Members of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC), comprised of 29 donor countries and the EU, have agreed on a method for reporting debt relief as official development assistance (ODA).
The agreement follows calls by developing countries and civil society for expanded international debt relief efforts. Creditors within the Paris Club, a forum of official creditors for negotiating debt restructuring, had asked as well for the system to encourage the forgiveness and rescheduling of debt. The new agreement paves the way for more resolute action to relieve developing countries of the burden of debt as they struggle with the economic and social consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Under the new terms, donors are allowed to count the rescheduled or forgiven amounts as ODA, with the amount reported capped to the nominal value of the original loan: this means that the value of a dollar of a loan and its subsequent debt treatment in OECD ODA statistics would never be equal to or more than the value of a dollar that had been granted (given rather than lent). This aims to encourage donors to reschedule or cancel poor countries’ debt when they are not able to repay, while applying strict conditions of fairness and transparency in terms of reporting.
“To achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, we need a mixture of financing: grants, concessional and non-concessional loans, more private investment, more effective domestic resource mobilisation, as well as debt relief”, said DAC Chair Susanna Moorehead. “During the current crisis, poor countries are asking for debt relief. This collective decision by the DAC will generate much-needed support and development impact, and help ensure that ODA goes where partner countries need it most”.
“The agreement should make it easier for DAC Member creditors to implement debt relief initiatives”, said Jorge Moreira da Silva, OECD Director of Development Co-operation. “At the same time, by including a hard ceiling equal to the nominal value of the original loan for debt relief of ODA claims, it preserves the integrity of ODA”.
The agreement is an important step towards completing the modernisation of ODA statistics started in 2014 by DAC members. As part of this initiative, they implemented last year a new approach to measuring ODA: the grant-equivalent replaced the cash-flow method, in order to better reflect the actual efforts of donors. In 2014, they also committed to agreeing how to report debt relief according to this new grant-equivalent method.
Read the technical details of the agreement approved on 24 July 2020.
The OECD’s DAC is a forum for donor countries to agree on international principles, rules and other standards for international development co-operation. The DAC also publishes data and analysis on official aid flows, carries out Peer Reviews of DAC members’ performance in delivering development assistance and prepares policy guidance through its networks and partnerships.
CONTACT:
OECD Media Office, news.contact@OECD.org, +33 1 45 24 97 00
Compliments of the OECD.

The Annual Report on Monitoring the Application of EU Law sets out how the Commission monitored and enforced EU law in 2019, and the performance of Member States  in various policy areas.
The effective enforcement of EU law matters to citizens as it upholds the rights and benefits that they derive from EU law, which otherwise they would be denied. It also matters to businesses in order ensure a level-playing field across the internal market.
While the number of open infringement cases remained stable over the past year, the number of new infringement cases increased by over 20% compared to the previous year. Luxembourg, Estonia and Lithuania had the fewest number new opened cases for incorrect transposition or wrong application of EU law in 2019, whereas Spain, Italy and Greece faced the highest number.
The Commission continued to enforce firmly the rules across all policy fields while prioritising the areas which have the highest impact on the everyday lives of people and businesses. Some of the main policy areas targeted were environment, internal market, industry, entrepreneurship and SMEs, and transport and mobility. Together these represented half of all cases. For example, it took action against three Member States for excessive air pollution, and against five Member States which failed to ensure equivalent access for disabled users to the 112 single European emergency number.
The enforcement of EU law is based on cooperation. That is why the European Commission actively supports Member States in implementing EU law through guidance and dialogue. In 2019, it put particular focus on supporting national and regional authorities in implementing rules on waste management, air quality, energy efficiency, agricultural markets and gender equality.
Combatting late transposition of EU directives
For citizens and businesses to reap the benefits of EU law, it is crucial that Member States transpose European Directives into their national legal order within the agreed deadlines.
Over half of all infringement proceedings in 2019 were related to the late transposition of directives, although the number went down slightly (from 419 cases in 2018 to 406 in 2019). In comparison, the highest number of new late transposition cases in the last five years was in 2016 (847 cases). To facilitate timely and correct transposition, the Commission continued to assist Member States by preparing implementation plans, dedicated websites and guidance documents, and by exchanging best practices in expert group meetings.
Concerning late transposition cases, Bulgaria, Belgium, Greece and Cyprus had the highest number of new cases opened against them, whereas the fewest were open against Denmark, Italy and Lithuania.
The Commission continued to bring late transposition infringement cases to the Court of Justice with a request for daily penalties under Article 260(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the Europe Union (TFEU). Last year, the Commission referred Spain to the Court of Justice of the EU requesting financial penalties be applied (case C-658-19)
In its judgment of 8 July 2019 in Commission v Belgium, the Court of Justice applied for the first time the sanctions scheme of Article 260(3) TFEU. It imposed a daily penalty on Belgium (case C-543/17) for failure to adopt and communicate all the measures necessary for the transposition of the Directive on measures to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks.
Background
Following a request made in 1984 by the European Parliament, the European Commission presents every year a report on the monitoring of application of EU law during the preceding year. The European Parliament then adopts a resolution on the Commission’s report.
As a matter of priority, the Commission targets problems where its enforcement action can make a real difference and benefit individuals and businesses. In the division of responsibilities between the European institutions, the European Commission has the general responsibility of initiating the legislative process. The Council and the European Parliament decide on the Commission’s proposals. The Member States are responsible for the timely and correct application, implementation and enforcement of EU law in the national legal order. The Commission closes this circle: once proposals are adopted and become EU law, it monitors whether the Member States are applying this law correctly and takes action if they are not.
Upholding the rule of law is one of the political priorities of the von der Leyen Commission.
Compliments of the European Commission.

The European Union and its member states have repeatedly signalled their concern and denounced malicious behaviour in cyberspace. Such behaviour is unacceptable as it undermines international security and stability and the benefits provided by the Internet and the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). We strongly promote a global, open, stable, peaceful and secure cyberspace where human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law fully apply, supporting the acceleration of social, political and economic development.
In order to better prevent, discourage, deter and respond to such malicious behaviour in cyberspace, the Council decided today to apply restrictive measures to six individuals and three entities or bodies involved in cyber-attacks with a significant effect, or attempted cyber-attacks with a potentially significant effect, which constitute an external threat to the European Union or its member states, or with a significant effect against third States or international organisations. The measures concerned are a travel ban and asset freeze to natural persons and an asset freeze to entities or bodies. It is also prohibited to directly or indirectly make funds available to listed individuals and entities or bodies.
The measures follow the European Union and member states consistent signalling and determination to protect the integrity, security, social-wellbeing and prosperity of our free and democratic societies, as well as the rules-based order and the solid functioning of its international organisations. We will continue to strengthen our cooperation to advance international security and stability in cyberspace, increase global resilience and to raise awareness on cyber threats and malicious cyber activities.
The European Union and member states will continue to strongly promote responsible behaviour in cyberspace, and call upon every country to cooperate in favour of international peace and stability, to exercise due diligence and take appropriate action against actors conducting malicious cyber activities, as well as continue to contribute to the implementation of the existing consensus based on the by the UN General Assembly endorsed 2010, 2013 and 2015 reports of the UN Group of Governmental Experts in the field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security (UNGGE) and to advance cooperation to strengthen this consensus in the context of the current sixth UNGGE and the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) as well as other appropriate international fora in this regard.
Council decision concerning restrictive measures against cyber-attacks threatening the Union or its member states, 30 July 2020
Council implementing regulation concerning restrictive measures against cyber-attacks threatening the Union or its member states, 30 July 2020
Compliments of Council of the European Union.

The Council today decided to impose restrictive measures against six individuals and three entities responsible for or involved in various cyber-attacks. These include the attempted cyber-attack against the OPCW (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) and those publicly known as ‘WannaCry’, ‘NotPetya’, and ‘Operation Cloud Hopper’.
The sanctions imposed include a travel ban and an asset freeze. In addition, EU persons and entities are forbidden from making funds available to those listed.
Sanctions are one of the options available in the EU’s cyber diplomacy toolbox to prevent, deter and respond to malicious cyber activities directed against the EU or its member states, and today is the first time the EU has used this tool. The legal framework for targeted restrictive measures against cyber-attacks was adopted in May 2019 and recently renewed.
Background
In recent years, the EU has scaled up its resilience and its ability to prevent, discourage, deter and respond to cyber threats and malicious cyber activities in order to safeguard European security and interests.
In June 2017, the EU stepped up its response by establishing a Framework for a Joint EU Diplomatic Response to Malicious Cyber Activities (the “cyber diplomacy toolbox“). The framework allows the EU and its member states to use all CFSP measures, including restrictive measures if necessary, to prevent, discourage, deter and respond to malicious cyber activities targeting the integrity and security of the EU and its member states.
Targeted restrictive measures have a deterrent and dissuasive effect and should be distinguished from attribution of responsibility to a third state.
The EU remains committed to a global, open, stable, peaceful and secure cyberspace and therefore reiterates the need to strengthen international cooperation in order to promote the rules-based order in this area.
Compliments of the Council of the European Union.

As part of the EU’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Council today adopted a set of conclusions aimed at restoring passengers’ and workers’ confidence by minimising the risk of infection in cross-border collective passenger transport systems.
In the conclusions, the Council promotes a number of basic hygiene and infection control measures, which should apply to all cross-border collective passenger transport services. Such recommended measures consist of among others :
physical distancing or, where this is not feasible, use of masks,
greater use of digital ticketing and digital ticket inspections,
observing high standards of fresh air circulation and cleanliness of means of transport.
The Council also invites the Commission and member states to continue coordinating on the application of the transport guidelines and recommendations on Covid-19 adopted at national and EU level.
Council conclusions aimed at restoring passengers’ and workers’ confidence by minimising the risk of infection in cross-border collective passenger transport systems, 24 July 2020
Compliments of the European Council, Council of the European Union

Yesterday, the European Commission has signed a contract with the pharmaceutical company Gilead to secure treatment doses of Veklury, the brand name for Remdesivir. Veklury was the first medicine authorised at EU level for treatment of COVID-19. As from early August onwards, and in order to meet immediate needs, batches of Veklury will be made available to Member States and the UK, with the coordination and support of the Commission.
Stella Kyriakides, Commissioner for Health and Food Safety, said: “In recent weeks, the Commission has been working tirelessly with Gilead to reach an agreement to ensure that stocks of the first treatment authorised against COVID-19 are delivered to the EU. A contract has been signed yesterday, less than a month after the authorisation of Remdesivir, which will allow the delivery of treatments from early August for thousands of patients. The Commission is leaving no stone unturned in its efforts to secure access to safe and efficient treatments, and is supporting the development of vaccines against coronavirus. Yesterday’s agreement is another important step forward in our fight to overcome this disease”.
The Commission’s Emergency Support Instrument will finance the contract, worth a total of €63 million. This will ensure the treatment of approximately 30,000 patients presenting severe COVID-19 symptoms. This will help to cover the current needs over the next few months, while ensuring a fair distribution at EU level, based on an allocation key, taking into account the advice from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.
The Commission is now also preparing a joint procurement for further supplies of the medicine, expected to cover additional needs and supplies as from October onwards.
Background
On 3 July, Remdesivir became the first treatment to be authorised for a conditional marketing authorisation. This authorisation facilitates early access to medicines in public health emergency situations, such as the current pandemic.
Remdesivir is a treatment against COVID-19 for adults and adolescents as from age 12 with pneumonia who require supplemental oxygen. The application for the marketing authorisation was submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) on 8 June. EMA’s recommendation was endorsed by the Member States through the Standing Committee on Medicinal Products for Human Use.
While authorised in the EU, the medicine continues to be monitored to ensure safety. Gilead has also been requested to submit the final reports of the Remdesivir studies to the EMA by December 2020 as part of the conditions to be fulfilled to move from a conditional marketing authorisation to a full marketing authorisation. Further data on the effectiveness and safety of the medicine is expected to be submitted by August 2020 in order to finalise this process.
Compliments of the European Commission.

Corruption, the abuse of public office for private gain, is about more than wasted money: it erodes the social contract and corrodes the government’s ability to help grow the economy in a way that benefits all citizens. Corruption was a problem before the crisis, but the COVID-19 pandemic has heightened the importance of stronger governance for three reasons.
First, governments around the world are playing a bigger role in the economy to combat the pandemic and provide economic lifelines to people and firms. This expanded role is crucial but it also increases opportunities for corruption. To help ensure the money and measures are helping the people who need it most, governments need timely and transparent reporting, ex-post audits and accountability procedures, and close cooperation with civil society and the private sector.

Governments are playing a bigger role in the economy and this increases opportunities for corruption.

Second, as public finances worsen, countries need to prevent tax evasion and the waste and loss of funds caused by corruption in public spending.
Third, crises test people’s trust in government and institutions, and ethical behavior becomes more salient when medical services are in such high demand. Evidence of corruption could undermine a country’s ability to respond effectively to the crisis, deepening the economic impact, and threatening a loss of political and social cohesion.
During this crisis the IMF hasn’t taken its eye off the ball of our governance and anti-corruption work. Our message to all governments has been clear: spend whatever you need but keep the receipts, because we don’t want accountability to be lost in the process.
In our lending work, we have provided quick disbursements to meet urgent needs. At the same time, enhanced governance measures to track COVID-19 related spending have been part of the emergency financing for countries to fight the pandemic.
Borrowing countries have committed to (i) undertake and publish independent ex-post audits of crisis-related spending and (ii) publish crisis-related procurement contracts on the government’s website, including identifying the companies awarded the contract and their beneficial owners. The IMF also ensured that emergency resources are subject to the IMF’s Safeguards Assessment policy.
Long-term reform beyond the crisis
Governance safeguards for emergency assistance related to COVID-19 are part of a more comprehensive effort by the IMF to improve its member countries good governance and efforts to tackle corruption.
The IMF has significantly increased its focus on governance and corruption over the last few years. We adopted in 2018 an enhanced framework designed to make our work with countries more candid, evenhanded, and effective. This laid the foundation for our COVID-19 policy and lending response, where stronger governance matters even more.
We recently assessed our progress in recent years and published the findings in a staff analysis. Here are the key highlights:
We speak more candidly and in-depth about governance issues with countries. Text mining analysis shows that we increased coverage of governance and corruption issues in our annual assessments of countries’ economic health and in our lending programs. Governance-related references more than doubled in staff reports in the 18 months after the IMF approved the framework, compared with 2017. In 2019, the IMF discussed governance with countries four times more than the average over the prior ten years. Just recently—for instance—our surveillance work has focused on central bank governance and operations in Liberia, financial sector oversight in Moldova, and the anti-corruption framework in Mexico. Fund staff are proposing more concrete governance and anti-corruption recommendations.
IMF-supported lending programs include specific conditionality related to governance and anti-corruption reforms, with governance improvements now being a core objective of many programs.
We have stepped up technical assistance and training to help countries strengthen governance and anti-corruption efforts. We aim to help countries improve governance in areas such as tax administration, expenditure oversight, fiscal transparency, financial sector oversight, anti-corruption institutions, and asset declarations for senior officials. This includes governance diagnostic missions to a dozen countries, comprising detailed analysis of governance weaknesses based on legal frameworks and proposing prioritized solutions.
Moreover, so far, ten advanced economies—Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States—have participated in the voluntary assessment of their national frameworks to limit opportunities for transnational corruption. The purpose of the assessments, conducted by the IMF, is to determine the degree to which a country does two things: (1) criminalizes and prosecutes bribery of foreign public officials and (2) prevents foreign officials from concealing corrupt proceeds in its own financial system or domestic economy. The IMF strongly encourages member countries to volunteer for such coverage in its annual economic health checks.
Curbing corruption requires government ownership of reforms, international cooperation, and a joint effort with civil society and the private sector. It also involves political will and the assiduous implementation of reforms over months and years.
This crisis will sharpen our focus on governance in the years ahead because of the pandemic’s devastating effects and costs for people and economies. Countries can’t afford to lose precious resources at the best of times, and even less so during and after the pandemic. If ever there was a time for anti-corruption reforms, it is now.
AUTHORS:
Vitor Gaspar, Martin Mühleisen, and Rhoda Weeks-Brown
Compliments of the IMF.