Order Code IB95052
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Africa: U.S. Foreign
Assistance Issues
Updated January 22, 2002
Raymond W. Copson
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
U.S. Aid to Africa: An Overview
Bilateral Aid
Past Decline
Development Fund for Africa, DA, and Child Survival Aid
Food Aid
Peace Corps
Security Assistance
Regional Programs
African Development Foundation
Refugee and Disaster Assistance
Multilateral Assistance
Debt Reduction
Total U.S. Assistance
Comparison with Other Donors
Recent Trends in U.S. Aid
Issues in 2002
Congressional Action in 2001
LEGISLATION

---

IB950521
01-22-02
Africa: U.S. Foreign Assistance Issues
SUMMARY
The Bush Administration requested
As the Cold War eased, security assistance
$789.4 million in Development Assistance
programs for Africa began to drop. Bilateral
(DA) for sub-Saharan Africa in FY2002, $4.2
economic assistance for Africa today remains
million less than was provided in FY2001.
close to the FY1990 low. The Organization
However, the Foreign Operations Appropria-
for Economic Cooperation and Development
tions bill that became law (P.L. 107-115) on
reports that in 1999, the United States ranked
January 10, 2002, provides more than
third as a bilateral African development aid
requested worldwide for the Child Survival
donor, behind France and Germany. In some
and Health Fund portion of DA, suggesting
recent years, the United States has ranked
that the Administration’s Africa DA proposal
fourth, behind Japan.
will be met or exceeded. The appropriations
legislation provides requested funding levels
Bilateral channels for aid to Africa, in
for the African Development Bank and the
addition to the DFA, include food assistance,
African Development Foundation. For a
refugee assistance, and the Peace Corps, which
comparison of requested aid amounts with
has over 2,200 volunteers in the sub-Saharan
levels provided in the Foreign Operations
region. The U.S. African Development Foun-
appropriations, see Table 5 at the end of this
dation makes small grants to African coopera-
report.
tives, youth groups, and other self-help organi-
zations. U.S. security assistance, though still
In 1995, at the outset of the 104th Con-
quite low, is increasing once again, primarily
gress, substantial reductions in aid to Africa
because of U.S. support for African peace-
had been anticipated, as many questioned the
keeping initiatives. The World Bank’s Interna-
importance of Africa to U.S. national security
tional Development Association (IDA) is the
interests in the post-Cold War era. This posi-
principal channel for multilateral U.S. aid.
tion seemed to moderate as the debate went
forward, and congressional reports and bills
USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios
acknowledged U.S. humanitarian, economic,
has testified that the Bush Administration is
and other interests in Africa. Aid levels did fall
focusing on conflict prevention and resolution,
from FY1996 through FY1997, but began to
working with NGOs and faith-based organiza-
increase in FY1998.
tions, poverty reduction, agricultural develop-
ment, and health, including HIV/AIDS. The
U.S. assistance finds its way to Africa
Clinton Administration pushed African recipi-
through a variety of channels, including the
ents to undertake economic and political
USAID-administered Development Fund for
reforms, and placed increased emphasis on
Africa (DFA), food aid programs, and indirect
population and environmental programs. It
aid provided through international organiza-
also launched special Africa-related initiatives,
tions. U.S. assistance through all such chan-
including HIV/AIDS, democracy, and internet
nels, though problematic to calculate, totaled
initiatives, as well as programs to promote
more than $2 billion in FY2000.
African conflict resolution.
U.S. assistance to sub-Saharan Africa
reached a peak in 1985, when global competi-
tion with the Soviet Union was at a high point.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB95052
01-22-02
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On January 19, 2002, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) began
to airlift relief supplies to Goma, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and to nearby
Gisenyi, Rwanda, to assist victims of a January 17 volcanic eruption that had devastated
Goma. USAID had earlier dispatched an assessment team to determine additional relief
needs. On January 10, President Bush signed into law the Foreign Operations
Appropriations bill (H.R. 2506/P.L. 107-115), funding major foreign assistance programs
for Africa. For details, see Legislation section. For information on recent developments
in the U.S. response to the African HIV/AIDS pandemic, see CRS Issue Brief IB10050, AIDS
in Africa.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
U.S. Aid to Africa: An Overview
Bilateral Aid
U.S. assistance finds its way to Africa through a variety of channels. Bilateral or
country-to-country aid, also known as direct assistance, is given by the U.S. government to
African governments and their agencies or to non-governmental organizations (NGOs), also
known as private and voluntary organizations (PVOs), working within the host country.
Multilateral aid, or indirect assistance, is given first to international financial institutions (IFIs)
and U.N. agencies, which in turn channel it to Africa through their own programs.
Past Decline. Bilateral aid obligations to sub-Saharan Africa, including economic
assistance, food aid, the Peace Corps, and military assistance, reached a peak of $2.5 billion
in FY1985, but fell to $1.3 billion in FY1990 (both figures in constant 2001dollars). Bilateral
aid rose slightly after FY1990, but then dropped off again. Despite increases in FY1998 and
FY1999, recent aid levels have remained at or below the FY1990 level. The aid peak in the
mid-1980s reflected the high levels of foreign affairs spending characteristic of the period,
which in turn grew out of the global competition with the Soviet Union. Efforts to combat
famines afflicting several African countries at the time also boosted aid.
The decline in aid to Africa in the later 1980s was part of a worldwide pattern, in part
reflecting concerns over the size of the U.S. budget deficit and measures to bring the deficit
under control. Toward the end of the decade, moreover, competition with the Soviet Union
in the Third World began to fade as a U.S. priority. Thus, the United States cut aid to some
countries that had been major Cold War aid recipients, including African recipients such as
Zaire and Liberia, because of human rights violations and political instability, or because they
refused to carry through with economic liberalization programs.
The reduction in Africa aid during the 1980s took place almost entirely within the
security-oriented programs: military assistance and especially the Economic Support Fund
(ESF). ESF aid is a type of economic assistance allocated by the State Department, in
CRS-1

---

IB95052
01-22-02
consultation with USAID, with the objective of promoting U.S. security interests. By the
mid-1980s, many in Congress and in the wider aid-oriented community had come to believe
that security assistance programs in Africa had grown too large and that more U.S. aid should
be used to promote long-term development. This concern, combined with declining anxiety
over the Soviet threat, brought a sharp reduction in ESF Africa funding. During the Cold
War, a few African countries regarded as strategically important, such as Sudan, Kenya, and
Somalia, had received substantial grants for the purchase of military equipment, but this sort
of aid was also dropping as the 1980s ended. By FY1995, military grants or financing to
purchase equipment had been phased out, and military aid was largely confined to small
training grants, typically ranging between $100,000 and $200,000, funded under the
International Military Education and Training (IMET) program.
In 1995, at the beginning of the 104th Congress, proposals to restructure and reduce the
U.S. foreign assistance program raised questions about the future of U.S. aid to sub- Saharan
Africa. Many questioned the strategic rationale for assisting Africa in the post-Cold War era,
and asserted that 30 years of U.S. assistance had accomplished little — whether in terms of
promoting economic growth and democratization, or achieving other objectives. The critics
generally favored humanitarian assistance, but sought sharp cuts in programs to accomplish
other objectives. As the aid debate proceeded, however, it became apparent that cuts for
Africa would be less than initially anticipated. The view that the United States has important
humanitarian, economic, and other objectives in Africa was vigorously asserted by supporters
of the Africa aid program, and came to be reflected in report language on the major foreign
assistance bills, and in the bills themselves. Appropriations for Development Assistance in
Africa did drop significantly in FY1996 and remained at the same level in FY1997. But in
FY1998, appropriations began to increase (Table 1).
Table 1. Development Assistance for Sub-Saharan Africa: Request
and Actual Appropriation
(Including Child Survival aid, $millions)
FY1997
FY1998
FY1999
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
Request
704.0
700.0
730.0
790.0a
837.0
789.4
Actual
665.1
700.0
711.3
738.5
793.6
a Includes $45 million in additional CSD requested as part of a July 1999 AIDS initiative.
Development Fund for Africa, DA, and Child Survival Aid. Falling ESF levels
threatened the overall scale of the sub-Saharan aid program after 1985, and this threat led to
the creation of the Development Fund for Africa (DFA), which specifically earmarked a
minimum level of the worldwide Development Assistance program for the region. The DFA
guidelines first appeared in the conference report (H.Rept. 100-498) accompanying the
FY1988 appropriations legislation and were enacted into law in 1990 (P.L. 101-513, Section
562), becoming Chapter 10 of Part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195).
Under this legislation, DFA remained part of the broader DA program (Chapter 1 of the
Foreign Assistance Act), but aid was authorized for a range of specifically Africa-related
objectives. These reflect various development theories and strategies that had emerged in the
CRS-2

---

IB95052
01-22-02
development debate among policy-makers, academics, NGOs, the IFIs, and others over many
years. According to Chapter 10, the purpose of the program “is to help the poor majority of
men and women ... to participate in a process of long-term development through economic
growth that is equitable, participatory, environmentally sustainable, and self-reliant.” Chapter
10 stresses local involvement and “grassroots” development and states that aid is to be used
to “promote sustained economic growth, encourage private sector development, promote
individual initiatives, and help to reduce the role of central governments in areas more
appropriate for the private sector.”
The DFA, with its broad phrasing and support for long-term funding, gave USAID
planners new flexibility in designing the Africa-assistance program. However, Congress did
include guidelines stating that a minimum of 10% of DFA funds should be devoted to each
of three broad purposes: agricultural production, health, and voluntary family planning
services. Obligations for sub-Saharan Africa projects under the DFA reached a peak of $846
million in FY1992, dropping well below $800 million in subsequent years despite efforts by
some Members to increase the DFA appropriation to $1 billion or more.
The DFA was last earmarked by Congress in the FY1995 appropriations, when $802
million was appropriated, and DA for Africa has since been provided out of the worldwide
Development Assistance appropriation. Despite the absence of an earmark, DA going to sub-
Saharan Africa continued to be referred to as DFA, and USAID noted that such aid was still
governed by the provisions of the DFA legislation.
For FY1996, Congress began to appropriate another type of DA: the Child Survival and
Disease Programs Fund (CSD), renamed the Child Survival and Health Programs Fund in
FY2002, which has channeled substantial amounts of aid to Africa. In its FY2000 and
FY2001 budget presentations, USAID listed both DFA and CSD amounts for African
countries and added the two together to present a DA total for each African recipient. This
left the terminology of Africa aid confused, since some of those using the term DFA may still
be referring to the DA total, rather than the smaller, separate DFA amounts requested by
USAID. In its FY2002 congressional presentation, USAID listed “DA,” referring to the
smaller DFA amount, and “CSD,” then adding the two together for a total called “CSD/DA.”
Table 2 lists Child Survival/DA totals for each African recipient. Under the Clinton
Administration’s FY2001 request, Nigeria replaced Uganda, which dropped to third place
behind South Africa, as the leading DA recipient. This ranking is retained under the FY2002
request. Higher levels of DA for South Africa in earlier years have fallen as the country has
moved ahead with its post-apartheid transition. However, plans to phase out the South
Africa program were shelved by the Clinton Administration because of that country’s slow
rate of economic growth and the difficulties it has experienced in creating new jobs. The aid
level for Uganda primarily reflects approval of its free market economic reforms and its role
as “an increasingly stable regional ally” (USAID Congressional Presentation, FY1999).
There is funding for democracy, HIV/AIDS, and other programs in Zimbabwe, despite its
domestic political tensions and its military intervention in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo (DRC) because officials believe it is important for USAID to maintain a presence in
Zimbabwe during a difficult period. For further information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10059,
Zimbabwe: Current Issues.
CRS-3

---

IB95052
01-22-02
Table 2. Child Survival/DA Recipients in Africa
(Includes DFA and CSD, ranked according to FY2002 Request. $ millions)
FY2002
FY2001
FY2000
FY1999
Request
Estimate
Nigeria
54.0
54.9
27.5
12.5
South Africa
52.7
50.5
46.7
47.0
Uganda
50.2
50.4
47.1
46.4
Mozambique
41.2
42.1
45.1
40.7
Ethiopia
40.4
39.3
37.7
39.9
Zambia
38.3
37.4
27.8
20.4
Ghana
35.3
34.0
35.7
46.9
Kenya
33.3
31.3
28.3
19.3
Mali
33.0
33.7
34.7
34.5
Tanzania
25.1
22.9
23.8
21.6
Malawi
24.8
28.0
29.7
32.1
Senegal
24.5
23.6
22.5
23.2
Guinea
19.9
18.4
18.6
17.0
Congo (DRC)
18.6
15.7
9.8
7.9
Madagascar
18.5
19.3
16.0
15.5
Benin
14.3
13.9
13.9
15.7
Rwanda
14.0
13.6
14.1
11.3
Zimbabwe
12.3
12.3
12.1
8.5
Eritrea
10.8
10.2
8.8
10.0
Angola
9.6
8.9
9.0
11.2
Namibia
8.9
10.7
9.2
8.6
Sierra Leone
5.4
5.0
1.0
0
Liberia
5.3
6.1
6.7
7.7
Sudan*
5.0
4.0
0
0
Somalia
3.0
3.0
0
1.5
Burundi
1.5
4.0
0
0
*Development assistance in Sudan has focused on capacity building in southern Sudan. For details on the
full U.S. program, visit [http://www.usaid.gov] and click on “Humanitarian Response” and “Situation
Reports”; see also, CRS Issue Brief IB98043, Sudan: Humanitarian Crisis, Terrorism, Peace Talks, and U.S.
Policy.
Food Aid. Food aid to Africa fluctuates in response to the continent’s needs, and the
amount provided by the end of a fiscal year usually exceeds the initial request. Most of
Africa’s food aid is in the form of emergency grants given under Title II of the P.L. 480
program (named for P.L. 83-480, enacted in 1954), which is implemented by USAID in
cooperation with the Department of Agriculture. On rare occasions, countries in a position
CRS-4

---

IB95052
01-22-02
to repay are given long-term, low-interest loans to purchase food under Title I of P.L. 480.
Some of Africa’s poorest countries have received U.S. food donations under Title III, entitled
“Food for Development,” which can be used in feeding programs or sold on the open market,
with proceeds to be used for development purposes. A few countries have benefitted under
Sec.416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949, which permits donations of surplus food. (For
further information, see CRS Issue Brief IB98006, Agricultural Export and Food Aid
Programs.) For FY2002, the Administration is requesting only Title II Food Aid for 19 sub-
Saharan countries.
Peace Corps. Over 2,200 Peace Corps Volunteers (PCVs) are currently serving in
25 sub-Saharan countries. Under the Peace Corps Act (P.L. 87-293), volunteers are to help
the poorest people meet their basic needs, to promote a better understanding of the American
people, and to promote a better understanding of other peoples on the part of Americans. In
Africa, the Peace Corps attempts to accomplish these objectives through small-scale projects
in agriculture, education, health, the environment, small business development, and urban
development. Political instability and war have hampered Peace Corps efforts in recent years,
forcing withdrawals from Ethiopia, Eritrea, Chad, the DRC, and other countries. The largest
programs today are in Ghana, Mali, Cote d’Ivoire, and Senegal. In June 2000, the Peace
Corps launched an initiative to combat the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa by providing
educational materials and training, and by promoting community outreach efforts. The
HIV/AIDS initiative was partly supported by a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation.
Security Assistance. The security assistance program in Africa, which had declined
with the end of the Cold War, has begun to grow again, primarily in response to widening
conflict and political instability in Africa. Economic Support Fund aid is being used to
support economic reform in Nigeria, a “safe skies” program to improve African air traffic
safety, human rights and democracy education, and other objectives. The Bush
Administration is seeking $20 million under the Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) program,
the same amount provided in FY2001, for the African Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI),
which trains small units of African armies for possible peacekeeping duties. The
Administration is also requesting funds under the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program
to make military assistance grants that will strengthen regional peacekeeping capabilities.
Some FMF funding would also go toward HIV/AIDS education with African militaries.
International Military Education and Training (IMET) programs in Africa are aimed at
promoting professionalism and respect for democracy and human rights, while enhancing
capabilities for participation in peacekeeping operations. These programs run well under $1
million per country, except for South Africa, where $1.2 million has been allocated for
FY2001 and $1.4 million requested for FY2002.
The United States contributes to United Nations peacekeeping operations in Africa and
elsewhere through a program entitled Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities
(CIPA). Funds for CIPA are appropriated in the legislation that funds the Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and State, rather than in the Foreign Operations appropriation, which
governs foreign assistance. CIPA for Africa has increased significantly in FY2001 due to
U.S. support for U.N. peacekeeping in Sierra Leone and along the Ethiopia/Eritrea border.
The Bush Administration has requested a substantial increase for peacekeeping in Sierra
Leone in FY2002, and for the operation known as MONUC in the Democratic Republic of
CRS-5

---

IB95052
01-22-02
the Congo. The FY2002 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations (H.R. 2500/P.L. 107-77)
fully funds the Administration’s request for CIPA worldwide.
Table 3. Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities
($ millions)
FY2002
FY2001
FY2000
Operation
(Request)
(Est.)
(Actual)
U.N. Operations in Angola
0
0
1.9
War Crimes Tribunal - Rwanda
16.2
12.0
10.5
Sierra Leone (U.N.)
318.0
180.4
128.1
Democratic Republic of the Congo (U.N.)
83.5
5.3
30.2
U.N. Operations in Ethiopia/Eritrea
57.3
84.2
0
Total
475.0
281.9
170.7
Regional Programs. Both DA and ESF funds are used to support USAID’s Africa
Regional Programs, which are designed to confront challenges that span the borders of
African countries. These include the Education for Development and Democracy program
and the Governments in Transition program, as well as the Africa Trade and Investment
Policy (ATRIP) program, which provides technical assistance, training, and other aid to
African countries implementing free-market economic reforms. ATRIP also “catalyzes
business linkages” between U.S. and African firms, according to USAID’s FY2000
Congressional Presentation. USAID is committing an estimated $34.8 million to the
Education for Development and Democracy program in FY2001 and requesting $28 million
for FY2002. An estimated $22.8 million is going to ATRIP in FY2001, and $13.2 million is
requested for FY2002.
African Development Foundation
The African Development Foundation (ADF) has a unique mandate to make small grants
directly to African cooperatives, youth groups, and other self-help organizations. These
grants usually range from less than $20,000 to a maximum of $250,000, although
appropriations language permits a waiver of the $250,000 ceiling. In addition, the ADF
supports grassroots development research by African scholars and promotes the dissemination
of development information at the community level. By law, the ADF is limited to 75
employees. Its 7-member Board of Directors must include 5 private-sector representatives.
ADF does not station U.S. employees in overseas posts, but instead works through local-hires
and periodic field visits.
The creation of the ADF in 1980 reflected a widespread view among many development
experts — and in Congress — that foreign policy considerations were playing too large a role
in the U.S. development aid program for Africa; that the USAID bureaucracy tended to delay
the delivery of needed assistance; and that existing aid was governed by a “trickle down”
philosophy that could be combated by delivering some aid directly to poor Africans and their
community organizations. Legislation establishing the ADF (P.L. 96-533, Title V) stated that
CRS-6

---

IB95052
01-22-02
its purposes were to strengthen the bonds of friendship between the people of Africa and the
United States; support local self-help activities in Africa; stimulate participatory development;
and promote the growth of indigenous development institutions (P.L. 96-533, Title V). The
organization began operations in 1984.
Refugee and Disaster Assistance
The United States responds to African humanitarian crises in part with Title II food aid,
discussed above, and in part through its refugee and disaster assistance programs. Most
refugee assistance comes from the Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) account and
goes to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and international organizations,
as well as private and voluntary organizations assisting African refugees. In addition, the
Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA) account, created in 1962 to deal with
unexpected refugee situations, has been drawn upon for African emergencies several times
in recent years. In late 2000, $15 million was committed for assistance to refugees from the
conflicts in Guinea and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. See CRS Issue Brief
IB89150, Refugee Assistance in the Foreign Aid Bill: Problems and Prospects.
USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) also plays a major role in
responding to African crises. In recent years, the largest amounts have been spent in response
to emergencies in Sudan, Sierra Leone, and Burundi. “Situation Reports” published by
USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance monitor the U.S. response to African
humanitarian crises through food aid and other emergency assistance. To find these reports,
visit [http://www.usaid.gov/] and click on “Humanitarian Response.”
Multilateral Assistance
The United States provides aid to Africa indirectly through international financial
institutions (IFIs) and United Nations agencies. World Bank lending through its “soft loan”
affiliate, the International Development Association (IDA) is the largest single source of
development capital in Africa. IDA loans, which are considered a form of aid since they are
virtually interest-free and carry extended repayment periods, have focused on strengthening.
public sector management, transportation, agriculture, and various social problems. IDA has
been particularly active in assisting efforts by the recipient countries to carry out free market
economic reforms. IDA decreased its Africa lending from $2.7 billion in 1996 to $1.7 billion
in 1997, attributing the drop to temporary factors; and indeed IDA lending reached $2.8
billion in the region in 1998. IDA lending fell back to $2.1 billion in 1999, and the Bank
reports that this was due to the conflicts affecting a number of African borrowers. IDA
lending in 2000 was again about $2.1 billion, or 47% of IDA lending.
The African Development Fund (AfDF) has been another major channel for indirect U.S.
aid to Africa. The Fund, an affiliate of the African Development Bank (AfDB), makes loans
on highly concessional terms to the poorest African countries. The AfDB lends on roughly
commercial terms to creditworthy African borrowers, but at the same time, it holds 50% of
the voting power in the AfDF. In the mid-1990s, the United States and other donors became
concerned over AfDB lending practices and the effectiveness of Bank management, but these
concerns have been largely resolved. Consequently, the United States is participating in the
replenishment programs of both the Bank and the Fund. The Bush Administration has
requested $5.1 million for the Bank and $100 million for the Fund in FY2002, and these
CRS-7

---

IB95052
01-22-02
amounts would keep U.S. replenishment pledges on schedule. For further information, see
CRS Report RS20329, African Development Bank and Fund.
Debt Reduction
In 1996, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), with the support
of the United States and other donors, launched the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
Initiative (HIPC). Thirty-four of the 41 HIPC beneficiary countries are African. In FY2001,
Congress appropriated $435 million for debt reduction, including $75 million to write off
remaining bilateral debt owed by HIPC countries to the United States. The rest of the
appropriation is a contribution to the World Bank-administered HIPC Trust Fund, which
helps multilateral lenders, such as the African Development Bank, cover the costs of reducing
debts owed to them by HIPC countries. (See CRS Report RL31011, Appropriations for
FY2002: Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs.)
The Bush Administration has requested $224 million for debt reduction worldwide in
FY2002, all of which would go to the HIPC Trust Fund and, together with $16 million
carried over from FY2001, allow the United States to complete its $600 million pledge to the
fund. Analysts project that about two-thirds of the $224 million, or $150 million, will
ultimately be used to reduce African multilateral debt, although the time-frame in which this
occurs will depend on the pace at which individual countries move through the stages of the
HIPC process. For more information, see CRS Report RL30214, Debt Reduction: Initiatives
for the Most Heavily Indebted Poor Countries. The HIPC process is described at the World
Bank’s Web site [http://www.worldbank.org], click on Topics.
President Bush, speaking to a forum of African trade officials and ambassadors on
October 29, 2001, said that the United States continued to support “responsible debt relief”
and would press international financial institutions to provide more aid in the form of grants
rather than loans.
Total U.S. Assistance
Table 4 lists most components of U.S. assistance to sub-Saharan Africa, and indicates
that in FY2001, just under $2 billion will go to the region, while the total for FY2000 was
$1.85 billion. However, the full total of assistance to the region is higher than these amounts,
though problematic to calculate. Additional amounts of aid reach Africa through a variety
of indirect channels, including U.S. contributions to the regular budgets of U.N. agencies
active in Africa, such as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health
Organization (WHO). (For further information, see CRS Issue Brief IB86116, U.N. System
Funding: Congressional Issues.)
The principal channel of indirect aid is through the World Bank’s IDA. The United
States contributed $771 million to IDA in FY2000, when IDA, as noted, reports that 47%
of its lending went to sub-Saharan Africa. Thus, a rough calculation indicates that about $362
million of the U.S. IDA contribution went indirectly to Africa. The $15 million in ERMA
relief for Guinea and Congo can be added to the FY2000 total, as well. OFDA’s report on
its activities in FY2000 has not yet been released, but will also include amounts channeled to
Africa. Meanwhile, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the Department of
Health and Human Services spent $34 million on HIV/AIDS programs in Africa in FY2000.
CRS-8

---

IB95052
01-22-02
These additions would yield an FY2000 total for aid to Africa of well above $2 billion. In
FY2001, CDC spending on HIV/AIDS programs in Africa rose to $77 million, suggesting a
higher total assistance level for that year. Total spending in FY2002 will likely be boosted
by increased HIV/AIDS spending and the humanitarian aid response to the volcanic eruption
affecting Goma.
Table 4: Assistance Designated for Africa
($ millions)
Program
FY2002
FY2001
FY2000
FY1999
Request
Estimate
Actual
Actual
Development Assistance
789.4
793.6
738.5
711.3
(Of which, Child Survival)
(355.8)
(338.6)
(284.0)
(251.2)
ESF
105.5
90.7
62.3
101.5
African Dev. Foundation
16.0
16.0
14.4
11.1
Peace Corps
53.6
54.5
52.3
56.0
International Narcotics Control
0
10.0
0
0
Peacekeeping Operations
71.0
46.5
36.6
21.1
Migration and Refugee Assistance
187.5
180.9
154.8
144.2
IMET
10.4
8.7
7.5
8.5
Foreign Military Financing
19.0
17.9
10.0
7.9
Contributions to Int’l Peacekeeping
475.0
281.9
170.7
33.4
African Development Bank
5.1
6.1
4.1
0
African Development Fund
100.0
100.0
127.0
128.0
Food Aid
160.2
393.0
472.6
224.4
Total
1992.7
1999.8
1850.8
1447.4
Comparison with Other Donors
According to data compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), the United States consistently ranks behind France and Germany as a
donor of bilateral Official Development Assistance (ODA) to sub-Saharan Africa. In some
years, it ranks behind Japan as well. In 1998, the OECD placed the United States in fourth
place as an African aid donor, but in 1999, with Japanese aid dropping and U.S. aid rising, the
United States moved into third place. Sub-Saharan Africa received about 13.8% of U.S. ODA
in 1999, according to the OECD, while many other donors gave a considerably larger portion
of their aid to the region. About 34% of French aid and 28% of German aid went to Africa,
for example, while Italy gave 55% of its aid to Africa and Britain 35%. Japan, by contrast,
sent 9.5% of its aid to Africa in 1999.
CRS-9

---

IB95052
01-22-02
Recent Trends in U.S. Aid
Andrew Natsios, confirmed by the Senate as the Bush Administration’s Administrator for
USAID on April 30, 2001, testified on April 25 that he would focus USAID’s limited funds
on conflict prevention and resolution and attempt to leverage funds and expertise through
cooperation with NGOs, including religious institutions. Natsios said that he would also like
to focus more of USAID’s resources on economic development to reduce poverty and on
agricultural development to reduce hunger and malnutrition. He added that USAID would
continue to exercise international leadership in health through its programs in women’s
reproductive health, child survival, HIV/AIDS, infectious diseases, and nutrition. He indicated
that USAID would meet Secretary of State Powell’s pledge to increase HIV/AIDS funding
by 10% in FY2002.
In the FY2000 Foreign Operations congressional presentation, the Clinton
Administration’s Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Susan Rice, listed two broad
objectives in summarizing that Administration’s Africa aid policy: “integrating Africa into the
global economy by promoting economic development, democracy, and respect for human
rights, and conflict resolution,” and “defending the United States against transnational security
threats emanating from Africa,” including disease and environmental degradation. The
presentation attempted to relate the U.S. assistance program to these overall objectives,
claiming gains in economic growth and agricultural development, democracy and governance,
human capacity through education, population and health, the environment, and humanitarian
assistance.
The emphasis on democracy in the aid program preceded the Clinton Administration.
USAID began to develop programs for democracy support and introduce democratic criteria
for sub-Saharan recipients in 1990, during the George H.W. Bush Administration (1989-
1993), anticipating democracy support efforts in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.
The shift toward building democracy is reflected in the changing identities of the leading U.S.
aid recipients. In 1985, Sudan, Somalia, Liberia, Kenya, and Zaire topped the list, and none
of these had a democratic government. By 1995, South Africa, where a democratic election
took place in 1994, was the top recipient by a wide margin, while the other leading recipients
were all undergoing democratic transitions.
USAID officials have testified that the United States has had a number of successes in
promoting sustainable development, democracy, and conflict resolution. They point to Ghana,
Uganda, Zambia, and Mali, as examples of successful political and economic transitions, while
Mozambique and South Africa are cited as models of transition from conflict to peace as well.
Skeptics of USAID’s programs, noting, for example, widespread reports of corruption and
undemocratic practices in Zambia and a slow rate of economic growth in post-apartheid South
Africa, question whether economic and political gains are genuine or will endure. With
respect to conflict resolution, some note that two leading recipients, Uganda and Ethiopia,
have recently been involved in armed conflicts, as have some lesser recipients, including
Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Eritrea, and Angola. Supporters of the program respond by
acknowledging that problems inevitably arise within and among countries that face serious
challenges with deep historical roots, but insist that overall trends in Africa are positive and
that long-term development efforts cannot be interrupted every time difficulties occur.
CRS-10

---

IB95052
01-22-02
USAID also maintains that the DFA and CSD assistance have helped African countries
achieve increases in child immunization and the use of oral rehydration therapy, shift their
health policies towards an active emphasis on AIDS prevention, increase the prevalence of
contraceptive use, and boost primary school enrollments. In agriculture, USAID asserts that
DA has helped liberalize agricultural markets, increase smallholder production; and facilitate
the development of new seed varieties. DA has also been used to assist governments
undertaking macro-economic reforms, including reductions in the size of government
bureaucracies and the privatization of government enterprises.
Stabilizing population growth was an important objective of the Clinton Administration’s
Africa program. Policy planners argued that the continent has little prospect for economic
growth, ending famine, or reducing conflict unless population growth can be slowed. USAID
officials maintain that family planning is winning wider acceptance among African themselves
and point to declining fertility rates in Kenya, Zimbabwe, and Botswana as evidence. They
note that the United States is the largest donor of population assistance in each of these
countries. USAID population efforts focus on persuading senior African policy planners of
the need to stabilize population growth; supporting family planning programs; supporting
population planning education and information programs; and developing channels for the
distribution of contraceptives.
The Clinton Administration launched several special development initiatives in Africa.
The Greater Horn of Africa Initiative (GHAI), aims at easing the perennial food insecurity in
a region extending from Eritrea and Ethiopia to Tanzania by promoting collaboration and
consultation on food security strategies. The Initiative for Southern Africa (ISA) reflect’s
USAID’s recognition of the region’s economic potential and its desire to reinforce South
Africa’s democratic transition as a model for the rest of the continent. The initiative includes
a Democracy Fund, to make grants in the region in support of democracy, and a Southern
Africa Enterprise Development Fund (SAEDF), to promote indigenous business development
and ownership.
The Leland Initiative aims at connecting 20 sub-Saharan countries to the Internet. The
initiative is named for the late Representative Mickey Leland, founder of the House Select
Committee on Hunger, who died in a 1989 plane crash while on his way to investigate
conditions in an Ethiopian refugee camp. Technicians from several U.S. government agencies
are working to implement the project, which will make Internet access available to “all sectors
of the African development community,” including NGOs, government agencies, “private
developers,” and individuals. (USAID press release, June 6, 1996.)
South Africa has been a special focus for USAID for several years. After the installation
of a democratically-elected government in May 1994, President Clinton pledged the United
States to $600 million in aid to South Africa over 3 years. The United States guaranteed loans
for housing, electrification, and small business development. Resources have also been used
to support the growth of small, medium, and micro-enterprises (SMMEs) in South Africa;
strengthen the South African justice system; improve education; promote primary health care;
and foster majority involvement in business.
The Africa: Seeds of Hope initiative grows out of congressional action in 1998, when the
Africa: Seeds of Hope Act (P.L. 105-385) was passed. The Africa: Seeds of Hope bill (H.R.
4283) was introduced by Rep. Doug Bereuter and strongly supported by Bread for the World,
CRS-11

---

IB95052
01-22-02
which describes itself as “a nationwide Christian citizens movement seeking justice for the
world’s hungry....” The Act supports USAID’s Africa Food Security Initiative by encouraging
a refocus on agriculture and rural development. A presidential report on implementation of
the act argued that even more could be done in agriculture if more funds were available. For
further information on USAID initiatives, as well as testimony and reports, can be found at
the Africa Bureau’s Web site [http://www.usaid.gov], click on Africa.
On July 21, 2001, during a summit in Genoa attended by President Bush, the Group of
Eight (G8) countries (the seven leading industrialized nations plus Russia) agreed that they
would work with African leaders to develop a plan to advance peace, prosperity, and the
eradication of poverty in Africa. The agreement endorsed the New African Initiative, later re-
named the New Partnership for Africa’s Development, briefly discussed below.
Issues in 2002
The level of funding for HIV/AIDS programs in Africa will likely remain a major focus
of interest in 2002, as it was in 2001. This issue is covered in CRS Issue Brief IB10050, AIDS
in Africa.
The level of funding for African development generally could also be an issue. Bread for
the World launched a campaign in 2001 entitled “Africa: Hunger to Harvest” aimed at
boosting development aid for the region by $1 billion [http://www.bread.org]. Describing
itself as a “Christian citizens movement seeking justice for the world’s hungry people by
lobbying our nation’s decision makers,” Bread for the World maintains that this increase could
help reduce hunger in Africa by half by 2015. H.Con.Res. 102 and S.Con.Res. 53 support this
initiative. (See Legislation section.)
Strategies for promoting development are coming in for renewed attention. In late March
2001, the World Bank released a report entitled “Aid and Reform in Africa,” based on ten
case studies of assistance intended to stimulate policy reform in Africa
[http://www.worldbank.org/research/aid]. The report found that only two countries, Ghana
and Uganda, achieved sustained policy reform and good economic outcomes, and suggested
that underlying political and economic factors in these countries, including the democratic
election of their national leaders, helped to explain their success. Conditions imposed by
donors were not found to be influential. The report indicated that assistance funds could be
spent most effectively in poor countries with good policy environments.
African leaders meeting in Nigeria on October 23, 2001, moved forward with plans to
implement the New Partnership for Africa’s Development, championed by the presidents of
South Africa, Nigeria, and Senegal, among others. The plan had been approved by the
Organization of African Unity in July and endorsed by the European Union on October 10.
Under the initiative, African countries would intensify efforts to eradicate poverty, strengthen
democracy, deal with corruption, and resolve conflicts in exchange for debt forgiveness from
the developed countries as well as increased aid, trade, and investment.
Meanwhile, in a December 17, 2001 speech in London, K.Y. Amoako, executive
secretary of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, said that most African
countries were failing to meet development targets and that life expectancy was declining due
CRS-12

---

IB95052
01-22-02
to poverty and the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Amoako called for a new paradigm for development
cooperation, featuring mutual accountability and guaranteed long-term resource flows.
USAID officials and others express a number of frustrations with aspects of the foreign
assistance program, but these have had little impact on the congressional aid debate to date.
Some argue, for example, that reductions in operating expenses have forced staff and mission
cutbacks that complicate USAID’s ability to implement the Africa DA program. Critics of this
view maintain that USAID must deal with budget constraints that affect other parts of the
government as well. Some in USAID and elsewhere maintain that the CSD earmark has
absorbed funds that might otherwise have been used to promote long-term development,
which in turn would promote better health among both children and adults. Others argue,
however, that the CSD program has channeled funds to a critical, immediate humanitarian
need, and that the American people strongly support assistance that benefits impoverished
children, funds HIV/AIDS programs, and promotes vaccine research, among other objectives.
The following CRS products give background information on other Africa topics that
may arise during the FY2003 foreign aid debate.
CRS Issue Brief IB10050, AIDS in Africa
CRS Report RL31011, Appropriations for FY2002: Foreign Operations, Export
Financing, and Related Programs
CRS Report RL30214, Debt Reduction: Initiatives for the Most Heavily Indebted Poor
Countries
CRS Report RL30751, Diamonds and Conflict: Policy Proposals and Background
CRS Issue Brief IB98046, Nigeria in Political Transition
CRS Issue Brief IB98043, Sudan: Humanitarian Crisis, Peace Talks, Terrorism, and
U.S. Policy
CRS Report RL31229, Zimbabwe Backgrounder
Congressional Action in 2001
The FY2002 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill (H.R. 2506) has been enacted into
law (P.L. 107-115) but many of the appropriations it makes, including those for Development
Assistance and Child Survival aid, are for worldwide amounts, without specific Africa
allocations. These allocations will not be known until executive branch agencies adjust their
FY2002 requests in light of the amounts actually provided by Congress. Table 5 indicates
some highlights of the appropriations that affect Africa, and shows that Congress has
appropriated considerably more in Child Survival aid than initially requested. Increases in this
form of aid will likely benefit Africa, which has been a major focus of the Child Survival
program, and could more than make up for the effects of the reduction in Development
Assistance from the requested amount. The African Development Fund and Bank were funded
at requested levels, and the African Development Foundation received slightly more than
requested. The reduction in Economic Support Fund assistance could have an impact on
Nigeria, the principal bilateral ESF recipient in Africa, and Africa may also be affected by the
reduction from the requested amount in the appropriation for IDA.
CRS-13

---

IB95052
01-22-02
Table 5. Legislative Action in 2001
($ millions)
Program
FY2002
H.R. 2506/P.L.
Request
107-115
(Foreign Ops.)
DA not including Child Survival Worldwide
1,325.0
1,178.0
Child Survival Worldwide
1,011.0
1,433.5
(Total DA including CSD Worldwide)
(2,336.0)
(2,611.5)
ESF Worldwide
2,289.0
2,199.0
Peace Corps Worldwide
275.0
275.0
Debt Restructuring Worldwide
224.0
229.0
MRA Worldwide
715.0
705.0
ERMA Worldwide
15.0
15.0
PKO Worldwide
150.0
135.0
IMET Worldwide
65.0
70.0
FMF Worldwide
3,674.0
3,650.0
IDA Worldwide
803.4
792.4
African Dev. Foundation
16.0
16.542
Af. Dev. Bank
5.1
5.1
Af. Dev. Fund
100.0
100.0
LEGISLATION
P.L. 107-115, H.R. 2506
Foreign Operations Appropriations. Appropriates funds on a worldwide basis for
Development Assistance and other programs that channel aid to Africa; also appropriates funds
for the African Development Foundation, the African Development Bank, and the African
Development Fund (for amounts, see Table 5). Provides that ESF funds can be used to assist
the National Democratic Alliance of Sudan to protect civilians; prohibits FMF for Sudan and
Liberia; prohibits direct assistance to Sudan; prohibits aid to Liberia, Sudan, Zimbabwe, or the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) except through regular notification procedures;
prohibits indirect aid to Sudan subject to a presidential waiver; requires the United States to
oppose loans by international financial institutions to Zimbabwe until the rule of law is
restored; prohibits aid to any country providing lethal or non-lethal military aid, directly or
indirectly, to groups intent on destabilizing Sierra Leone. Reported to the House from the
Committee on Appropriations (H.Rept. 107-142) July 17; passed the House (381-46) July 24;
referred to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, July 25; ordered to be reported with an
CRS-14

---

IB95052
01-22-02
amendment in the nature of a substitute, July 26; reported (S.Rept. 107-58) September 4;
passed the Senate (96-2), October 24. Senate appointed conferees, October 24; House
appointed conferees, November 7; conference held, November 14. Conference report
(H.Rept. 107-345) filed, December 19; passed House December 19; passed Senate December
20. Signed into law January 10, 2002.
H.Con.Res. 102 (Leach)/S.Con.Res. 53 (Hagel)
Hunger to Harvest: A Decade of Support for Africa. States sense of Congress that within
90 days the President should submit a report setting forth a 5-year strategy, and a 10-year
strategy, to reverse hunger and poverty in Africa; emphasis should be on health, among other
objectives, including HIV/AIDS. Introduced in the House on April 4, 2001, and referred to
the Committee on International Relations; marked up on November 1 and passed under a
suspension of the rules (400-9), December 5; received in the Senate, December 6; similar
Senate bill introduced on June 21, 2001; referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations;
reported July 12. Passed the Senate by unanimous consent, July 18, 2001.
CRS-15

---

IB95052
01-22-02
Appendix: Africa Assistance Acronyms
ACRF
Africa Crisis Response Force proposed by the Clinton Administration.
ACRI
Africa Crisis Response Initiative of the Clinton Administration.
ADF
African Development Foundation, U.S.-funded public corporation.
AfDB
African Development Bank, an Africa-based IFI.
AfDF
African Development Fund, affiliate of the African Development Bank.
ATRIP
Africa Trade and Investment Program, a USAID initiative.
CARPE
Central African Regional Program for the Environment, a USAID initiative.
CIPA
Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities
CSD
Child Survival and Disease Programs Fund, a form of DA.
DA
Development Assistance.
DFA
Development Fund for Africa, the principal U.S. DA program for Africa.
ERMA
Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance, administered by the State
Department.
ESF
Economic Support Fund, a State Department program for promoting U.S. interests.
FMF
Foreign Military Financing, once used to fund arms and equipment purchases by
African governments.
GHAI
Greater Horn of Africa Initiative, a Clinton Administration program.
IBRD
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World Bank.
IDA
International Development Association, concessional loan affiliate of IBRD.
IFIs
International financial institutions.
IGAD
Inter-governmental Authority on Development, a Djibouti-based organization of
Horn of Africa states.
IMET
International Military Education and Training, a form of military assistance.
ISA
Initiative for Southern Africa, sponsored by USAID.
MRA
Migration and Refugee Assistance, a State Department program.
NGOs
Non-governmental organizations.
OECD
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an organization of
developed countries.
ODA
Official Development Assistance, the OECD’s concept of DA.
OFDA
Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, a part of USAID.
PCVs
Peace Corps Volunteers
PKO
Peacekeeping Operations account authorized by Part II, Chapter 6 of the Foreign
Assistance Act.
PVOs
Private and voluntary organizations
SAEDF
Southern Africa Enterprise Development Fund, a USAID program.
SMMEs
Small, medium, and micro-enterprises.
UNECA
United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, headquartered in Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
UNDP
United Nations Development Program
USAID
U.S. Agency for International Development
CRS-16

---