Order Code IB95052
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Africa: U.S. Foreign
Assistance Issues
Updated May 8, 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

---

IB95052
05-08-02
Africa: U.S. Foreign Assistance Issues
SUMMARY
The Bush Administration is requesting
African development aid donor, behind
just over $1 billion in Development Assis-
France and Germany. In some recent years,
tance (DA) for sub-Saharan Africa in FY2003,
the United States has ranked fourth, behind
as compared with an estimated $887 million
Japan.
going to the region in FY2002. The request
for aid through the Economic Support Fund
Bilateral channels for aid to Africa, in
(ESF), however, has dropped to $77 million
addition to DA, include food assistance,
from estimated ESF assistance of $100 mil-
refugee assistance, and the Peace Corps,
lion in FY2002. For a comparison of re-
which has over 2,200 volunteers in the sub-
quested aid amounts with prior years for these
Saharan region. The U.S. African Develop-
and other programs, see Table 4.
ment Foundation makes small grants to Afri-
can cooperatives, youth groups, and other
U.S. assistance finds its way to Africa
self-help organizations. U.S. security assis-
through a variety of channels, including the
tance, though still far below levels seen in the
USAID-administered DA program, food aid
1980s, has increased in recent years, primarily
programs, and indirect aid provided through
because of U.S. support for African peace-
international financial institutions and the
keeping initiatives. The World Bank’s Inter-
United Nations. U.S. assistance through all
national Development Association (IDA) is
such channels, though problematic to
the principal channel for multilateral U.S. aid.
calculate, will probably total well above $2
billion in FY2002.
USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios
has testified that the Bush Administration is
In 1995, at the outset of the 104th Con-
focusing on conflict prevention and resolu-
gress, substantial reductions in aid to Africa
tion, working with NGOs and faith-based
had been anticipated, as many questioned the
organizations, poverty reduction, agricultural
importance of Africa to U.S. national security
development, and health, including
interests in the post-Cold War era. This
HIV/AIDS. The Clinton Administration
position seemed to moderate as the debate
pushed African recipients to undertake eco-
went forward, and congressional reports and
nomic and political reforms, and placed
bills acknowledged U.S. humanitarian, eco-
increased emphasis on population and
nomic, and other interests in Africa. Aid
environmental programs. It also launched
levels did fall from FY1996 through FY1997,
special Africa-related initiatives, including
but began to increase in FY1998.
HIV/AIDS, democracy, and internet initia-
tives, as well as programs to promote African
U.S. assistance to sub-Saharan Africa
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
As the Cold War eased, security assistance
the overall level of funding and U.S. support
levels for Africa began to drop. In constant
for the New Partnership for African Develop-
dollar terms, bilateral economic assistance for
ment. This African initiative calls for intensi-
Africa today remains just above the FY1990
fied African efforts to eradicate poverty in
low. The Organization for Economic Cooper-
exchange for debt relief, aid, and investment.
ation and Development reports that in 1999,
the United States ranked third as a bilateral
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB95052
05-08-02
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The World Food Program warned on May 4, 2002 that southern Africa faced its worst
food shortages in a decade due to drought, floods, depleted food stocks, and economic
instability. The region faces “all-out disaster” if additional food aid does not start arriving
in three to four months, according to a spokesperson. 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. For
information on the U.S. response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa, 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 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
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

---

IB95052
05-08-02
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. 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.
Further increases in Africa assistance seem possible in light of President Bush’s
proposal, outlined in a March 14, 2002 speech, to increase foreign aid worldwide by $5
billion over three years, starting in FY2004. The proposed “Millennium Challenge Account”
would provide additional aid to countries whose governments promote good governance,
invest in people through education and health care, and promote open markets. For further

---

IB95052
05-08-02
information, see CRS Report RS21209, The Millennium Challenge Account: Bush
Administration Foreign Aid 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 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.”
For FY2003, however, the Administration is requesting Development Assistance only, but
including programs previously funded under Child Survival.

---

IB95052
05-08-02
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.

---

IB95052
05-08-02
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.
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

---

IB95052
05-08-02
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.
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

---

IB95052
05-08-02
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
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.

---

IB95052
05-08-02
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 $2 billion.
Table 4: Assistance Designated for Africa
($ millions)
Program
FY2003
FY2002
FY2001
FY2000
Request
Estimate
Development Assistance
1000.1
887.2
768.2
738.5
(Of which, Child Survival)
(421.2)
(344.1)
(284.0)

---

IB95052
05-08-02
ESF
77.0
100.0
85.8
62.3
African Dev. Foundation
16.7
16.7
16.1
14.4
Peace Corps
56.2
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
2185.8
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.

---

IB95052
05-08-02
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.
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

---

IB95052
05-08-02
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.
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, 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, discussed below.

---

IB95052
05-08-02
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.”
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

---

IB95052
05-08-02
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 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.

---

IB95052
05-08-02
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.

---

IB95052
05-08-02
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

---