Order Code IB95052
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Africa: U.S. Foreign
Assistance Issues
Updated January 9, 2003
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
Millennium Challenge Account
AIDS
NEPAD
Other
Additional Information
Legislative Action in 2002
Appendix: Africa Assistance Acronyms

---

IB95052
01-09-03
Africa: U.S. Foreign Assistance Issues
SUMMARY
The Bush Administration is requesting
the United States ranked third as a bilateral
just over $1 billion in Development Assis-
African development aid donor, behind France
tance (DA) for sub-Saharan Africa for
and Germany. In some recent years, the
FY2003, as compared with an estimated $887
United States has ranked fourth, behind Japan.
million going to the region in FY2002. The
request for aid through the Economic Support
Bilateral channels for aid to Africa, in
Fund (ESF), however, has dropped to $77
addition to DA, include food assistance,
million from estimated ESF assistance of
refugee assistance, and the Peace Corps,
$100 million in FY2002. For a comparison of
which has over 2,200 volunteers in the sub-
requested aid amounts with prior years for
Saharan region. The U.S. African Develop-
these and other programs, see Table 4.
ment Foundation makes small grants to Afri-
can cooperatives, youth groups, and other self-
U.S. assistance finds its way to Africa
help organizations. U.S. security assistance,
through a variety of channels, including the
though still far below levels seen in the 1980s,
USAID-administered DA program, food aid
has increased in recent years, primarily be-
programs, and indirect aid provided through
cause of U.S. support for African peacekeep-
international financial institutions and the
ing initiatives. The World Bank’s Interna-
United Nations. U.S. assistance through all
tional Development Association (IDA) is the
such channels, though problematic to
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 resolution,
gress, substantial reductions in aid to Africa
working with NGOs and faith-based organiza-
had been anticipated, as many questioned the
tions, poverty reduction, agricultural develop-
importance of Africa to U.S. national security
ment, and health, including HIV/AIDS. In
interests in the post-Cold War era. This posi-
August 2002, at the World Summit on Sus-
tion seemed to moderate as the debate went
tainable Development, the Administration
forward, and congressional reports and bills
announced new initiatives on access to potable
acknowledged U.S. humanitarian, economic,
water, clean energy, reducing hunger, and
and other interests in Africa. Aid levels did
development and conservation in the Congo
fall from FY1996 through FY1997, but began
River basin. The initiatives would make
to increase in FY1998.
extensive use of public-private partnerships.
U.S. assistance to sub-Saharan Africa
The level of funding and other aspects of
reached a peak in 1985, when global competi-
these initiatives have become subjects of
tion with the Soviet Union was at a high point.
debate. Other issues include the eligibility of
As the Cold War eased, security assistance
African countries to participate in the Adminis-
levels for Africa began to drop. In constant
tration’s proposed Millennium Challenge
dollar terms, bilateral economic assistance for
Account, and U.S. support for the New Part-
Africa today remains just above the FY1990
nership for Africa’s Development, an African
low. The Organization for Economic Cooper-
initiative linking increased aid with policy
ation and Development reports that in 1999,
reform.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB95052
01-09-03
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On January 8, 2003, the U.S. Agency for International Development released a fact
sheet stating that the United States had provided $266 million in humanitarian food aid in
response to food shortages in southern Africa, as well as $198 million to meet shortages in
the Horn of Africa. Sudan had received $40.1 million in food aid, and another $100 million
had gone to Angola. For further information, see CRS Report RS21301, The Food Crisis
in Southern Africa: Background and Issues. USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios, in a
speech at the Heritage Foundation on January 7, said that apart from humanitarian
assistance, U.S. aid should focus on “good performers” with respect to democracy and
governance reforms. The speech echoed findings of a major USAID report, Foreign Aid in
the National Interest, released the same day.
On December 6, 2002, the U.S. Department of State issued a fact sheet listing
“performance indicators” for aid eligibility under the Millennium Challenge Account, a
foreign assistance program that the Bush Administration proposes establishing as an
independent corporation in FY2004, with funding to reach $5 billion annually by FY2006.
Proposed indicators with respect to government effectiveness, corruption, and credit
ratings, among others, brought speculation that few African countries would qualify. Press
accounts had mentioned Ghana, Tanzania, Mozambique, and Senegal as possible recipients.
For information on the U.S. response to the African HIV/AIDS pandemic, see CRS Issue
Brief IB10050, AIDS in Africa.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
U.S. Aid to Africa: An Overview
Bilateral Aid
U.S. assistance finds its way to Africa through a variety of channels. Bilateral or
country-to-country aid, also known as direct assistance, is given by the U.S. government to
African 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,
CRS-1

---

IB95052
01-09-03
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
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.
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.
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
CRS-2

---

IB95052
01-09-03
Assistance in Africa did drop significantly in FY1996 and remained at the same level in
FY1997.
Recent Recovery. Table 1 indicates that Development Assistance, the major
component of bilateral economic aid, began to increase steadily in FY1998. Total bilateral
assistance, including all the programs noted above, reached $1.3 billion in FY2000,
exceeding the 1990 constant dollar aid level. 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.
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
CRS-3

---

IB95052
01-09-03
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.
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
CRS-4

---

IB95052
01-09-03
“Reports”; see also CRS Issue Brief IB98043, Sudan: Humanitarian Crisis, Terrorism, Peace Talks, and U.S.
Policy.
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. 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
CRS-5

---

IB95052
01-09-03
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 trained small
units of African armies for possible peacekeeping duties, as well as for other regional
peacekeeping initiatives, came from the PKO program. (ACRI is expected to be succeeded
by Africa Contingency Operations Training Assistance (ACOTA), which will focus on
training trainers and on programs tailored to individual country needs.) 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 regional programs in health, conflict prevention,
democracy, education, and agriculture. The Initiative for Southern Africa supports efforts
to promote trade and investment through the Southern Africa Enterprise Development Fund
and other programs. The Trade for African Development and Enterprise (TRADE) initiative
aims at strengthening business and promoting policy and regulatory reform throughout the
CRS-6

---

IB95052
01-09-03
sub-Saharan region. The Africa Trade and Investment Policy (ATRIP) program, which
provides technical assistance, training, and other aid to African countries implementing free-
market economic reforms, is part of this initiative.
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.”
CRS-7

---

IB95052
01-09-03
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.
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/hipc/].
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.)
CRS-8

---

IB95052
01-09-03
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)
FY2003
FY2002
Program
FY2001
FY2000
Request
Estimate
Development Assistance
1000.1
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
56.2
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 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, the
United States ranks behind Japan, Germany, and the United Kingdom as well. In 2000,
according to the OECD, the United States was the third leading donor to the region, behind
France and the United Kingdom but ahead of Japan and Germany. Sub-Saharan Africa
received about 15.4% of U.S. ODA in 2000, according to the OECD, while many other
donors gave a considerably larger portion of their aid to the region. About 43% of French
aid and 28% of German aid went to Africa, for example, while Italy gave 69% of its aid to
Africa and the United Kingdom 35%. Japan, by contrast, sent 10% of its aid to Africa in
1999.
CRS-9

---

IB95052
01-09-03
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
01-09-03
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.
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 Representative 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.
President Bush, speaking at the Leon Sullivan Summit in Washington on June 20, 2002,
announced a new Africa Education Initiative. The President promised to double U.S. aid for
education in the region, bringing total spending to $200 million over the next 5 years. The
President also announced that he would visit Africa in 2003.
CRS-11

---

IB95052
01-09-03
Sustainable Development Initiatives. On August 23, 2002, the Department of
State released information on four initiatives or “signature partnerships,” which were
formally announced at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in
Johannesburg on August 29. These initiatives were the Water for the Poor Initiative, the
Initiative to Cut Hunger in Africa, the Congo Basin Forest Partnership, and the Clean Energy
Initiative. The initiatives, which drew praise from the United Nations representative to the
conference, stress “public-private partnerships,” through which U.S. assistance funds would
be used to leverage investments in Africa by other governments, international organizations,
NGOs, and the private sector. For example, under the West Africa Water Initiative, part of
the Water for the Poor Initiative, USAID would provide $4.4 million as a partner in a $41
million, 5-year effort to supply potable water and sanitation to rural villages in Ghana, Mali,
and Niger. Other partners would include the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation and UNICEF.
Skeptics of the initiatives maintain that the amounts of U.S. assistance being offered are
modest and seem to come largely from funds that have already been budgeted or promised.
Some also complain that the funds might be used to promote private business interests. (New
York Times, August 30, 2002.)
In addition to the signature partnerships, USAID released documents at WSSD
reviewing U.S. actions intended to prevent famine in southern Africa and fight infectious
disease. Another document reported on a $15 million investment guarantee by the U.S.
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) to support the construction of low-income
housing and associated infrastructure in South Africa. The guarantee would help a U.S. for-
profit company support a bank making construction loans to private developers and
contractors. (OPIC press release, August 29, 2002.)
Issues
Millennium Challenge Account. In a March 14, 2002 speech, President Bush
outlined a proposed Millennium Challenge Account, which would increase foreign aid
worldwide by $5 billion over 3 years, starting in FY2004. The account would provide
additional aid to countries whose governments promote good governance, invest in people
through education and health care, and promote open markets. Although the promise of
increased aid has won praise from many observers, some worry that a number of
governments in Africa will not be able to meet the Fund’s eligibility criteria. These
observers urge that ways be found to use increased aid resources to help African people, even
when they may be living in countries that are ill-governed. For further information, see CRS
Report RS21209, The Millennium Challenge Account: Bush Administration Foreign Aid
Initiative.
AIDS. The level of funding for HIV/AIDS programs in Africa remains a major focus
of interest in 2002, as it was in 2001. This issue is covered in CRS Issue Brief IB10050,
AIDS in Africa. See also CRS Report RS21181, HIV/AIDS International Programs: FY2002
Spending and Outlook for FY2003.
NEPAD. 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
CRS-12

---

IB95052
01-09-03
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. On March 26, 2002, eight African presidents and officials from 11 other
African countries held a meeting in Nigeria affirm their support of NEPAD. The leaders
committed themselves to good governance and democracy in order to attract aid and
investment.
At the June 2002 G-8 summit in Canada, donors pledged $6 billion in aid to countries
undertaking NEPAD reforms. Nigeria’s President Olusegun Obasanjo, a NEPAD leader,
said he was “satisfied” with the pledge, but critics maintained it included little money that
had not already been promised. On July 9, African leaders founded the African Union, to
replace the Organization of African Union, and took the first steps to establish a voluntary
“peer group” surveillance mechanism to promote NEPAD’s objectives. While these moves
have won praise from many, some western observers remain skeptical that an effective peer
group mechanism will soon be created. For more information, see CRS Report RS21353,
New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), and CRS Report RS21332, The
African Union.
Other. The overall level of assistance to Africa could again emerge as an issue in the
foreign assistance debate. 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.
Bread for the World maintained that this increase could help reduce hunger in Africa by half
in 2015. A supportive resolution (H.Con.Res. 102), which passed both the House and the
Senate, noted Bread for the World’s assertion under “Findings” but did not specifically
endorse a $1 billion increase in its Sense of Congress statements.
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 effectiveness of development aid and of development assistance strategies
continues to be debated by development experts. 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
CRS-13

---

IB95052
01-09-03
good policy environments. In a December 17, 2001 speech in London, K.Y. Amoako,
executive secretary of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, said that most
African countries were failing to meet development targets and that life expectancy was
declining due 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.
Additional Information. The following CRS products give background information
on Africa topics that may arise in discussions over aid to Africa.
CRS Report RS21332, The African Union
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 Report RS21301, The Food Crisis in Southern Africa: Background and Issues
CRS Report RS21209, The Millennium Challenge Account: Bush Administration
Foreign Aid Initiative
CRS Report RS21353, New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD)
CRS Issue Brief IB98046, Nigeria in Political Transition
CRS Issue Brief IB98043, Sudan: Humanitarian Crisis, Peace Talks, Terrorism, and
U.S. Policy
Legislative Action in 2002
In the 107th Congress, FY2003 Foreign Operations Appropriations bills were reported
in both the House (H.R. 5410) and the Senate (S. 2779), but further action was not taken.
Assistance programs have proceeded under continuing resolutions, and new appropriations
legislation for FY2003 is expected to be introduced early in the 108th Congress.
Table 5: Africa-Specific Funding in the FY2003 Foreign Operations
Appropriations Bills in the 107th Congress
($ millions)
FY2003
H.R. 5410
S. 2779
Request
African Dev. Foundation
16.7
19.7
17.7
African Development Bank
5.1
5.1
5.1
African Development Fund
118.1
113.1
108.1
As noted above, the Administration requested just over $1 billion in DA for Africa in
FY2003. The House and Senate bills in the 107th Congress did not earmark a specific
CRS-14

---

IB95052
01-09-03
amount for Africa, and both broke the Administration’s Development Assistance request into
Child Survival and DA components. In both bills, the amounts provided worldwide for
Child Survival and Development Assistance combined exceeded the Administration’s
Development Assistance request, suggesting that the Administration’s spending target for
Africa would have been met. However, the Administration might have had to devote more
resources to projects of the type appropriate under the Child Survival program than initially
planned.
Both bills provided somewhat less than requested worldwide for Economic Support
Fund assistance, so that ESF activities in Africa could have been constrained in FY2003.
The same might have been true of Foreign Military Financing assistance, which was funded
at less than the Administration requested in both bills, although both would have fully funded
the worldwide International Military Education and Training request. Both bills would have
funded the global Peacekeeping Operations account at higher levels than requested in
recognition of peacekeeping needs in Africa. The Senate bill specified that not less than $50
million in PKO assistance should be available for Africa Regional Peacekeeping Operations
and the Africa Crisis Response Initiative Worldwide funding for the Peace Corps was less
than requested in the Senate bill, but at the requested level in the House version.
Funding levels for three Africa programs are specified in the Foreign Operations
Appropriations bills, as indicated in Table 5.
CRS-15

---

IB95052
01-09-03
Appendix: Africa Assistance Acronyms
ACOTA Africa Contingency Operations Training Assistance, successor to ACRI.
ACRF
Africa Crisis Response Force proposed by the Clinton Administration.
ACRI
Africa Crisis Response Initiative, which trained military units for peacekeeping.
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 State Department.
ESF
Economic Support Fund, a State Department program for promoting U.S. interests.
FMF
Foreign Military Financing, once used to fund arms and equipment purchases by
African governments.
GHAI
Greater Horn of Africa Initiative, a Clinton Administration program.
IBRD
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World Bank.
IDA
International Development Association, concessional loan affiliate of IBRD.
IFIs
International financial institutions.
IGAD
Inter-governmental Authority on Development, a Djibouti-based organization of
Horn of Africa states.
IMET
International Military Education and Training, a form of military assistance.
ISA
Initiative for Southern Africa, sponsored by USAID.
MRA
Migration and Refugee Assistance, a State Department program.
NGOs
Non-governmental organizations.
OECD
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, an organization of
developed countries.
ODA
Official Development Assistance, the OECD’s concept of DA.
OFDA
Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, a part of USAID.
PCVs
Peace Corps Volunteers
PKO
Peacekeeping Operations account authorized by Part II, Chapter 6 of the Foreign
Assistance Act.
PVOs
Private and voluntary organizations
SAEDF
Southern Africa Enterprise Development Fund, a USAID program.
SMMEs Small, medium, and micro-enterprises.
UNECA United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, headquartered in Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
UNDP
United Nations Development Program
USAID
U.S. Agency for International Development
CRS-16

---