Corporate report
Results by sector: wealth creation 2012-13
Updated 21 November 2013
Download CSV 13.6 KB
| Annex: Bilateral and multilateral results by sector (DFID Results framework, Operational Plan and Multilateral results) |
|---|
| Sector: Wealth Creation |
| BILATERAL RESULTS |
| DFID Results Framework Indicators |
| Country/Region |
| All |
| Operational Plan Indicators |
| Country/Region |
| Africa Regional |
| Africa Regional |
| DRC |
| DRC |
| Ethiopia |
| Ghana |
| Kenya |
| Liberia |
| Malawi |
| Mozambique |
| Nigeria |
| Nigeria |
| Rwanda |
| Rwanda |
| Sierra Leone |
| Somalia |
| Southern Africa **** |
| Southern Africa **** |
| Southern Africa **** |
| Southern Africa **** |
| Southern Africa **** |
| Southern Africa **** |
| Sudan |
| Sudan |
| Tanzania |
| Tanzania |
| Uganda |
| Uganda |
| Zambia |
| Zimbabwe |
| Asia Regional |
| Asia Regional |
| Asia Regional |
| Bangladesh |
| Burma |
| Burma |
| Caribbean |
| Caribbean |
| India |
| India |
| Nepal |
| Nepal |
| Vietnam |
| Afghanistan |
| Afghanistan |
| Afghanistan |
| Central Asia |
| Central Asia |
| Central Asia |
| Pakistan |
| Pakistan |
| MENAD regional |
| MENAD regional |
| MENAD regional |
| MENAD regional |
| OPTs |
| Yemen |
| Yemen |
| Footnotes |
| * These results relate to the headline priorities for our operational, regional and country programmes, as set out in the Department’s Operational |
| Plans for each programme, first published in 2011. They are specific to the operational context to which they relate, and draw on the most |
| appropriate project, country, or regional level data for each indicator. As such, while Operational Plan indicators from different programmes may |
| appear to report the same information, it may not be possible to combine results due to differences in the data and calculation methodologies. |
| ** Cumulative indicators take the sum of the results achieved across the various years to measureperformance. Peak year indicators measure |
| performance by taking the maximum result achieved across all years; this is a prudent way to measure the number of unique individuals reached. |
| *** Key to data symbols: '-' = nil results |
| **** Indicators labelled (N) refer to programmes within South Africa; indicators labelled (R) refer to southern Africa regional programmes. |
| ***** Results achieved through both bilateral and multilateral channels |
| Headline results achieved by multilateral organisations |
| Organisation |
| AsDB 4 |
| IADB 4 |
| IFAD 4 |
| IFAD 4 |
| IFC 4 |
| IFC 4 |
| IFC 4 |
| PIDG 4 |
| Footnotes |
| 1. Sources for all indicators can be found at the back of the Annual Report, [Annex XX] |
| 2. Where results are reported to the nearest million they have been presented in this way; otherwise results have been rounded down to nearest thousand. |
| 3. The DFID burden share presented here are not suitable to calculate a DFID results attribution of multilateral results. The results presented in this table are achieved through all funding streams that the multilateral receive, not just limited to core funding. |
| 4. Result delivered through multilaterals and its partners. |
| 5. GFATM does not engage in direct procurement activities; instead these are managed under the full responsibility of grant recipients. However, GFATM provides mechanisms to promote and cost-effective procurement of health products. |
| 6. Achievement relating to around 90 percent of the portfolio value in 2011 |
| 7. Burden share relates to the concessionary fund only. The results presented are achieved through concessionary and non-concessionary funds of the Bank. |
| 8. The UK has a 5% IFC shareholding, with contribution in the past. |
| 9. Includes in-kind assistance |
| 10. Previous results for this indicator included figures for all people receiving support to cope with the effects of climate change. These results did not delineate beneficiaries by the intensity of support given nor whether the beneficiaries where targeted or not. We can now disaggregate the results to show whether support received was direct or indirect. We have decided to report direct support only as this type of support can be shown to help discrete beneficiaries cope with the effects of climate change while indirect support cannot. Definitions for direct and indirect support are given below. Direct support is where beneficiaries have been targeted and the intervention is high intensity. Examples could include people receiving social protection cash transfers, houses raised on plinths and training of individuals in communities to develop emergency plans. Beneficiaries who receive indirect support may or may not have been targeted and have received medium intensity support. Examples could include people receiving weather information or text message early warnings and people within the catchment area of a large infrastructure project (eg flood defences). |
| 11. Since the previous Annual Report the methodology for determining whether an election is ‘freer and fairer’ has been strengthened and clarified. The methodology draws on independent observer reports to consider the extent to which elections are credible, non-violent and reflect the will of the people. As a result of this improvement the results against election indicators for 2011–12 have been revised. |
| 12. The number of countries where DFID has supported freer and fairer elections which are also fragile and conflict afflicted states was two up to 2011–12 inclusive, one in 2012–13 and so three up to 2012–13 inclusive. |
| 13. DFID is also supporting elections through regional programmes which reached an additional 64 million voters in 14 countries. |
| 14. The 2012 figures are provisional, please see the UNHCR/GAVI Annual Reports for the final figures. |