhibited in terms of ODA. The United States provided USD 59 billion for Africa, followed by EU Institutions (USD 33 billion) and Germany (USD 26 billion). These official providers collectively accounted around 61% of total ODA to Africa (Figure 2.7).

Figure 2.7. International foundations were the largest philanthropic donors to Africa
Copy link to Figure 2.7. International foundations were the largest philanthropic donors to Africa

Top philanthropic and official donors to Africa (2020-2023), USD billion 2023 constant

Top bilateral providers to Latin America and the Caribbean

The BBVA Microfinance Foundation accounted for most philanthropic flows to the region, providing USD 5.0 billion in non-concessional loans over 2020‑2023. Traditional grant-making foundations contributed smaller amounts, led by Carlos Slim Foundation with USD 0.6 billion and several US-based foundations, collectively accounting for USD 1.3 billion.

For ODA flows, top donors in this region were the United States (USD 12 billion), Germany (USD 8 billion), and France (USD 7 billion) (Figure 2.8).

Figure 2.8. The Carlos Slim Foundation was the leading domestic grant-making foundation in Latin America and the Caribbean
Copy link to Figure 2.8. The Carlos Slim Foundation was the leading domestic grant-making foundation in Latin America and the Caribbean

Top philanthropic and official bilateral providers to Latin America and the Caribbean (2020-2023), USD billion 2023 constant

Top donors to Asia

Over 2020‑2023, Asia received USD 18.5 billion of both cross-border and domestic philanthropy combined, of which 65% (USD 12.3 billion) came from domestic philanthropy. The Gates Foundation was the only cross-border funder among the top donors in Asia, contributing the largest amount of funding with USD 2.7 billion. Domestic foundations dominated private philanthropy to Asia, accounting for six of the seven largest donors to the region. Asian-based foundations collectively contributed USD 4 billion, with Tata-affiliated entities headquartered in India accounting for USD 1.1 billion, followed by the Tencent Charity Foundation (USD 0.9 billion) and the China Three Gorges Group Foundation (USD 0.7 billion), both based in China. This underscores the growing prominence of regional philanthropic actors within Asia.

In terms of ODA, Japan (USD 39 billion), Germany (USD 20 billion), and the United States (USD 18 billion) represented the largest official providers (Figure 2.9).

Figure 2.9. Domestic foundations represented most of the top donors to Asia
Copy link to Figure 2.9. Domestic foundations represented most of the top donors to Asia

Top philanthropic and official donors to Asia (2020-2023), USD billion 2023 constant

Cross-border philanthropic disbursements were concentrated in Eastern Africa and South America

Cross-border philanthropic disbursements over 2020‑2023 were concentrated in Eastern Africa (USD 6.3 billion) and South America (USD 5.9 billion). South and Central Asia was the third-largest recipient region of philanthropy, while Western Africa was the fourth.

For comparison, Eastern Africa was the third-largest recipient region of ODA, receiving USD 72 billion, after Europe, ranked first with USD 107 billion, and South and Central Asia, ranked second with USD 73 billion (Figure 2.10).

Figure 2.10. Eastern Africa and South America were the largest recipients of cross-border philanthropy
Copy link to Figure 2.10. Eastern Africa and South America were the largest recipients of cross-border philanthropy

Cross-border philanthropic and ODA disbursements, by recipient regions (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant)

2.2.3. China, India and Mexico accounted for over a quarter of total philanthropic funding over 2020-2023

From 2020‑2023, China accounted for the largest share of total philanthropic funding, from both cross-border and domestic sources, reaching USD 8.8 billion. The increased flow of philanthropic funds to China is likely due to this report's efforts to map Chinese philanthropic organisations more accurately, providing a clearer picture of China's domestic philanthropic sector in motion. With USD 6.2 billion from both cross-border and domestic sources over 2020‑2023, India is now the second-largest recipient of total philanthropy financing, while in the two previous editions of Philanthropy for Development (OECD, 2018[2]; OECD, 2021[3]), it was the largest.

Collectively, China, India and Mexico accounted for over a quarter (27%) of the total philanthropic funding in our sample. In these markets, where accurate and extensive data on activity from domestic private foundations4 have been collected for this report, domestic philanthropic contributions surpassed cross-border flows: China mobilised USD 8.3 billion in domestic philanthropic funding, representing 94% of the country's total philanthropic contributions. India mobilised USD 4.0 billion (65% of the country's total philanthropic contributions), and Mexico (see Box 2.2) mobilised USD 2.9 billion (88% of the country's total philanthropic contributions).

After Mexico, Peru was the second-largest recipient of total philanthropy in Latin America and the Caribbean, receiving USD 3.0 billion. Colombia followed with USD 1.9 billion. In Africa, the top recipients were Kenya (USD 1.6 billion), Nigeria (USD 1.5 billion) and Ethiopia (USD 1.4 billion). Collectively, five African countries were among the top ten recipients, receiving USD 6.4 billion (Figure 2.11).

Domestic philanthropic activity was also observed across Africa. South Africa was the largest domestic market, receiving USD 59.4 million in funding, followed by Egypt (26.3 million) and Nigeria (USD 15.2 million).

These figures remain small compared to those in the leading domestic philanthropic markets (China, India and Mexico). Nevertheless, in Africa, the philanthropic landscape is rich and diverse, characterised by a wide range of actors, practices, and policy environments. Long-standing traditions of giving rooted in cultures of solidarity coexist with more formal and institutionalised philanthropic models (Oak Foundation, 2024[4]). However, much of this domestic philanthropic activity remains insufficiently captured in international statistics. As a result, further research is required to map domestic philanthropy in Africa, which is believed to be larger than currently reported to the OECD.

In Latin America and the Caribbean, aside from Mexico, the largest domestic philanthropy donations were directed to Brazil (USD 39.2 million) and Colombia (USD 22.2 million). In both cases, a more nuanced mapping is required, as actual levels of domestic philanthropy are likely higher than those captured in the data.

Comparison between philanthropic finance for development and ODA

Within regions, ODA flows to ODA-eligible countries in Europe were highly concentrated in Ukraine, which was by far the top recipient country with USD 74 billion – more than double the amount received by any other single country globally. This reflected the impact of the Ukraine crisis on ODA allocations to this region. India was the second-largest ODA recipient (USD 20 billion), while Bangladesh was the third (USD 14 billion) (Figure 2.11).

Furthermore, India was the second-largest recipient of both ODA and philanthropic giving. Ethiopia was the only other country in the top ten countries, targeted by ODA providers and private foundations. In relative terms, Europe, particularly Ukraine, was more of a focus for ODA providers than for foundations. Philanthropic giving was rather concentrated as more than a third (44%) of philanthropic funding targeted the top ten recipient countries. For comparison, only 24% of country-allocable ODA targeted the top ten recipient countries.

Figure 2.11. Philanthropic funding was most concentrated in China, while Ukraine received the largest volume of bilateral ODA
Copy link to Figure 2.11. Philanthropic funding was most concentrated in China, while Ukraine received the largest volume of bilateral ODA

Philanthropic and ODA gross allocable disbursements, by top recipient country (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant)

Box 2.2. Domestic philanthropy for sustainable development in Mexico

Copy link to Box 2.2. Domestic philanthropy for sustainable development in Mexico

The OECD Centre on Philanthropy recently published the report Private Philanthropy for Development in Mexico (OECD, 2026[5]) as part of the Centre’s research agenda on emerging countries, which includes Mexico, China, Colombia, Nigeria, India and South Africa. Using financial and organisational data from over 300 philanthropic organisations, the report assesses the scope and characteristics of large-scale domestic philanthropy in Mexico.1 It also compares this philanthropy with cross-border philanthropic flows and Official Development Assistance (ODA) to Mexico for the 2020-2023 period.

Domestic philanthropy far exceeded cross-border philanthropy

Mexico’s domestic philanthropic has grown substantially in recent decades. Between 2020 and 2023, the 328 largest domestic organisations disbursed USD 3.4 billion, far exceeding the USD 274 million provided by 27 cross-border donors and the USD 3.2 billion from Development Assistance Committee (DAC) members. The top ten domestic funders accounted for nearly half of total domestic funding, with Fundación Carlos Slim alone disbursing over USD 670 million, underscoring the concentration of resources.

Domestic philanthropy concentrated over 70% of its funding on social services, with limited reach in sectors like water and sanitation. International philanthropy focused largely on government and civil society, education and environmental protection.

Domestic philanthropy remained highly concentrated in urban and higher-income regions, prioritising young and economically vulnerable people

Geographically, domestic philanthropic funding remained highly concentrated in urban and economically developed regions: Mexico City received USD 780 million during 2020-2023, more than any other state, followed by Nuevo León. In contrast, states with higher poverty incidence received comparatively less support.

Domestic foundations primarily targeted young people and those in acute poverty. Two-thirds supported youth and over half focused on poverty-related initiatives. Older people, indigenous populations and gender-specific programmes received less funding. Gender equality was rarely a stated focus, with only one-third of grants explicitly targeting women and girls.

Most surveyed foundations collaborated with other philanthropic or civil society actors. Over half co-financed at least one project between 2016 and 2022. However, one-third faced difficulties in finding partners with shared goals and cited high transaction costs as a barrier.

Note:

1. This report is the result from an extensive mapping of domestic philanthropies and is supported by a larger dataset than that used for Mexico’s philanthropic activity in the current third edition of the Philanthropy for Development report. Therefore, some figures may differ between the two reports. Although the report on philanthropy in Mexico is more comprehensive, the overall trends remain the same in both reports.

Source: (OECD, 2026[5]), Private Philanthropy for Development in Mexico (Revised Edition).

2.2.4. Middle-income countries remained the main recipients of philanthropic financing over 2020-2023

Over 2020-2023, middle-income countries remained the main recipients of international philanthropic financing by volume. This was already the case for the previous edition of the report (OECD, 2021[3]). Of all international philanthropic-allocable giving, approximately 40% (USD 9.5 billion) was directed towards upper middle-income countries (UMICs). Lower middle-income countries (LMICs) received a comparable amount to UMICs, totalling USD 9.5 billion, while low-income countries (LICs) received the lowest overall support in nominal terms, totalling USD 5 billion (20%). However, when analysed on a per capita basis, low-income countries received the most funding, at USD 7 per capita, followed by UMICs (USD 3.4 per capita) and LMICs (USD 3.2 per capita) (Figure 2.12).

Figure 2.12. Middle-income countries were the largest recipients in absolute terms, whereas low-income countries received the highest amounts per capita
Copy link to Figure 2.12. Middle-income countries were the largest recipients in absolute terms, whereas low-income countries received the highest amounts per capita

Total philanthropic flows by income group (2020-2023), by nominal (USD billion) and per capita terms (USD)

In nominal terms, cross-philanthropic funding increased across all income groups between 2020 and 2023. In particular, philanthropic flows to upper-middle-income countries rose steadily from USD 1.8 billion annually in 2020 to USD 2.8 billion in 2023 – a 56% increase. Lower-middle-income countries experienced similar steady growth, increasing from USD 2.2 billion in 2020 to USD 2.6 billion in 2023 – a 18% increase. Finally, low-income countries also registered growth, from USD 1.2 billion in 2020 to USD 1.5 billion in 2023 – a 25% increase. When looking at philanthropic flows per capita on the right panel of Figure 2.13, low-income countries registered significant increase, from USD 1.8 per capita in 2020 to USD 2.1 per capita in 2023, while philanthropic flows to upper-middle-income countries also rose steadily from USD 0.7 per capita annually in 2020 to USD 1 per capita in 2023.

Figure 2.13. Cross-border philanthropic funding increased across all income groups between 2020 and 2023
Copy link to Figure 2.13. Cross-border philanthropic funding increased across all income groups between 2020 and 2023

Total philanthropic flows by income group over time, by nominal (USD billion) and per capita terms (USD)

2.2.5. Philanthropy directed significant funding to fragile and conflict-affected settings

Philanthropic response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine

Philanthropic contributions to Ukraine totalled USD 656 million in 2022‑2023, compared to USD 69.1 billion in ODA. This indicates that ODA was roughly 100 times larger than philanthropic funding. Over the 2020‑2023 period, philanthropy for Ukraine represented just 1% of total philanthropic flows, while ODA for Ukraine accounted for 9% of total ODA (Figure 2.14).

Figure 2.14. ODA for Ukraine was about a hundred times greater than philanthropy
Copy link to Figure 2.14. ODA for Ukraine was about a hundred times greater than philanthropy

Top geographical recipients of funding related to Ukraine’s crisis (2022-2023), 2023 constant prices

The US-based Howard G. Buffett Foundation was by far the largest philanthropic donor to Ukraine, providing USD 505 million over 2022‑2023 and accounting for over three-quarters (77%) of all private philanthropic contributions to Ukraine (see Box 2.3 for further detail on its approach), effectively defining the philanthropic response to the crisis. The IKEA Foundation (Netherlands) ranked second with USD 29 million, followed by the UBS Optimus Foundation (Switzerland) with USD 24 million. Other European foundations, such as Lund Trust (United Kingdom) and the Novo Nordisk Foundation (Denmark), also featured among the top seven donors, underscoring a co-ordinated European philanthropic response alongside significant engagement among US-based foundations.

In terms of ODA, the EU Institutions were the largest provider to Ukraine in 2022‑2023, allocating USD 32 billion, followed by the United States (USD 21 billion), Canada (USD 4 billion), and Germany (USD 4 billion) (Figure 2.15).

Figure 2.15. Howard G. Buffet Foundation was the largest donor to Ukraine in 2022-2023
Copy link to Figure 2.15. Howard G. Buffet Foundation was the largest donor to Ukraine in 2022-2023

Top philanthropic and official donors toward Ukraine (2022-2023), 2023 constant prices

Box 2.3. Howard G. Buffet Foundation’s support for Ukraine

Copy link to Box 2.3. Howard G. Buffet Foundation’s support for Ukraine

Prior to 2022, Ukraine had strong legal frameworks for philanthropic operations and cross-border donations but faced constrained domestic giving due to weak tax incentives, low incomes, and predominantly informal philanthropy (Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, 2022[6]). Russia's February 2022 invasion sparked an unprecedented international foundation response, among which the Howard G. Buffet Foundation largely contributed.

Howard G. Buffett Foundation allocated USD 353 million to Ukraine in 2023, extending beyond its traditional focus of engagement

The Howard G. Buffet Foundation is a US-based private philanthropic foundation established in 1999 and chaired by Howard G. Buffet, son of Susan and Warren Buffett. The foundation’s mission is to improve the standard of living and quality of life for the world’s most vulnerable and marginalised populations. In ODA-eligible countries, it allocated most of its funding to areas such as global food security, agricultural development and conflict mitigation. Before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, its priority regions focused on Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean (OECD, 2025[7]).

Howard G. Buffett Foundation provided USD 457.9 million for development in 2023 through its grant-making activities. Compared to 2022, this amount represents an increase of 85.8% in real terms. In 2023, the Howard G. Buffett Foundation provided USD 353 million of gross development finance to Ukraine to respond to the impacts of Russia’s full-scale invasion (OECD, 2025[7]). This support for Ukraine marked an exception to the foundation’s usual areas of engagement.

Foundations contributed to Ukraine’s recovery through infrastructure and social innovation

The bulk of Buffet’s allocations in Ukraine went to the production sector, as well as to social infrastructure and services (OECD, 2025[7]). Buffet funded projects and programmes to rebuild strategic infrastructure and rails, targeting economic recovery (The Howard G. Buffet Foundation, 2023[8]). Furthermore, the foundation provided in-kind contributions and technical assistance in the form of USD 50 million worth of farm machinery to support Ukrainian agriculture as part of the government’s “Victory Harvest” programme (The Howard G. Buffet Foundation, 2023[8]).

Beyond supporting recovery and reconstruction, the foundation also invested in long-term, innovative approaches to address the impacts of Russia's war on communities. Notably, the Howard G. Buffett Foundation supported the cost-effective approach of using Technical Survey Dogs (TSDs) alongside deminers to accelerate the survey of thousands of acres of Ukrainian farmland, enabling its return to productive agriculture (MAG (Mines Advisory Group), 2025[9]). Buffet also supported humanitarian assistance targeting health and mental health support for discharged military personnel and civilians. Notably, the Howard G. Buffet partnered with the Superhumans Centre, a state-of-the-art Ukrainian prosthetics and rehabilitation clinic in Lviv, which received over USD 17.3 million in 2023 for construction and equipment costs, as well as prosthetics support (The Howard G. Buffet Foundation, 2023[8]).

Most of Ukraine’s philanthropic contributions were allocated to material relief assistance and services (22%) and agricultural inputs (21%). Other areas received substantially less funding: the removal of land mines and explosive remnants of war received 8% of total philanthropy for Ukraine over 2022‑2023; legal and judicial development received 7%; and school feeding programmes received 3%.

General budget support was the largest category of ODA, concentrating 42% of total ODA for Ukraine over 2022‑2023, followed by public sector policy and administrative management receiving USD 19 billion (27%). These institutional support mechanisms represented the majority of official assistance. In contrast, direct relief activities received less ODA funding: material relief assistance and services received USD 3 billion (4%); multisector aid received USD 2 billion (3%); and relief co-ordination and support services received USD 2 billion (3%) (Figure 2.16).

Philanthropic flows and ODA demonstrated highly complementary approaches. While ODA concentrated on macro-level institutional and governance support, providing a total of USD 48 billion for budget support and policy/administrative management (69% of total ODA for Ukraine), philanthropy focused more on emergency recovery needs, providing a total of USD 288 million for material relief and agricultural inputs (43% of total philanthropy for Ukraine).

Figure 2.16. ODA and philanthropy targeted different needs in Ukraine, leveraging complementary assistance strategies
Copy link to Figure 2.16. ODA and philanthropy targeted different needs in Ukraine, leveraging complementary assistance strategies

Top sub-sectors targeted by philanthropy and ODA for Ukraine (2022-2023), 2023 constant prices

Philanthropic funding in contexts exposed to high and extreme fragility

Fragility is the combination of exposure to risks and insufficient resilience of a state, system, and/or community to manage, absorb, or mitigate those risks (OECD, 2025[10]). A country is considered fragile if its government is unable or unwilling to fulfil its basic duties regarding security, the rule of law, and essential services. According to the OECD Multi-Dimensional Fragility Framework, states are considered as experiencing fragility along a spectrum of intensity from minor to severe, and across six dimensions: economic, environmental, human, political, security and societal. People are often affected by poverty, violence, and political arbitrariness. These conditions pose enormous challenges to development co‑operation and endanger the goals of the 2030 Agenda. In the analysis below, the list of contexts exposed to high and extreme fragility5 was identified using CRS recipient code. There are 61 contexts exposed to high and extreme fragility, with 18 being exposed to extreme fragility.6

Philanthropic funding to states exposed to high and extreme fragility remained stable from 2020‑2022 at USD 2.5-2.6 billion annually, then jumped to USD 3.2 billion in 2023 – a 23% increase from the start of the period. Over the 2020‑2023 period, philanthropy to fragile states totalled USD 10.8 billion. In contrast, ODA disbursements to fragile contexts amounted to USD 210.2 billion. ODA to contexts exposed to high and extreme fragility remained approximately 18-20 times larger than philanthropy throughout the 2020‑2023 period (Figure 2.17).

Figure 2.17. Evolution of philanthropic and ODA disbursements to contexts exposed to high and extreme fragility
Copy link to Figure 2.17. Evolution of philanthropic and ODA disbursements to contexts exposed to high and extreme fragility

Total philanthropic and ODA funding to fragile contexts (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant prices)

Kenya was the largest recipient of philanthropy among fragile states, with USD 1.6 billion (15%), followed by Nigeria (USD 1.5 billion, 14%) and Ethiopia (USD 1.4 billion, 13%). Rwanda received USD 0.9 billion (8%), while Uganda and Pakistan each received USD 0.7 billion (6%). Notably, East African countries (Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda, Tanzania) collectively accounted for 40% of total philanthropic funding to fragile states, revealing a strong regional concentration of this type of funding.

In contrast, ODA prioritised contexts with different profiles of fragility. Bangladesh was the largest recipient of ODA among contexts exposed to high and extreme fragility, receiving USD 14.3 billion (7%), followed by Afghanistan (USD 13.1 billion; 6%) and Ethiopia (USD 12.1 billion; 6%). Furthermore, conflict-affected Middle Eastern states – Afghanistan, the Syrian Arab Republic, Iraq, and Yemen – collectively received USD 40.7 billion, representing 19% of total ODA for fragility (Figure 2.18).

Figure 2.18. Philanthropic funding was concentrated in contexts exposed to high and extreme fragility in Eastern Africa
Copy link to Figure 2.18. Philanthropic funding was concentrated in contexts exposed to high and extreme fragility in Eastern Africa

Top country recipients for ODA and philanthropy among fragile contexts (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant)

The Gates Foundation was the largest funder to contexts exposed to high and extreme fragility, providing USD 4.2 billion – 39% of the total philanthropic funding for fragility – which was double that of the second-largest donor. The Mastercard Foundation contributed USD 2.1 billion (19%), followed by the Susan T. Buffett Foundation (USD 0.5 billion; 5%) and the Wellcome Trust (USD 0.4 billion; 4%). The United States were the largest ODA provider with USD 70 billion (33%) – nearly three times the second-largest official provider. EU Institutions contributed USD 26 billion (12%), Germany USD 24 billion (11%) and Japan USD 21 billion (10%) (Figure 2.19).

Both ODA and philanthropy exhibited high concentrations, with the top donors, the US and the Gates Foundation, respectively, accounting for a significant portion of the total.

Figure 2.19. The Gates Foundation alone provided over a third of philanthropic funding in contexts exposed to high and extreme fragility
Copy link to Figure 2.19. The Gates Foundation alone provided over a third of philanthropic funding in contexts exposed to high and extreme fragility

Top philanthropic and official donors to fragile contexts (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant)

Funding in contexts exposed to high and extreme fragility was predominantly directed toward infectious disease control, totalling USD 2.2 billion from philanthropy and USD 19.6 billion from ODA, underscoring a shared health priority in these contexts (Figure 2.20).

Philanthropic contributions also targeted family planning (USD 1.0 billion), basic healthcare (USD 0.6 billion), and higher education (USD 0.6 billion) – focusing on the provision of basic services. In contrast, ODA emphasised on emergency and humanitarian responses: most funded sub-sectors were food assistance (USD 19.4 billion), relief co-ordination and support services (USD 19 billion), and material relief assistance (USD 18.8 billion).

Sub-sector analysis showed that ODA was primarily directed toward emergency and humanitarian responses, while philanthropy focused on the provision of basic services. This distribution likely reflects the regional pattern noted earlier: ODA focused on contexts that ranked highly in terms of political and security fragility, whereas philanthropy supported contexts with different profiles of fragility – primarily those facing economic and social vulnerabilities.

Figure 2.20. Both philanthropic and ODA prioritised infectious disease control in contexts exposed to high and extreme fragility
Copy link to Figure 2.20. Both philanthropic and ODA prioritised infectious disease control in contexts exposed to high and extreme fragility

Top sub-sectors targeted by philanthropy and ODA within fragile contexts (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant)

Philanthropy could help diversify financing strategies for fragile environments

Both official aid and philanthropic funding must be sensitive to the political economy and specific drivers of fragility in each context. The Addis Ababa Action Agenda called for diverse financing sources to contribute to development, but implementing this agenda in fragile settings requires a differentiated approach responsive to local dimensions of fragility and operating realities. Further work is particularly needed to develop financing strategies that effectively link diverse actors and funding sources within the humanitarian-development-peace nexus (Thompson, 2020[11]).

Private philanthropy financing remained a relatively small component of the financing landscape in fragile contexts, at least measured by international foundation giving. Philanthropic financing in extremely fragile contexts faces common challenges, particularly operational difficulties.

The success of investments and programmes in low-income, fragile settings does not resemble that in more stable settings (Kaye, Hannachi and Jacquand, 2021[12]). Investing in fragile settings requires blended finance and a variety of development actors, including international and domestic operating philanthropies. Importantly, philanthropy can provide high financial additionality in conflict and fragile contexts that traditionally receive limited private funds. An intervention has financial additionality when it mobilises investment that would not have been invested otherwise or extends finance to entities that cannot obtain it from capital markets without such support (Habbel et al., 2021[13]).

Further research is needed to map domestic philanthropy in such settings, particularly the contributions of faith-based foundations and the role of co-financing partnerships with locally led organisations in mobilising domestic resources. Notably, Islamic social finance can be a particularly effective way to channel resources towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in some fragile contexts, including through zakat (compulsory alms giving), sadaga (voluntary alms giving) and waqf/awqaf (charitable endowments). While estimates vary, zakat (alms) funds may amount to several hundred billion dollars a year. In a number of Muslim-majority countries, public zakat agencies collect these funds and may use them for domestic or international development or humanitarian purposes, such as responding to refugee situations or droughts (Thompson, 2020[11]).

2.3. Sectoral allocation and key areas of focus of philanthropy funding

Copy link to 2.3. Sectoral allocation and key areas of focus of philanthropy funding

2.3.1. Health and education sectors remained the main priorities for philanthropy

By sector, total private philanthropy for development7 between 2020 and 2023 was still highly concentrated in health, which received USD 27.1 billion – 40% of total philanthropic giving. Education ranked second, with USD 7.7 billion (11%), followed by government and civil society at USD 5.1 billion (7%). Under the OECD-DAC classification, the government and civil society sector includes activities aimed at strengthening the capacities of public administration and support for civil society organisations (Figure 2.21).

Private philanthropy remained critical to health and education over 2020‑2023, accounting for more than half of all philanthropic disbursements, and comparable to 26% of ODA spending in these two sectors. This role might be particularly important in the future given sustained ODA cuts in health and education: bilateral ODA for health fell by 40% in 2023 and is projected to decline by 19-33% in 2025 compared to 2023 levels, continuing the downward trend from COVID‑19‑related peaks, while ODA to education is projected to decline by 18-22% from 2023 to 2025 (OECD, 2025[1]). In response, the Gates Foundation has announced plans to double its spending over the next 20 years – signalling a strategic re-focus – especially in health initiatives targeting least developed countries (LDCs).8

A comparison between the sectoral allocation of ODA and philanthropy revealed distinct patterns. The three sectors most heavily funded by philanthropy – health, education, and government and civil society – are also among the top sectors for ODA, indicating some shared priorities. Beyond these three priorities, philanthropy tends to concentrate on social sectors and environmental sustainability, whereas ODA spans a broader development mandate, including humanitarian assistance, economic infrastructure (transport, energy, communications, financial and business services) and general budget support. These differences likely reflect distinct operational characteristics and constraints: philanthropic funding tends to concentrate on time-bound projects in specific thematic areas, with limited engagement in capital-intensive sectors like traditional infrastructure (transport, storage) or large-scale budget support mechanisms that require sustained institutional partnerships. In contrast, ODA providers can deliver multi-year programme support, general budget assistance, and infrastructure financing across a comprehensive range of sectors.

Figure 2.21. Funding toward health amounted to 40% of total philanthropic disbursements
Copy link to Figure 2.21. Funding toward health amounted to 40% of total philanthropic disbursements

Philanthropic and ODA gross disbursements, by sector allocation (2020-2023), USD billion 2023 constant

2.3.2. Funding for health remained strongly focused on combatting infectious diseases, partly in response to the COVID-19 pandemic

In global health, international foundations provided substantial funding towards the control of infectious diseases, in particular COVID-19,9 malaria, and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Philanthropy contributed USD 14.9 billion towards combating these diseases,10 and most of it (USD 14 billion) was represented by cross-border giving (Figure 2.22).

International foundations also made a significant effort to fund family planning services – which together include counselling, the provision of contraceptives, capacity building – as well as prenatal and postnatal care, and other services. Philanthropic donors allocated approximately USD 3.9 billion to these services – identified in Figure 2.22 by the “Family planning” and “Reproductive health care” categories. STD control including HIV/AIDS received around USD 1.3 billion (Figure 2.23). Domestic foundations, while less involved in the health sector than cross-border donors, tended to provide direct funding for access to basic health care services and grants to cover payment of medical services and basic health infrastructures.

Figure 2.22. Infectious disease control was the largest funding priority by philanthropy and ODA
Copy link to Figure 2.22. Infectious disease control was the largest funding priority by philanthropy and ODA

Top health sub-sectors targeted by philanthropy and ODA (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant)

Approximately USD 3.3 billion was allocated to financing the control of the COVID‑19, while financing for the control of malaria, tuberculosis and STDs combined received USD 3.7 billion. This illustrated the capacity of philanthropy to rapidly mobilise resources during health emergencies while maintaining core support for endemic disease programmes. Bilateral aid has also largely refocused on responding to the COVID‑19 crisis, with USD 22 billion. This was approximately equivalent to the funding directed towards STD control including HIV/AIDS (USD 23 billion). Together, philanthropic and bilateral aid disbursements prioritised the response to the pandemic, representing USD 25.3 billion (Figure 2.23).

Figure 2.23. Philanthropy and ODA were complementary in funding infectious disease control
Copy link to Figure 2.23. Philanthropy and ODA were complementary in funding infectious disease control

Philanthropic and ODA fundings toward infectious diseases (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant)

Top donors and recipients of philanthropy for health

Among the 396 foundations allocating funding to health over 2020-2023, the largest funder was the Gates Foundation, representing 55% of total philanthropic giving for health. In addition to the Gates Foundation, international foundations that provided significant funding were the Wellcome Trust (9%), the Susan T. Buffet Foundation (5%), and the Mastercard Foundation (4%). Among foundations that also operate domestically, the Alibaba Charity Foundation (China) was the largest contributor to health-related initiatives (Figure 2.24).

Figure 2.24. The Gates Foundation provided more than half of all health-related funding
Copy link to Figure 2.24. The Gates Foundation provided more than half of all health-related funding

Top philanthropic providers of health funding (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant)

Health-related international donations allocated at a broad regional level were largely directed towards Africa (USD 3.2 billion), accounting for 12% of total philanthropic funding for health over 2020-2023. These regional allocations typically supported cross-border health initiatives, including vaccine procurement and distribution systems, multi-country disease surveillance networks, co-ordinated epidemic response, and technical assistance programmes that can be adapted across multiple country contexts. Individual country-level philanthropic allocations were concentrated in Nigeria (USD 0.8 billion), followed by Ethiopia and Kenya (USD 0.7 billion each).

China and India concentrated the largest country-specific allocations at USD 1.7 billion and USD 1.6 billion, respectively. China's health-related contributions were predominantly domestic, accounting for 91% of the total. Large domestic philanthropic disbursements in China were partly a result of the country's significant national response to the pandemic, particularly in 2020 and the beginning of 2021. A similar pattern was observed for domestic philanthropy mobilisation in India, albeit on a smaller scale. Mexico also received health-related contributions primarily from domestic foundations. Allocations to Mexico represented the largest allocation outside of Asia and Africa (Figure 2.25).

Figure 2.25. Africa was the largest recipient of cross-border health funding
Copy link to Figure 2.25. Africa was the largest recipient of cross-border health funding

Top recipients of philanthropic health funding (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant)

2.3.3. Funding for education continued to be concentrated on higher education

Contributions to education from international donors (USD 4.0 billion) surpassed those from domestic foundations (USD 3.6 billion) between 2020 and 2023. International and domestic funders are not only providing substantial volumes but are also increasingly engaging with innovative financing mechanisms to leverage additional resources and address the global education financing gap (see Box 2.4).

Within the education sector, institutions of higher education, such as universities, received the most support from both international (USD 1.8 billion) and domestic donors (USD 1.2 billion), either as direct support or as scholarships for advanced studies. Education infrastructure and primary education absorbed significant funding from domestic donors, while early childhood education received more support from international foundations. Like for philanthropy, ODA providers also prioritised higher education, which received the largest allocation at USD 20 billion, followed by primary education (USD 8 billion) and education policy and administrative management (USD 6 billion) (Figure 2.26). Education policy and administrative management refers to activities supporting the governance and administration of education systems, including assistance to education ministries, school management, capacity building and advice, planning and programmes, and curriculum and materials development.

Figure 2.26. Domestic philanthropy represented a relevant share of education funding, across all sub-sectors
Copy link to Figure 2.26. Domestic philanthropy represented a relevant share of education funding, across all sub-sectors

Top education sub-sectors targeted by philanthropy and ODA (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant)

Top donors and recipients of philanthropy for education

Among the 407 foundations allocating funding to education, the largest international donor was the Mastercard Foundation, which accounted for half of cross-border philanthropy for education, followed by the LEGO Foundation. The largest domestic donors in education were Guangdong Guoqiang Charity Foundation and Heren Charity Foundation from China. Out of the ten top donors in education, three were corporates registered in China, highlighting the significant role of Chinese corporate philanthropy in education financing. This concentration underscores the relevance of including domestic philanthropic actors – particularly from major emerging economies – in statistical outlooks of education funding, as they represent substantial resource flows often overlooked in previous surveys (Figure 2.27).

Figure 2.27. Mastercard Foundation provided a quarter of total philanthropic education funding
Copy link to Figure 2.27. Mastercard Foundation provided a quarter of total philanthropic education funding

Top philanthropic providers of education funding (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant)

Based on the 2020‑2023 survey sample, which included a deeper coverage of philanthropic actors in selected emerging countries, philanthropic education funding appeared to be primarily concentrated in China with USD 2.3 billion (30% of total philanthropy for education), with most of the funding coming from domestic foundations. India (USD 0.9 billion) and Mexico (USD 0.7 billion) also relied heavily on domestic philanthropic funding, while African recipients received predominantly cross-border support. Regional education allocations supporting multi-country initiatives from international donors in Africa totalled USD 0.7 billion. Among African countries, Rwanda and Ghana were the top recipients of country-specific allocations, receiving USD 0.5 billion each (Figure 2.28).

Figure 2.28. China concentrated a third of philanthropic education funding, mostly from domestic foundations
Copy link to Figure 2.28. China concentrated a third of philanthropic education funding, mostly from domestic foundations

Top recipients of philanthropic education funding (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant)

Box 2.4. .Education financing at stake: The catalytical power of philanthropy

Copy link to Box 2.4. .Education financing at stake: The catalytical power of philanthropy

Education financing at stake

Delivering high-quality education requires significant investment. Yet, annual expenditure per child in low-income countries (LICs) is insufficient to ensure adequate student learning, amounting to no more than USD 55 per child in 2022 (World Bank, 2024[14]). At the same time, education systems face mounting costs: competitive salaries to attract qualified teachers; ongoing training to keep them effective; adequate learning materials, digital transformation, proper infrastructure; nutritious school meals; and robust assessment systems to identify struggling students at an early stage, just to name a few. As of 2025, the financing gap for low- and lower-middle-income countries to reach Sustainable Development Goal 4 (Quality Education SDG4) targets by 2030 amounts to USD 97 billion per year, a shortfall worsened by official development assistance cuts (UNESCO, 2025[15]).

Philanthropy is working to help close the education finance gap by increasing the effectiveness of existing resources amplifying government and private sector efforts and catalysing larger-scale investment (e.g. debt swaps, impact bonds and matching funds) (UNESCO, 2025[16]).

The Education Above All Foundation leverages innovative financing and partnerships for education at scale

The Education Above All (EAA) Foundation, founded in 2012 by Her Highness Sheikha Moza bint Nasser, the former First Lady of the State of Qatar, demonstrates how philanthropic capital can catalyse systemic change in global education by employing innovative financing mechanisms and fostering multi-stakeholder partnerships.

EAA's innovative approach includes pioneering new financing tools, such as education investment swaps that aim to reduce debt in low- and middle-income countries while driving education outcomes (Education Above All, 2024[17]). For instance, Education Above All has forged strategic partnerships with multilateral development banks, including the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), to establish multiplier funds. In these arrangements, EAA provides matching grants that complement IDB loans, significantly reducing the overall cost of education investments for recipient countries (UNESCO, 2025[16]). EAA is committed to exploring additional results-based financing approaches for education, that create maximum impact and leverage.

How other philanthropic donors are leveraging collective efforts in education

The System Change Architecture for Learning Excellence (SCALE), launched by Jacobs Foundation in partnership with Ghana’s Ministry of Education, demonstrates how philanthropy can drive system-wide reform through co-ordinated co-financing. By blending philanthropic contributions with multilateral funding from the Global Partnership for Education (GPE), SCALE has mobilised nearly USD 120 million to scale evidence-based and foundational learning reforms across Ghana, significantly leveraging and amplifying public education investment (Jacobs Foundation, 2025[18]).

The International Finance Facility for Education (IFFEd) offers another model for leveraging philanthropic capital to unlock larger-scale education financing. By using donor guarantees and grants to reduce lending risks, IFFEd enables multilateral development banks to provide more affordable, long-term financing for education in lower-middle-income countries, helping governments accelerate system reforms while preserving fiscal space (IFFEd, 2025[19]).

The IDP Foundation has expanded its qualified giving by pairing its grant funding with an equivalent programme-related investment allocation from its endowment. These resources are channelled mainly through concessional debt and are used to mobilise local private capital for direct support to schools. In Kenya, for instance, a USD 1 million philanthropic loan provided to a local microfinance institution helped attract an additional USD 2 million in commercial financing for low-fee private schools. The approach includes caps on school fees and interest rates, reaches thousands of community-run schools, and achieves repayment rates of around 97%, enabling capital to be recycled within the sector (IEFG, 2025[20]).

2.3.4. Funding for government and civil society aimed to accelerate civic engagement and rights’ protection

Philanthropic donors are significant funders of causes and institutions from civil society at large. Government and civil society represented the third-largest sector for philanthropy disbursements, with USD 5.1 billion (7%) being allocated by 304 foundations. This funding targets areas such as human rights advocacy; increasing democratic participation and the role civil society plays in development; financing media and the free flow of information; development of legal and judicial systems; support for women’s rights organisations; and conflict prevention and resolution.

Within government and civil society, most philanthropic funding supported human rights advocacy and democratic participation, accounting for nearly half of the sector’s total contributions. Other top areas of focus were for support for women’s rights organisations and movements (USD 1.0 billion) and ending violence against women and girls. Strengthening public sector policy and administrative management11 was another targeted area, particularly for domestic organisations (Figure 2.29).

Over 2020-2023, philanthropic actors concentrated a significant share of their resources to human rights and civil society organisations. This confirms a strong orientation towards supporting civil society development in its various forms, from initiatives promoting the free and uncensored flow of information on public issues to support for human rights institutions, including a particular focus on women’s rights organisations and movements. By contrast, ODA covered a much broader range of priorities, including support for core public-sector management systems, civilian peacebuilding, conflict prevention and resolution, justice-sector institutions, and migration facilitation.

Foundations’ emphasis on civil society development as a whole may reflect several factors: their greater flexibility in supporting organisations that operate independently from government structures, their ability to fund work that may be politically sensitive for official donors, or strategic choices based on donor mandates and priorities.

Figure 2.29. Philanthropy prioritised civil society, while ODA focused on strengthening the public sector
Copy link to Figure 2.29. Philanthropy prioritised civil society, while ODA focused on strengthening the public sector

Top government and civil society sub-sectors targeted by philanthropy and ODA (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant)

Top donors and recipients of philanthropic funding for government and civil society

In the government and civil society sector, the largest international foundations were the Open Society Foundations (USD 1.3 billion) and the Ford Foundation (USD 1 billion), while Reliance Industries Limited CSR (India) was the leading domestic organisation with USD 100 million (Figure 2.30).

Figure 2.30. Most of the largest funders to the government and civil society were international foundations
Copy link to Figure 2.30. Most of the largest funders to the government and civil society were international foundations

Top philanthropic providers for government and civil society (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant)

Between 2020 and 2023, philanthropic funding for government and civil society was heavily concentrated in India, which received USD 445 million from both cross-border and domestic sources. Mexico ranked second with USD 304 million, primarily from domestic contributions. At the regional level, international donors allocated USD 244 million to Africa and USD 166 million to the Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). Among the top five recipients were Brazil (USD 180 million) and China (USD 177 million), with China relying mainly on domestic philanthropic funding and Brazil on cross-border flows. Nigeria and Kenya also featured among the top eight, receiving USD 174 million and USD 126 million, respectively (Figure 2.31).

Figure 2.31. India concentrated government and civil society funding, driven by domestic philanthropy
Copy link to Figure 2.31. India concentrated government and civil society funding, driven by domestic philanthropy

Top recipients of philanthropic government and civil society funding (2020-2023), USD million (2023 constant)

2.3.5. Access to health, building partnerships and improving education were at the heart of foundations’ contributions to the Sustainable Development Goals

Financing from private philanthropic foundations to support the sustainable development agenda has grown over time, complementing official development assistance in many areas. Philanthropic organisations can contribute to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development by integrating the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into their programming efforts and providing thought leadership on collective platforms.

Good health and well-being, partnerships for the goals, and quality education stood in the forefront of foundations’ giving for development over 2020-2023. Since 2015, international development has been guided by the UN SDGs as a global framework of common objectives for sustainable development. To inform providers’ allocation decisions and track progress in financing individual SDGs, OECD statistics on development finance seek detailed data on the SDG alignment and focus of individual activities aimed at sustainable development. Since 2017, such information has also been collected from private philanthropic foundations, using the same set of standards and methodologies as those put forward by statistics on official development finance.

The data collected over 2020-2023 indicated that overall, private philanthropic foundations’ funding decisions contributed to a wide range of SDGs (Figure 2.32). In particular, nearly a fifth of private philanthropy contributed to good health and well-being (SDG 3), 15% to building partnerships for reaching the goals (SDG 17), 11% to quality education (SDG 4) and 10% to decent work and economic growth (SDG 8). Other SDGs supported through philanthropic funding included reducing inequalities (SDG 10, 10%) and improving gender equality and women’s empowerment (SDG 5, 8%). Although to a lesser extent, foundations also sought to advance the goals on no poverty (SDG 1, 6%), peace, justice and strong institutions (SDG 16, 4%), and zero hunger (SDG 2, 5%).

Figure 2.32. SDG focus of private philanthropy, 2020-2023
Copy link to Figure 2.32. SDG focus of private philanthropy, 2020-2023

Share of contribution over total philanthropic funding, by SDG (2020-2023)

The 2020-2023 period tested philanthropy’s capacity to respond to intersecting global challenges that threatened progress toward the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Beyond immediate COVID‑19 response, foundations faced the challenge of maintaining strategic focus amid compounding pressures: geopolitical instability and conflict, particularly Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine; accelerating climate change and environmental degradation; a global backlash against gender equality closing civic space for women’s rights organisations; and persistent humanitarian needs in fragile and conflict-affected settings. The following sub-section examines how foundations navigated this complex landscape analysing their contributions across key dimensions of the 2030 sustainable development agenda.

2.4. Foundations’ support of cross-cutting priorities: Gender equality and climate action

Copy link to 2.4. Foundations’ support of cross-cutting priorities: Gender equality and climate action

2.4.1. Gender equality in a changing world: Taking stock of philanthropy’s contributions

Throughout this section, philanthropic development finance and Official Development Assistance (ODA) for gender equality were examined through two complementary methodological lenses. First is a targeted sectoral approach, in which gender-specific funding covers the financing flows of all activities classified under these four sub-sectors: family planning, reproductive health care, women's rights organisations, and efforts to end violence against women and girls.12

To complement this approach, the OECD-DAC gender marker system was also used, in which each official or philanthropic donor indicates whether their projects target gender equality as a distinct policy objective using a specific “marker”. The three-tiered scoring system indicates whether gender equality is a principal objective (the main objective of the project, which would not have been undertaken without this focus), a significant objective (explicitly integrated, but not the primary objective; the activity has other goals, but includes meaningful gender outcomes), or not a targeted/identified objective. Gender-related funding refers then to financing flows of all activities that consider gender equality as either a principal (score 2) or a significant objective (score 1), but excludes – for the purpose of this analysis – activities previously integrated under the gender-specific funding (and that would have been otherwise scored 1 or 2) in order to avoid double-counting. The gender marker can coexist with other policy markers (e.g. climate mitigation and climate adaptation; see Box 2.5).

Global challenges and overlapping shocks – including rising poverty and food insecurity, growing geopolitical tensions – are exacerbating vulnerabilities in low- and middle-income countries and diverting already scarce resources away from gender equality objectives, which remain far from being achieved. These dynamics have contributed to stalled progress, with nearly 40% of countries stagnating or even declining in their progress toward gender equality objectives between 2019 and 2022 (Equal Measures, 2024[21]). In this context, ODA and philanthropy funding represent both essential lines of support.

Some foundations have made women’s and girls’ empowerment their core mission, dedicating all efforts to advancing gender equality. Others are increasingly integrating gender considerations into broader programming, recognising that gender equality is fundamental to achieving development across all dimensions. Others do both – for example, the Gates Foundation’s approach to agricultural transformation is grounded in greater investment in gender equality (Austin, 2018[22]). However, comprehensive data on the scale and priority areas of philanthropic funding for gender remain limited.

This section seeks to map foundations’ financial flows for gender equality, examine how and where gender objectives are embedded in their strategies and programmes – drawing on financial and organisational surveys – and identify opportunities to strengthen philanthropy’s contribution to women’s and girls’ rights and gender-transformative development.

2.4.2. Philanthropy allocated a higher share of its total funding to gender-specific initiatives than ODA

Over 2020-2023, gender-specific philanthropic funding totalled USD 5.3 billion and represented 8% of total philanthropic flows for development. Gender-specific funding remained quite stable across the period (Figure 2.33).

Philanthropic support to gender equality as a policy objective (gender-related funding) increased over the 2020-2023 period, from USD 1.2 billion per year on average in 2020-2021 to USD 1.8 billion in 2022-2023, a 50% increase. This upward trend likely reflected the proliferating number of gender-lens toolkits, how-to-guides and handbooks to help philanthropic foundations apply a gender lens to their policies and programmes (OECD, 2024[23]).

ODA commitments supporting gender equality as a policy objective (gender-related funding) were much larger in scale than philanthropy, averaging USD 56 billion per year. However, when comparing only the gender-specific funding component of philanthropy and ODA, the gap in volumes narrows significantly. Philanthropic flows for gender-specific initiatives totalled USD 5.3 billion, while ODA reached USD 14 billion. Although overall ODA volumes were roughly ten times larger than philanthropic flows, gender-specific ODA funding was only about three times greater than philanthropic funding. This indicates that, relative to their overall size, foundations allocate a substantially higher share of their resources to activities specifically targeting women and girls.

Figure 2.33. Total philanthropic gender funding increased over 2020-2023
Copy link to Figure 2.33. Total philanthropic gender funding increased over 2020-2023

Total philanthropic and ODA gender-specific and -related funding in time (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant)

Philanthropic gender-specific giving was primarily channelled toward sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR)13 (USD 4.2 billion; 81%). Foundations also contributed USD 1 billion (19%) in favour of women’s rights organisations and movements.

By contrast, gender-related ODA spanned across a large set of development areas, from material relief assistance and services (USD 14.6 billion) to infrastructure and rail transport (USD 8.2 billion) and social protection (USD 6.5 billion). None of the top-funded ODA sub-sectors were classified as gender-specific, meaning explicitly dedicated or targeted interventions for women and girls across four key sub-sectors (Figure 2.34). ODA providers contributed USD 2.9 billion in favour of women’s rights organisations and movements.

These relatively distinct funding priorities might suggest that philanthropy target more specific agendas to advance gender equality, centring women and girls as the primary beneficiaries of such funding (for example, through family planning initiatives and efforts to end violence against women and girls). Meanwhile, ODA might focus on integrating gender considerations into broader programming, funding development initiatives to reduce health risks and crises and provide emergency support, thereby addressing structural vulnerabilities that disproportionately affect women and girls.

Figure 2.34. Philanthropic funding for gender prioritised sexual and reproductive health and rights
Copy link to Figure 2.34. Philanthropic funding for gender prioritised sexual and reproductive health and rights

Top sub-sectors targeted by philanthropic and ODA gender funding (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant)

2.4.3. US-based donors dominated gender-specific funding, primarily allocated to Africa

Funding from the Gates Foundation accounted for more than a third of total gender-specific philanthropic giving (USD 2.1 million, or 40%) followed by the Susan Thompson Buffet Foundation (hereafter, Buffet Foundation) (USD 1.3 billion; 25%). Other foundations that gave significant funding to support directly women and girls were the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF) (USD 0.5 billion), the Ford Foundation (USD 0.2 billion) and Oak Foundation (USD 0.2 billion). The results are aligned with the 2016‑2019 distribution of funding – in which the Gates Foundation, the Buffett Foundation, the CIFF, and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation were also among the largest philanthropic donors. Notably, large domestically resourced organisations are largely absent from the group of top donors for gender-specific funding, which is dominated by cross-border foundations, particularly those based in the United States. This suggests an imbalance between the highly contextual and locally grounded nature of gender equality challenges and the limited engagement of large domestic philanthropies. Strengthening the role of domestically anchored foundations for gender equality could help better align gender-specific funding with local priorities and knowledge.

In terms of ODA, the United States was the largest provider of gender-specific funding in 2020-2023, accounting for nearly a third (USD 4.2 billion, or 30%) of the total. The United Kingdom ranked second with USD 1.6 billion (11%), followed by Canada with USD 1.4 billion (10%) and the Netherlands with USD 1.3 billion (9%) (Figure 2.35).

Overall, the largest philanthropic donors of gender-specific funding were comparable to ODA providers in terms of volumes. The Gates Foundation represented the second-largest source of gender-specific funding when compared with bilateral and multilateral ODA donors.

Figure 2.35. Comparable levels of *gender-specific* funding were provided by the largest donors of philanthropy and ODA
Copy link to Figure 2.35. Comparable levels of <em>gender-specific</em> funding were provided by the largest donors of philanthropy and ODA

Top donors of philanthropic and ODA gender-specific funding (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant)

India was the largest single-country recipient of philanthropy gender-specific funding (both cross-border and domestic), receiving around USD 430 million over the period. Cross-border philanthropy targeted predominantly Africa, whether through regional-wide allocations (USD 390 million) or single-country allocations. Among those countries, Ethiopia ranked first (USD 300 million), followed by Rwanda (USD 230 million) and Kenya (USD 220 million).

Both philanthropic and ODA gender-specific funding concentrated on Africa, though they targeted different countries, highlighting their complementarity. ODA regional allocations to Africa totalled USD 1.1 billion, and among single countries, Ethiopia received the largest share at USD 570 million, followed by the Democratic Republic of Congo (USD 410 million) and Nigeria (USD 390 million). Other countries such as Tanzania, Mozambique, and South Sudan – which were not major recipients of philanthropic funding – still benefited from substantial gender-specific ODA allocations (Figure 2.36).

Figure 2.36. Philanthropic and ODA *gender-specific* funding was concentrated in Africa, reaching relatively different countries
Copy link to Figure 2.36. Philanthropic and ODA <em>gender-specific</em> funding was concentrated in Africa, reaching relatively different countries

Top recipients of philanthropic and ODA gender-specific funding (2020-2023), USD million (2023 constant)

Box 2.5. Private philanthropy directed USD 1.2 billion for the gender and climate nexus over 2020-2023

Copy link to Box 2.5. Private philanthropy directed USD 1.2 billion for the gender and climate nexus over 2020-2023

Climate impacts and gender inequalities intersect in ways that amplify vulnerabilities, particularly for women in low-income countries who face both environmental risks and systemic discrimination. Gender inequality, climate change, biodiversity loss and environmental degradation are interconnected challenges and are mutually reinforcing. Women and girls are disproportionately exposed to the impacts of climate change and have fewer resources and less information to be able to adapt to it. For example, climate change induced weather events can threaten families’ livelihoods and deplete their already scarce resources. As a coping strategy, families may take their children – and particularly girls – out of school or consider early marriage. Another example is the increased vulnerability to gender-based violence in the aftermath of crises and during displacement, but also in daily life as distances to collect, e.g. water increase (OECD, 2024[24]; OECD, 2023[25]).

The OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) has been tracking the extent to which international development finance, including private philanthropy, approaches these challenges in an interconnected manner. The structure of the CRS framework allows for the identification of funding addressing cross-cutting issues such as gender equality and climate change. Specifically, by combining sectoral purpose codes with policy markers, it is possible to capture funding allocated to projects that integrate both gender and climate change objectives over the 2020‑2023 period. The sample of disbursements considered under this category included all flows classified as gender-specific through the use of the four gender purpose codes and simultaneously marked with the Rio markers for climate change adaptation, mitigation, or both. In addition, disbursements were included when they were marked with both the gender marker and the Rio climate markers, even when the primary sectoral classification was not explicitly related to gender or environmental objectives.

Over 2020-2023, private philanthropic sources disbursed a total of USD 1.2 billion (in constant 2023 prices) to projects that addressed both gender equality and climate change – whether adaptation and/or mitigation – as a policy objective. The Gates Foundation was the largest contributor to this gender-climate intersection, accounting for 52% of total funding (USD 640 million), followed by the Postcode Lottery Group (USD 173 million) and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation (USD 100 million). Funding was highly concentrated, with the three largest providers together accounting for 75% of total disbursements.

Funding at the gender–climate intersection was largely concentrated in the agricultural sector, particularly in research-related activities (USD 162 million), policy and administrative management (USD 131 million) and agricultural development (USD 119 million). Additional funding also supported environmental policy (USD 114 million) and material relief assistance and services (USD 70 million). Disbursements were primarily directed to initiatives with a regional focus in sub-Saharan Africa, amounting to USD 140 million, as well as to single countries, notably India (USD 83 million), Nigeria (USD 77 million) and Ethiopia (USD 77 million). At the continental level, Africa received close to 50% of total funding, while Asia was the second-largest recipient, accounting for approximately 12%.

Note: The following entities of the Postcode Lottery Group are merged: Swedish Postcode Lottery, People's Postcode Lottery, Dutch Postcode Lottery, Norwegian Postcode Lottery and German Postcode Lottery.

Source: OECD Private Philanthropy for Development financial survey and OECD Creditor Reporting System, https://data-explorer.oecd.org.

2.4.4. Survey data revealed strong integration of gender perspectives in philanthropy work

The OECD Centre on Philanthropy collected data through an organisational survey covering various organisational aspects of 105 large philanthropic donors, including a dedicated “gender equality” module examining how foundations support gender equality in practice across their programmes and strategic work. Responses to the organisational survey help clarify whether and how foundations integrate gender objectives into their programmes and strategies, beyond individual projects.

Nearly two-thirds of respondents to the organisational survey reported financing activities with the reduction of gender inequalities as a primary and/or secondary goal (66 respondents out of 105; 63%). This share was consistent with that of the 2016-2019 OECD organisational survey (OECD, 2021[3]), suggesting stability in the integration of gender policy objectives over time. Yet there remains scope for further progress, as over a third of respondents’ work was gender-blind (Figure 2.37).

Regional variation in the integration of gender equality objectives pointed to differences in thematic focus: 41% of respondents based in North America and LAC, and 34% of respondents based in Europe reported integrating a gender lens into their programming, while it was only 29% and 20% for respondents based in Asia-Pacific and Africa, respectively.

Figure 2.37. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents reported using a gender lens in their giving
Copy link to Figure 2.37. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents reported using a gender lens in their giving

Share of respondents, by gender approach

Among the 44 respondents who reported using a primary or combined gender lens in their giving, the most common project types were capacity-building initiatives and direct service and goods delivery to women and girls, cited by 80% and 70% of respondents, respectively. Research projects (50%) and policy advocacy projects (48%) were also frequently cited. Movement building, grassroots mobilisation, and media outreach projects were less common, cited by 43% and 36% of respondents, respectively (Figure 2.38). Regional data suggested that respondents across all regions used a broadly similar mix of project types, with particularly high levels of capacity building and service delivery in most regions. The distribution of project types may suggest that foundations tend to prioritise modalities in which gender-related outcomes and impacts are more tangible and easier to document. The higher share of direct delivery of goods and services to women and girls, as well as research projects could indicate a focus on time-bound, concrete, actionable, and measurable interventions – while steering away from more contentious or politically sensitive activities such as movement building, grassroots mobilisation, or media outreach, whose outcomes are often long-term, and difficult to attribute, measure, and report (Girard, 2019[26]).

Figure 2.38. Most respondents targeted gender equality through capacity-building initiatives and the direct provision of services and goods to women and girls
Copy link to Figure 2.38. Most respondents targeted gender equality through capacity-building initiatives and the direct provision of services and goods to women and girls

Share of respondents, by project type

Nearly half of respondents (48%) reporting investments in gender equality also implemented strategies and programmes targeting men and boys, recognising that engaging men and boys is an important component of promoting behavioural and attitudinal changes in support of greater gender equality (UN Women, 2024[27]).

Beyond the thematic focus and implementation modalities of gender giving, foundations also draw on a range of tools and approaches to integrate a gender lens, reflecting different ways of informing programme design, implementation, and learning. Intersectoral analysis – considering gender equality alongside other thematic areas such as education or climate – was the most reported approach (used by 64% of respondents). Intersectional analysis14 and gender analysis15 were also widely applied, with each reported by over half of respondents (55%). In practice, foundations may combine several of these tools at different stages of the programme cycle, for example to inform initial design choices, adapt implementation modalities or assess results.

Respondents faced different barriers to investing more in gender equality. For 23% of respondents, gender equality was not a priority for achieving their mission, and 22% reported limited staff capacity to design, implement, and manage gender-responsive projects. In some cases, foundations are turning to collaborative approaches and pooled funding mechanisms to overcome some of these limitations, leveraging partnerships to increase the reach and impact of their gender-responsive investments (see Box 2.6). Some respondents also mentioned their wish to not single out women beneficiaries (13% of respondents), while the difficulty in measuring and reporting tangible results was mentioned by a minority share of respondents (6%) (Figure 2.39).

Figure 2.39. Lack of programmatic prioritisation and limited staff capacity were the main obstacles to greater gender funding
Copy link to Figure 2.39. Lack of programmatic prioritisation and limited staff capacity were the main obstacles to greater gender funding

Number of respondents, by barrier type

Box 2.6. How are gender philanthropic collaboratives mobilising to increase the impact of their funding?

Copy link to Box 2.6. How are gender philanthropic collaboratives mobilising to increase the impact of their funding?

The emergence of collaborative gender funds

A new generation of feminist funds is reshaping how gender equality and feminist movements are funded globally, supporting intersectional movements, and shifting power in the philanthropic and development landscapes (Hessini, 2020[28]). These pooled funding mechanisms – including philanthropic collaboratives such as Co-Impact's Gender Fund, the Black Feminist Fund, and others – represent a strategic shift away from fragmented, project-based grant-making toward large-scale, long-term, flexible support for gender equality and women-led organisations. By pooling resources from multiple donors, these collaboratives aim to address the chronic underfunding of gender equality agenda while demonstrating new models of trust-based and participatory philanthropy. Furthermore, gender collaboratives aim to address several systemic failures in traditional philanthropy, including scale mismatch – where individual foundations often cannot provide grants large enough to support systems-level change – or high transaction costs reducing the burden on grantees of managing relationships with multiple donors (The Bridgespan Group, 2019[29]).

Co-Impact: Systems change at scale

Launched in 2022 after three years of internal research and consultations, Co-Impact's Gender Fund aims to raise and deploy USD 1 billion over a decade to provide predominantly women-led, locally rooted organisations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America with large-scale, long-term, and flexible funding (Co-Impact, 2025[30]). The Gender Fund brings together leading foundations, philanthropists, corporations and other donors to commit significant funding to gender equality. The fund targets systems change and, rather than addressing isolated problems, supports partners working to transform underlying structures, policies, and norms across health, education, economic opportunity, and law (Co-Impact, 2021[31]). Building on the Gender Fund model, Co-Impact has partnered with ICONIQ Impact, the collaborative philanthropy platform of global investment firm ICONIQ, to launch in 2025 the Women’s Health Co-Lab, a specialised collaborative fund. This initiative aims to mobilise USD 100 million to address the core drivers of health inequity for women and girls across three focus areas: maternal health, sexual and reproductive health and rights, and gender-based violence. The Co‑Lab is kicking off with over USD 70 million in donations from its founding donors and will support 22 grantee organisations with unrestricted funding over the next three years (Co-Impact, 2025[32]).

The Black Feminist Fund: Addressing intersectional funding gaps

The Black Feminist Fund (BFF) was founded in 2021 in response to the reality that, out of nearly USD 70 billion in foundation giving globally, less than 0.5 percent went to Black feminist social movements (Inside Philanthropy, 2021[33]). With close to USD 30 million in seed investments in 2021 – from the Ford Foundation, Solidaire and Farbman Family Foundation, among others – BFF seeks to raise USD 100 million over the next two years to provide long-term, flexible support to Black feminist groups in low- and middle- income countries. It concentrates on groups working on issues such as violence prevention, resource rights around land, food and water, and cultivating the leadership of girls and young Black feminists (Ford Foundation, 2021[34]). Beyond grant-making, the fund also operates the Black Feminists in Philanthropy Network to mobilise resources and organise Black women working in philanthropy to collectively demand better funding for Black feminist movements (Black Feminist Fund, 2025[35]).

2.4.5. Philanthropy’s growing role in environmental protection and climate finance

Philanthropic organisations are increasingly funding initiatives in climate mitigation, adaptation and biodiversity, and play a complementary role alongside multilateral mechanisms such as the Green Climate Fund (GCF) (Pérez López, Mulas Alcántara and López Pérez, 2024[36]), providing seed funding, programme-related investments, and participating in Public-Private-Philanthropy Partnerships (PPPPs) that leverage greater resources (Fernández Gómez, 2024[37]).

Recent analysis estimates that annual adaptation finance needs in low- and middle-income countries could reach USD 215-387 billion by 2030, highlighting philanthropy’s potential role in helping to fill persistent financing gaps (World Resources Institute, 2025[38]). By financing early-warning systems, municipal adaptation funds, and community-based insurance schemes, foundations can pilot scalable models for larger donors and investors. The Adaptation and Resilience Fund – supported by the Rockefeller Foundation, Laudes Foundation, Quadrature Climate Foundation, and Howden Foundation – illustrates this catalytic function, channelling USD 50 million into resilience initiatives across Africa and Asia (ClimateWorks, 2025[39]).

Evidence from philanthropy in Asia also confirms climate action is becoming a key area of giving for foundations. The Asian Venture Philanthropy Network reports that regional philanthropists are prioritising climate adaptation, biodiversity preservation and renewable energy (AVPN, 2022[40]), often through catalytic capital facilities such as the Southeast Asia Clean Energy Facility (SEACEF). Interestingly, Chinese domestic philanthropy has developed innovative tools, such as green panda bonds and ecological park co-management, which are led by organisations such as the Shenzhen Mangrove Wetlands Conservation Foundation.

Philanthropic development finance for environmental protection

Between 2020 and 2023, private philanthropy16 contributed approximately USD 3.7 billion to general environmental protection, accounting for 5% of total philanthropic funding for development. The vast majority (93%) of this financing came from cross-border philanthropic donors. In comparison, ODA disbursements for general environmental protection reached USD 17.9 billion over the same period, representing 2% of total ODA. Overall, ODA funding for environmental protection was about five times larger than philanthropic contributions (Figure 2.40).

Figure 2.40. Evolution of general environmental protection finance over 2020-2023
Copy link to Figure 2.40. Evolution of general environmental protection finance over 2020-2023

Total philanthropic and ODA general environment protection funding in time (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant)

The largest funders within the general environmental protection sector17 were the Bezos Earth Fund (USD 0.7 billion), representing 19% of total philanthropic contributions to this sector, and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation (USD 0.4 billion; 11%). Other major funders included the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, the IKEA Foundation and the Postcode Lottery Group. In terms of ODA, Germany was the largest official provider with USD 4.6 billion (26% of total ODA to this sector), followed by France (USD 3.0 billion; 17%) and the United States (USD 2.2 billion; 12%) (Figure 2.41).

Figure 2.41. The Bezos Earth Fund was the largest donor for general environmental protection
Copy link to Figure 2.41. The Bezos Earth Fund was the largest donor for general environmental protection

Top philanthropic and ODA providers of general environmental protection funding (2020-2023), USD million (2023 constant)

India and China emerged as the largest recipients of environmental protection funding, receiving USD 0.19 billion and USD 0.18 billion, respectively, in combined cross-border and domestic philanthropic funding. Brazil followed with USD 0.14 billion, then Mexico with USD 0.12 billion. In contrast, ODA environmental protection finance displayed a relatively different geographical distribution: Colombia was the largest recipient, receiving USD 1.1 billion, followed by Africa-level regional allocations (USD 0.8 billion). Mexico ranked third (USD 0.7 billion), followed by Indonesia (USD 0.4 billion) (Figure 2.42).

Figure 2.42. Philanthropic general environmental protection funding concentrated in India and China
Copy link to Figure 2.42. Philanthropic general environmental protection funding concentrated in India and China

Top recipients of philanthropic and ODA general environmental protection funding (2020-2023), USD million (2023 constant)

Both philanthropic and ODA environmental protection funding were heavily concentrated in the top two areas: environmental policy and administrative management,18 and biodiversity. However, ODA funding was significantly larger in scale, allocating USD 15.0 billion for these two areas combined, while philanthropy allocated only USD 3.1 billion. Other areas such as biosphere protection and environmental research received relatively less funding from both ODA and philanthropy (Figure 2.43). While biodiversity is indeed a top priority for both ODA and philanthropy within the general environmental protection sector, more comprehensive methodology exists to track the contributions of international and private development finance to the biodiversity objectives, as set under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (see Box 2.7).

Figure 2.43. Within environmental protection, both philanthropy and ODA prioritised biodiversity and environmental policy
Copy link to Figure 2.43. Within environmental protection, both philanthropy and ODA prioritised biodiversity and environmental policy

Philanthropic and ODA general environmental protection funding, by top sub-sectors (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant)

Box 2.7. How to comprehensively capture philanthropic contributions for biodiversity?

Copy link to Box 2.7. How to comprehensively capture philanthropic contributions for biodiversity?

Mobilising private philanthropy to halt and reverse biodiversity loss

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), adopted in 2022 under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), highlights the need to increase the ambition to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, calling for action from both public and private actors and requiring a whole of government and whole of society approach. In particular, it sets out ambitious resource mobilisation goals (Goal D and Target 19) to scale up biodiversity finance from all sources to at least USD 200 billion annually by 2030, including via international financial resources for biodiversity to at least USD 20 billion per year by 2025, and to at least USD 30 billion per year by 2030 (Target 19a) to support low- and middle-income countries. (CBD, 2022[41]). Failure to scale up biodiversity finance will result in significant risks and costs to human health, well-being and the economy.

Recent OECD analysis revealed that development finance for biodiversity increased from all sources between 2015 and 2023 (from USD 7.3 billion in 2015 to USD 16.8 billion in 2023, following the biodiversity-specific approach) (OECD, Forthcoming[42]). In particular, within this context, private philanthropic institutions are also consolidating their investments in biodiversity-related areas, providing USD 501 million in 2017 and USD 610 million in 2023 (an increase of 22%, and peaking in 2021 with USD 932 million) (Figure 2.44). Philanthropic funding over this period is exclusively grant-based and is important in sectors such as general environment protection, agriculture and fishing (60%, 14% and 8% of their total contributions to biodiversity). In 2023, private philanthropies accounted for the highest share of biodiversity-related activities marked as having a “principal-like” objective, with 70% of their biodiversity funding targeting biodiversity as the main objective. For example, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation provided a grant to establish the Global Conservation Fund, which creates and expands protected areas – including national parks, privately-owned lands, and community-managed reserves – while developing sustainable financing mechanisms to ensure their long-term management (Conservation International, 2023[43]).

Figure 2.44. Biodiversity-related finance by private philanthropy
Copy link to Figure 2.44. Biodiversity-related finance by private philanthropy

2015-2023, USD million (current), disbursements, full values, estimates

As noted in OECD analysis, private philanthropies play an important role in the context of development and biodiversity, reflected by their increasing participation in the Conference of the Parties (COPs) and engagement in international fora, as well as through their commitments (OECD, 2024[44]) – such as Protecting Our Planet Challenge (POP, 2021[45]), IPLC Forest Tenure Pledge (Land Portal, 2023[46]), and Climate and Land Use Alliance (Climate and Land Use Alliance, 2024[47]). Recently, at COP30 in Belém, Brazil, the Rockefeller Foundation committed USD 5.4 million in favour of regenerative ecosystems connected to Brazil’s school meal programmes (The Rockefeller Foundation, 2025[48]), illustrating how major philanthropies are investing in solutions that integrate biodiversity protection with community development, nutrition and climate adaptation objectives.

Methodological approach to capture biodiversity-related development finance

The OECD Creditor Reporting System (CRS) is the main database on development finance for biodiversity from a range of sources, including bilateral [DAC and non-DAC] and multilateral providers, private philanthropies and private finance mobilised through development finance initiatives. The Total Official Support for Sustainable Development (TOSSD) database complements the CRS by capturing additional activities from DAC and other South-South and triangular co-operation providers (OECD, 2024[44]).

Analysis building on these data sources relies on a granular methodology that applies the Rio marker on biodiversity and its underlying framework, complemented by the use of tags (e.g. SDG 14 on marine biodiversity and SDG 15 on terrestrial biodiversity), the biodiversity purpose code, and keyword searches. In this context, biodiversity-related activities are defined as those that contribute to at least one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD): (1) the conservation of biodiversity; (2) the sustainable use of its components (ecosystems, species, or genetic resources); and (3) the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilisation of genetic resources.

Overall, continued efforts are needed to build transparency and foster visibility in the contributions of all stakeholders in the domain of biodiversity conservation, including private philanthropic foundations.

Source: Dominique Blaquier from OECD Development Co-operation Directorate.

Philanthropic development finance for climate action

DAC members’ reporting on their ODA also includes information on the climate relevance of their activities. In particular, they report whether an ODA activity pursued climate change adaptation and/or mitigation as its principal objective, as significant (secondary) objective, or if it did not target the objective. Here, climate-related funding refers to financing flows of activities with either climate mitigation or climate adaptation (or both) marked as a principal or a significant objective.

The largest foundations that annually report on their individual spending and are included in the OECD Creditor Reporting System and foundation reporting to the OECD Centre on Philanthropy also provide this information. For foundations that did not report Rio markers, or for which such data were not available in the secondary sources used, relevant activities were identified through keyword-based screening (see Annex A).

Figure 2.45. Evolution of *climate-related* funding for philanthropy and ODA
Copy link to Figure 2.45. Evolution of <em>climate-related</em> funding for philanthropy and ODA

Total philanthropic and ODA climate-related funding in time (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant)

Over the period 2020-2023, a total of USD 6.8 billion in private philanthropic funding was directed toward climate change adaptation and/or mitigation, representing 10% of total private philanthropy for development. Of this amount, USD 6.3 billion was provided through cross-border philanthropy, while domestic philanthropy accounted for USD 0.5 billion. ODA disbursements for climate change adaptation and/or mitigation amounted to USD 139 billion, representing 18% of total ODA (Figure 2.45). Overall, ODA volumes for climate change were more than 20 times larger than philanthropic flows.

The top ten providers of philanthropic climate-related funding were all international foundations. The Gates Foundation led the way with USD 1.1 billion, followed by the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, IKEA Foundation and the Bezos Earth Fund with USD 0.6 billion each. The Postcode Lottery Group was ranked fourth, providing USD 0.5 billion. In terms of ODA, Germany was the largest provider of climate-related funding with USD 31 billion, followed by Japan (USD 25 billion) and France (USD 19 billion) (Figure 2.46).

Figure 2.46. Top ten philanthropic donors provided ~70% of the total philanthropic *climate-related* funding
Copy link to Figure 2.46. Top ten philanthropic donors provided ~70% of the total philanthropic <em>climate-related</em> funding

Top philanthropic and ODA climate-related donors (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant)

Climate-related regional allocations to Africa accounted for the largest share of philanthropic funding at USD 0.7 billion. China ranked second, with USD 0.7 billion in climate-related philanthropic funding, the majority of which originated from domestic sources. India ranked third, with USD 0.5 billion, reflecting a significant, though comparatively smaller, contribution from domestic sources. Smaller but still significant allocations also targeted African countries: Ethiopia (USD 0.2 billion), Nigeria (USD 0.2 billion) and Kenya (USD 0.2 billion). In contrast, ODA climate-related finance displayed a relatively different country distribution: India was the largest recipient by far (USD 10.4 billion), followed by Bangladesh (USD 4.7 billion), Indonesia (USD 4.4 billion) and the Philippines (USD 3.5 billion). Both philanthropy and ODA channelled substantial climate funding to India and regional programmes in Africa (with USD 7.1 billion in ODA), indicating some shared priorities in financing climate change adaptation/ and or mitigation efforts (Figure 2.47).

Figure 2.47. Both philanthropy and ODA channelled substantial *climate-related* funding to regional programmes in Africa
Copy link to Figure 2.47. Both philanthropy and ODA channelled substantial <em>climate-related</em> funding to regional programmes in Africa

Top philanthropic and ODA climate-related recipients (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant)

Climate change mitigation and/or adaptation philanthropic funding was concentrated in areas such as environmental policy and administrative management (USD 1.3 billion; 19%), renewable energy generation across multiple technologies (USD 0.9 billion; 13%), biodiversity (USD 0.6 billion; 9%), and various agriculture-related fields including development (USD 0.4 billion; 6%), research (USD 0.3 billion; 4%), and policy (USD 0.2 billion; 3%). Climate-related ODA targeted more capital‑intensive infrastructure, with rail transport (largest sub-sector with USD 11.0 billion; 8%), renewable energy generation (USD 7.1 billion; 5%), and electric power transmission and distribution (USD 4.1 billion; 3%). Large ODA funding was also directed towards strengthening both environmental and energy policy and administrative management (USD 13.1 billion; 9%) (Figure 2.48).

Both climate-related philanthropic funding and ODA prioritised the following sub-sectors: environmental policy and administrative management; renewable energy generation; and agricultural development.

Figure 2.48. *Climate-related* philanthropic and ODA funding prioritised environmental policy
Copy link to Figure 2.48. <em>Climate-related</em> philanthropic and ODA funding prioritised environmental policy

Philanthropic and ODA climate-related funding, by top sub-sectors (2020-2023), USD billion (2023 constant)

References

[22] Austin, N. (2018), Why the Gates Foundation Believes Transforming Agriculture Starts with Greater Investment in Gender Equality, Medium, https://medium.com/@DrNickAustin/why-the-gates-foundation-believes-transforming-agriculture-starts-with-greater-investment-in-gender-95ac4aa28449 (accessed on 10 December 2025).

[40] AVPN (2022), Climate philanthropy in Asia, https://avpn.asia/reports/climate-philanthropy-asia/.

[35] Black Feminist Fund (2025), Black Feminists in Philanthropy — Our Work, https://blackfeministfund.org/our-work/black-feminists-in-philanthropy/ (accessed on 23 December 2025).

[41] CBD (2022), “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework”, https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/e6d3/cd1d/daf663719a03902a9b116c34/cop-15-l-25-en.pdf (accessed on 17 December 2025).

[47] Climate and Land Use Alliance (2024), Climate and Land Use Alliance, https://climateandlandusealliance.org/ (accessed on 17 December 2025).

[39] ClimateWorks (2025), Foundations Launch $50 Million Adaptation and Resilience Fund for Communities Facing Climate Risks, 2025, https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/foundations-launch-50-million-adaptation-and-resilience-fund-for-communities-facing-climate-risks/ (accessed on 17 December 2025).

[30] Co-Impact (2025), Gender Fund – What We Fund, https://co-impact.org/about-us/gender-fund/ (accessed on 23 December 2025).

[32] Co-Impact (2025), ICONIQ Impact and Co-Impact announce Women’s Health Co-Lab, https://co-impact.org/news/iconiq-impact-and-co-impact-announce-womens-health-co-lab/ (accessed on 13 January 2026).

[31] Co-Impact (2021), Handbook, https://www.co-impact.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Co-Impact-Handbook-digital.pdf (accessed on 23 December 2025).

[43] Conservation International (2023), “Global Conservation Fund: Ensuring the permanent protection of the natural areas most essential to human well-being through innovative financing solutions”, https://www.conservation.org/projects (accessed on 17 December 2025).

[17] Education Above All (2024), The Education Above All Foundation, The Ministry of Finance Qatar and The World Bank to Drive Impact for Global Education, https://www.educationaboveall.org/media-centre/news/education-above-all-foundation-ministry-finance-qatar-and-world-bank-drive-impact.

[21] Equal Measures (2024), A gender equal future in crisis? Findings from the 2024 SDG Gender Index, https://www.equalmeasures2030.org/2024-sdg-gender-index/.

[37] Fernández Gómez, J. (2024), “FINANCING SUSTAINABLE PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES. Innovative schemes based on public-private partnerships ”, Universidad de Deusto, País Vasco, https://doi.org/10.18543/ZZXV8393.

[34] Ford Foundation (2021), Meet the Black Feminist Fund founders out to transform philanthropy, https://www.fordfoundation.org/news-and-stories/stories/meet-the-black-feminist-fund-founders-out-to-transform-philanthropy/ (accessed on 23 December 2025).

[26] Girard, F. (2019), “Philanthropy for the Women’s Movement, Not Just ‘Empowerment”, Stanford Social Innovation Review, https://doi.org/10.48558/1DGG-3N22.

[13] Habbel, V. et al. (2021), “Evaluating blended finance instruments and mechanisms: Approaches and methods”, OECD Development Co-operation Working Papers, No. 101, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f1574c10-en.

[28] Hessini, L. (2020), “Financing for gender equality and women’s rights: the role of feminist funds”, Gender & Development, Vol. 28/2, pp. 357-376, https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2020.1766830.

[20] IEFG (2025), Scenario Series, https://iefg.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/IEFG-Scenarios-1-Private-Capital-Flows-Into-Education_Final.pdf (accessed on 4 February 2026).

[19] IFFEd (2025), The International Finance Facility for Education, https://iff-education.org/ (accessed on 4 February 2026).

[6] Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy (2022), 2022 Global Philanthropy Environment Index, https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/handle/2022/43304.

[33] Inside Philanthropy (2021), “The Dire State of Funding for Black Feminist Movements — and What Donors Can Do About It”, https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/home/2021-8-5-the-dire-state-of-funding-for-black-feminist-movementsand-what-donors-can-do-about-it (accessed on 23 December 2025).

[18] Jacobs Foundation (2025), System Change Architecture for Learning Excellence (SCALE), https://jacobsfoundation.org/activity/system-change-architecture-for-learning-excellence-scale/ (accessed on 4 February 2026).

[12] Kaye, J., J. Hannachi and M. Jacquand (2021), Conditions for successful investments in fragile and conflict-affected states A TrustWorks-led project in partnership with NIRAS for the Dutch Entrepreneurial Development Bank (FMO), https://trustworks.global/reports/fmo-niras-collaboration/.

[46] Land Portal (2023), Donor Pledge to Advance Indigenous Peoples’ and Local Communities’ Tenure Rights and their Forest Guardianship, https://landportal.org/forest-tenure-funders-group-FTFG (accessed on 17 December 2025).

[9] MAG (Mines Advisory Group) (2025), Howard G. Buffett Foundation to fund mine detection dogs to clear Ukrainian agricultural land, https://www.maginternational.org/whats-happening/howard-g-buffett-foundation-fund-dogs-Ukraine/ (accessed on 16 December 2025).

[4] Oak Foundation (2024), Philanthropy Ecosystem in Africa, https://oakfnd.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/African-Scoping-Report-October-2024.pdf (accessed on 22 January 2026).

[5] OECD (2026), Private Philanthropy for Development in Mexico (Revised Edition), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3d20d122-en.

[1] OECD (2025), Cuts in official development assistance: OECD projections for 2025 and the near term, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8c530629-en.

[7] OECD (2025), Development Co-operation Profiles: Howard G. Buffett Foundation, https://doi.org/10.1787/dcr-profile.

[10] OECD (2025), States of Fragility 2025, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/81982370-en.

[44] OECD (2024), Biodiversity and Development Finance 2015-2022: Contributing to Target 19 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d26526ad-en.

[24] OECD (2024), Development Finance for Gender Equality 2024, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e340afbf-en.

[23] OECD (2024), “How philanthropic foundations support gender equality and women’s empowerment”, OECD Development Policy Papers, No. 55, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3fbec947-en.

[25] OECD (2023), “The Gender Equality and Environment Intersection: An overview of development co-operation frameworks and financing”, OECD Development Perspectives, No. 38, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c16d8fe8-en.

[3] OECD (2021), Private Philanthropy for Development – Second Edition: Data for Action, The Development Dimension, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cdf37f1e-en.

[2] OECD (2018), Private Philanthropy for Development, The Development Dimension, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264085190-en.

[42] OECD (Forthcoming), Biodiversity and Development Finance 2015-2023: Contributing to Target 19a of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, OECD Publishing, Paris.

[36] Pérez López, J., M. Mulas Alcántara and R. López Pérez (2024), “El Fondo Verde para el Clima: la segunda reposición del mayor fondo climático para apoyar a los países en desarrollo”, ICE, Revista de Economía 936, https://doi.org/10.32796/ice.2024.936.7837.

[45] POP (2021), “Protecting our Planet Challenge”, https://www.protectingourplanetchallenge.org/ (accessed on 17 December 2025).

[29] The Bridgespan Group (2019), Are Funder Collaboratives Valuable? A Research Study, https://www.bridgespan.org/getmedia/3bec9088-712d-4e06-9bd7-fdcfdc10db57/bridgespan-2019-value-of-philanthropic-collaboration-research-study.pdf (accessed on 23 December 2025).

[8] The Howard G. Buffet Foundation (2023), Annual Report, https://www.thehowardgbuffettfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/HGBF-2023-AR.pdf (accessed on 16 December 2025).

[48] The Rockefeller Foundation (2025), Rockefeller Foundation Supports Brazil-Led Food Solutions To Nourish People at COP30, https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/rockefeller-foundation-supports-brazil-led-food-solutions-to-nourish-people-at-cop30/ (accessed on 17 December 2025).

[11] Thompson, C. (2020), “Financing in fragile contexts”, OECD Development Co-operation Working Papers, No. 88, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e87c2402-en.

[27] UN Women (2024), How men and boys can push for gender equality, https://www.unwomen.org/en/articles/explainer/how-men-and-boys-can-push-for-gender-equality (accessed on 3 February 2026).

[15] UNESCO (2025), Closing the global SDG4 financing gap: accelerating sustainable financing solutions for education, https://financing.desa.un.org/sites/default/files/2025-02/Brief%20Series%20-%20UNESCO_Financing%20Gap.pdf (accessed on 5 January 2026).

[16] UNESCO (2025), Not business as usual: Innovative ways to fund education, https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/not-business-usual-innovative-ways-fund-education (accessed on 5 January 2026).

[14] World Bank (2024), Education Finance Watch, The World Bank, https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/education/publication/education-finance-watch.

[38] World Resources Institute (2025), “How Philanthropy Can Boost Adaptation Finance in Developing Countries”, https://www.wri.org/insights/philanthropy-adaptation-finance-developing-countries (accessed on 17 December 2025).

Notes

Copy link to Notes

← 1. Includes ODA by DAC bilateral providers and EU institutions.

← 2. In 2024, ODA from DAC member countries declined for the first time in six years, falling by 7.1% in real terms compared to 2023, the first drop after five years of consecutive growth, with further declines projected for 2025 (OECD, 2025[1]).

← 3. According to the DAC List of ODA Recipients for 2020 flows, ODA-eligible countries in Europe include Albania, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Türkiye, and Ukraine.

← 4. The data we hold for domestic markets largely come from three countries: India, China and Mexico. Therefore, these three countries must be treated separately. Trends in overall domestic philanthropy compared with international philanthropy are only informative at country level for these three countries.

← 5. This include Libya, Angola, Burundi, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, the Republic of the Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, Côte d’Ivoire, Kenya, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Eritrea, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Djibouti, Sudan, South Sudan, Eswatini, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Burkina Faso, Zambia, Guatemala, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic, Yemen, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Timor-Leste, Papua New Guinea, and Solomon Islands.

← 6. For a visualisation of the fragility framework, see: https://www3.compareyourcountry.org/states-of-fragility/overview/0/

← 7. This includes both cross-border and domestic philanthropy.

← 8. See https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ideas/media-center/press-releases/2025/05/25th-anniversary-announcement

← 9. The “COVID-19 control” purpose code was introduced in 2020 and can be assigned to “all activities related to COVID-19 control, e.g. information, education and communication; testing; prevention; immunisation, treatment, care”. Support for development or distribution of vaccines, as well as for personal protection equipment (PPE) and COVID-19 tests would all fall under this purpose code.

← 10. Includes the following OECD DAC purpose codes: Infectious disease control (12250), Malaria control (12262), Tuberculosis control (12263), COVID-19 control (12264) and STD control including HIV/AIDS (13040).

← 11. Refers to institution-building assistance to strengthen core public sector management systems and capacities. This includes general public policy management, co-ordination, planning and reform; human resource management; organisational development; civil service reform; e-government; development planning, monitoring and evaluation; support to ministries involved in aid co-ordination; and other ministries and government departments when sector cannot be specified.

← 12. Includes the following OECD DAC purpose codes: Family planning (13030); Reproductive health care (13020); Women’s rights organisations and movements, and government institutions (15170), and Ending violence against women and girls (15180).

← 13. Including the following OECD DAC purpose codes: Family planning (13030); Reproductive health care (13020); and Ending violence against women and girls (15180).

← 14. Defined as applying a perspective that acknowledges that the interaction (or overlap) between gender and another social categorisation (such as race, ethnicity, education, age, disability, class, caste, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc.) may lead to increased inequalities and further disadvantage some women who belong to more than one category.

← 15. Defined as applying a perspective that assesses the differences between women and men, girls and boys in terms of their relative distribution of resources, opportunities, constraints and power during the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of its programmes to ensure equitable participation of women and men.

← 16. Including cross-border and domestic.

← 17. Identified with the OECD DAC purpose code: General environmental protection (410).

← 18. Refers to environmental policy, laws, regulations and economic instruments; administrational institutions and practices; environmental and land use planning and decision-making procedures; seminars, meetings; and miscellaneous conservation and protection measures not specified below.

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Countries

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Publications

Publications

Featured publications

Data

Data

Featured data

News & events

News & events

Featured events

About OECD

About

Engage with us

Work with us

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment