Order Code IB95052
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Africa: U.S. Foreign
Assistance Issues
Updated March 29, 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
Recent Recovery
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
LEGISLATION

---

IB950521
03-29-02
Africa: U.S. Foreign Assistance Issues
SUMMARY
The Bush Administration is requesting
1999, the United States ranked third as a
just over $1 billion in Development Assistance
bilateral African development aid donor,
(DA) for sub-Saharan Africa in FY2003, as
behind France and Germany. In some recent
compared with an estimated $887 million
years, the United States has ranked fourth,
going to the region in FY2002. The request
behind Japan.
for aid through the Economic Support Fund
(ESF), however, has dropped to $77 million
Bilateral channels for aid to Africa, in
from estimated ESF assistance of $100 million
addition to DA, include food assistance, refu-
in FY2002. For a comparison of requested aid
gee assistance, and the Peace Corps, which has
amounts with prior years for these and other
over 2,200 volunteers in the sub-Saharan
programs, see Table 4.
region. The U.S. African Development Foun-
dation makes small grants to African coopera-
U.S. assistance finds its way to Africa
tives, youth groups, and other self-help organi-
through a variety of channels, including the
zations. U.S. security assistance, though still
USAID-administered DA program, food aid
far below levels seen in the 1980s, has in-
programs, and indirect aid provided through
creased in recent years, primarily because of
international financial institutions and the
U.S. support for African peacekeeping initia-
United Nations. U.S. assistance through all
tives. The World Bank’s International Devel-
such channels, though problematic to
opment Association (IDA) is the principal
calculate, will probably total well above $2
channel for multilateral U.S. aid.
billion in FY2002.
USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios
In 1995, at the outset of the 104th Con-
has testified that the Bush Administration is
gress, substantial reductions in aid to Africa
focusing on conflict prevention and resolution,
had been anticipated, as many questioned the
working with NGOs and faith-based organiza-
importance of Africa to U.S. national security
tions, poverty reduction, agricultural develop-
interests in the post-Cold War era. This posi-
ment, and health, including HIV/AIDS. The
tion seemed to moderate as the debate went
Clinton Administration pushed African recipi-
forward, and congressional reports and bills
ents to undertake economic and political
acknowledged U.S. humanitarian, economic,
reforms, and placed increased emphasis on
and other interests in Africa. Aid levels did fall
population and environmental programs. It
from FY1996 through FY1997, but began to
also launched special Africa-related initiatives,
increase in FY1998.
including HIV/AIDS, democracy, and internet
initiatives, as well as programs to promote
U.S. assistance to sub-Saharan Africa
African conflict resolution.
reached a peak in 1985, when global competi-
tion with the Soviet Union was at a high point.
Issues that might arise in 2002 include the
As the Cold War eased, security assistance
overall level of funding and U.S. support for
programs for Africa began to drop. In con-
the New Partnership for African Development.
stant dollar terms, bilateral economic assis-
This African initiative calls for intensified
tance for Africa today remains just above the
African efforts to eradicate poverty in ex-
FY1990 low. The Organization for Economic
change for debt relief, aid, and investment.
Cooperation and Development reports that in
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB95052
03-29-02
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On March 26, 2002, eight African presidents and officials from 11 other African
countries held a meeting in Nigeria in support of the New Partnership for African
Development (NEPAD). The leaders committed themselves to good governance and
democracy in order to attract aid and investment. Also on March 26, the World Food
Program warned that 2.6 million people in southern Africa faced rising food aid needs due
to drought, high maize prices, and the difficulties in Zimbabwe. Press reports appearing on
March 20 indicated that a proposal by President Bush to increase worldwide foreign
assistance, made the previous week, would increase foreign aid by 15% annually from
FY2004 to FY2006 and total nearly $10 billion. Budget documents released in early
February 2002 indicated that the Administration was requesting just over $1 billion in
Development Assistance for sub-Saharan Africa in FY2003, as compared with an estimated
$887 million being spent in FY2002. Assistance through the Economic Support Fund,
however, would decline to $77 million from an estimated $100 million in FY2002, under the
Administration’s request. For further details, see Table 4.
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 countries through non-governmental organizations (NGOs), also known as private
and voluntary organizations (PVOs), and contractors working within the host country; as well
as through African governments, their ministries, and other agencies. 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 Development
Assistance, aid through the Economic Support Fund, food aid, the Peace Corps, and military
assistance, reached a peak of $1.8 billion in FY1985, but fell to $1.2 billion in FY1990.
(Both figures in constant 2002 dollars. Assistance programs are defined below.) 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. Bilateral aid
rose slightly after FY1990, but then dropped off again. During the rest of the 1990s, despite
increases in FY1998 and FY1999, bilateral assistance remained at or below the FY1990 level.
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
CRS-1

---

IB95052
03-29-02
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
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 FY1994, 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.
Table 1. Development Assistance for Sub-Saharan Africa: Request
and Actual Appropriation
(Including Child Survival aid, $millions)
FY1998
FY1999
FY2000
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
Request
700.0
730.0
790.0a
837.0
789.4
1,000.1
Actual
700.0
711.3
738.5
768.2
887.2
a Includes $45 million in additional Child Survival aid requested as part of a July 1999 AIDS initiative.
Recent Recovery. Table 1 indicates that Development Assistance, the major
component of bilateral economic aid, began to increase steadily in FY1998. For FY2002, the
Bush Administration had requested somewhat less than the Clinton Administration had sought
for FY2001 – although the request was still for more than had actually been spent in FY2001.
CRS-2

---

IB95052
03-29-02
Congress provided more than had been requested, and for FY2003, the Bush Administration
is seeking an even higher amount: more than $1 billion. Total bilateral assistance, including
all the programs noted above, reached $1.3 billion in FY2000, exceeding the 1990 constant
dollar aid level, and has remained at about the same level.
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
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 $846 million
in FY1992, but dropped 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.”
CRS-3

---

IB95052
03-29-02
For FY2003, however, the Administration is requesting Development Assistance only, but
including programs previously funded under Child Survival.
Table 2. DA/Child Survival Recipients in Africa
(Includes DFA and Child Survival aid ranked according to FY2003 Request. $ millions)
FY2003
FY2002
FY2001
FY2000
Request
Estimate
Nigeria
66.2
55.6
54.3
27.5
Uganda
62.9
56.9
49.9
47.1
South Africa
62.4
54.5
50.0
46.7
Zambia
50.3
42.6
37.1
27.8
Ethiopia
50.0
45.9
40.6
37.7
Kenya
46.7
40.1
33.2
28.3
Mozambique
45.5
41.0
44.4
45.1
Ghana
39.7
34.5
35.3
35.7
Mali
33.0
32.8
34.5
34.7
Tanzania
32.9
24.8
21.1
23.8
Malawi
30.9
28.6
28.0
29.7
Senegal
28.4
27.7
23.7
22.5
Sudan*
22.3
11.4
4.5
0
Congo (DRC)
21.5
21.3
20.1
9.8
Guinea
20.7
18.6
18.5
18.6
Rwanda
18.2
15.6
14.2
14.1
Zimbabwe
18.1
11.2
12.8
12.1
Madagascar
17.5
18.2
19.4
16.0
Benin
12.3
14.6
13.9
13.9
Eritrea
8.5
10.3
10.1
8.8
Angola
7.4
10.7
10.0
9.0
Namibia
5.5
6.8
9.9
9.2
Liberia
5.2
5.2
7.6
6.7
Burundi
4.0
3.5
0
0
Sierra Leone
3.9
3.7
5.0
1.0
Somalia
2.9
3.0
3.0
0
*Development assistance in Sudan has focused on capacity building in southern and eastern Sudan. For
details on the humanitarian relief program, visit [http://www.usaid.gov] and click on “Disaster Assistance”
and “Reports”; see also CRS Issue Brief IB98043, Sudan: Humanitarian Crisis, Terrorism, Peace Talks, and
U.S. Policy.
CRS-4

---

IB95052
03-29-02
Table 2 lists DA/Child Survival totals for each African recipient. Nigeria, which
experienced a democratic transition in 1999, has been the leading sub-Saharan DA recipient
since FY2001. 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). 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. Moreover, policymakers have wanted to
show continuing support for South Africa’s post-apartheid transition, which began in 1994
with the country’s first universal suffrage elections. Thus, South Africa remains a leading aid
recipient in sub-Saharan Africa.
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 often exceeds the initial request. This may occur
in 2002, in view of the deepening food shortages in southern Africa. (See Most Recent
Developments.) 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 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 FY2003, the Administration is requesting
only Title II Food Aid for 17 sub-Saharan countries and the West Africa Regional Program.
For Food Aid funding totals, see Table 4.
Peace Corps. Approximately 2,100 Peace Corps Volunteers (PCVs) are currently
serving in 24 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 Senegal, Cote d’Ivoire, Mali, and
Cameroon. 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 expanded in recent years, primarily in response to widening
conflict and political instability in Africa. Economic Support Fund aid has been 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. However, for FY2003,
the Bush Administration is seeking $77 million in ESF aid for Africa, as compared to an
estimated $100 million being provided in FY2002.
CRS-5

---

IB95052
03-29-02
The Administration is seeking $40 million in FY2003 under the Peacekeeping Operations
(PKO) for Africa programs, compared with an estimated $56 million provided in FY2002.
Support for the Africa Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI), which trains small units of African
armies for possible peacekeeping duties, as well as for other regional peacekeeping initiatives,
comes from the PKO program. Foreign Military Financing resumed in FY1999 and would
rise from $15 million to $18.5 million under the FY2003 request, reflecting in part a new
Military Health Affairs program intended to complement the Defense Department’s
HIV/AIDS prevention training with African armed forces. 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 in
South Africa, where $1.45 million has been allocated for FY2002 and the same amount
requested for FY2003. Overall, IMET would rise from $10.2 million to $11.1 million under
the FY2003 request.
The United States contributes to United Nations peacekeeping operations in Africa and
elsewhere through a program entitled Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities
(CIPA). Funds for CIPA are appropriated in the legislation that funds the Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and State, rather than in the Foreign Operations appropriation, which
governs foreign assistance. CIPA for Africa increased significantly in FY2002 due to U.S.
support for U.N. peacekeeping in Sierra Leone. For FY2003, a substantial increase has been
requested for peacekeeping in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in anticipation of a
possible expansion of the U.N. Congo peacekeeping force known as MONUC.
Table 3. Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities
($ millions)
FY2003
FY2002
FY2001
Operation
(Request)
(Est.)
(Actual)
War Crimes Tribunal - Rwanda
12.1
16.2
10.8
Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL)
145.8
318.0
96.6
Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC)
273.2
83.5
74.1
U.N. Operations in Ethiopia/Eritrea (UNMEE)
55.6
57.3
71.3
Total
486.7
475.0
252.8
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. Details on the FY2003 request for regional programs are
expected to be available by late February 2002.
CRS-6

---

IB95052
03-29-02
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 seven-member Board of Directors must include five 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
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. For ADF funding, see Table 4.
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 “Disaster Assistance.”
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
CRS-7

---

IB95052
03-29-02
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 Africa lending in 2000 was about $2.1 billion but reached $3.4
billion, or 50% of all IDA lending, in 2001. Since the United States provided $773.3 million
to IDA in FY2001, it could be calculated that about half this amount, or approximately
$386.6 million, went indirectly to Africa through IDA.
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. For funding levels, see Table 4.
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. The United
States pledged $600 million to the HIPC Trust Fund, and this pledge has been fulfilled.
Consequently, the Administration is not seeking additional funding for debt relief in its
FY2003 aid request. However, 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. 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.”
Total U.S. Assistance
Table 4 lists most components of U.S. assistance to sub-Saharan Africa, and indicates
that in FY2002, over $2 billion will go to the region. However, the full total of assistance to
the region is higher than this, 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, and as noted
above, this aid could be calculated at $386.6 million in FY2001. Meanwhile, the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention of the Department of Health and Human Services is
supporting HIV/AIDS programs in Africa. FY2002 spending will also be boosted by OFDA
response to the volcanic eruption affecting Goma in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
These additions would yield an FY2002 total for aid to Africa of well above $2 billion.
CRS-8

---

IB95052
03-29-02
Table 4: Assistance Designated for Africa
($ millions)
Program
FY2003
FY2002
FY2001
FY2000
Request
Estimate
Development Assistance
1,000.1
887.2
768.2
738.5
(Of which, Child Survival)
(421.2)
(344.1)
(284.0)
ESF
77.0
100.0
85.8
62.3
African Dev. Foundation
16.7
16.7
16.1
14.4
Peace Corps
56.3
53.6
54.5
52.3
International Narcotics Control
0
0
10.0
0
Peacekeeping Operations
40.0
56.0
46.5
36.6
Migration and Refugee Assistance
195.6
195.6
190.9
154.8
IMET
11.1
10.2
8.5
7.5
Foreign Military Financing
18.5
15.0
18.2
10.0
Contributions to Int’l Peacekeeping
486.7
475.0
252.8
170.7
African Development Bank
5.1
5.1
6.1
4.1
African Development Fund
118.1
100.0
99.8
127.0
Food Aid
160.7
131.6
466.9
472.6
Total
2185.9
2046.0
2024.3
1850.8
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. This type
of assistance corresponds to Development Assistance listed in Table 4. 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
03-29-02
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, 2001, 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
03-29-02
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
03-29-02
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]. 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 (NEPAD), 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 2001, 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.
The donor response to NEPAD will be discussed at the June 2002 summit of the G-8
industrialized countries in Canada. For more information, visit the website of the United
Nations Economic Commission for Africa, [http://www.uneca.org], click on “Quick Links”
and click on “NEPAD Documents Page.”
CRS-12

---

IB95052
03-29-02
Meanwhile, in a December 17, 2001 speech in London, K.Y. Amoako, executive
secretary of UNECA, said that most African countries were failing to meet development
targets and that life expectancy was declining due 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 Child Survival 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 Child Survival 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
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. 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
CRS-13

---

IB95052
03-29-02
on destabilizing Sierra Leone. Reported to the House from the Committee on Appropriations
(H.Rept. 107-142) July 17, 2001; passed the House (381-46) July 24; referred to the Senate
Committee on Appropriations, July 25; ordered to be reported with an 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-14

---

IB95052
03-29-02
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-15

---