Low- and Middle-Income countries (LMICs) are facing a wide range of challenges in advancing their economic and social development and in pursuing internationally adopted goals for Climate Change and Sustainable Development, including Poverty Reduction.
A number of these challenges relate to transport and mobility. Mobility is significantly constrained for millions of people in LMICs, due to lacking or impaired availability of transport options. Moreover, available transport options are often dependent on fossil fuels causing pollution, noise and emission of greenhouse gasses as well as the burdening of trade-balances.
While transport is second only to energy in attracting climate mitigation finance (yet far below estimated needs), substantial finance gaps for the sector have also been estimated in terms of investments needed to ensure the fulfilment of other sustainable development goals and needs of LMICs, including climate adaptation and poverty reduction. In short, the urgent needs to provide support for sustainable, low-carbon, resilient mobility options in LMICs are widely recognised.
Official Development Assistance (ODA) is one of the mechanisms through which funding is provided to LMICs. ODA is managed and monitored by the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) to which all ODA donor countries are members. The traditional objective of ODA is the promotion of the economic development and welfare of developing countries. Today, however, ODA is not only considered as a means to boost economic development and alleviate poverty but also as a lever to help LMICs pursue the full range of Sustainable Goals including the mitigation of and adaptation to Climate Change.
A key question to ODA for the transport sector is therefore what role it plays in providing access for all by sustainable transport modes and climate compatible transport solutions. This is not least of interest considering that the United Nations General Assembly recently has declared that the coming ten-year period 2026-35 is to be the UN Decade of Sustainable Transport.
With the support of the UK Aid funded High Volume Transport programme the Danish green policy think tank CONCITO was tasked to,
- map the ODA spending on transport up to 10 years back;
- review current procedures and data codes used in reporting of transport ODA;
- summarize selected literature on transport, sustainable development, and ODA;
- conduct interviews with ODA experts;
- deliver a set of ideas for new categories or indicators to measure and report on ODA in support of sustainable transport.
Publications with the same themes
Publications with the same study countries
PDF content (text-only)
Project Report ODA Reporting for Transport November 2024 HVT/068 ODA Reporting for Transport This research was funded by UKAID through the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office under the High Volume Transport Applied Research Programme, managed by DT Global . The views expressed in this Concept Paper do not necessarily reflect the UK government’s official policies . Reference No. HVT/ 068 Lead Organisation/ Consultant CONCITO Partner Organisation(s)/ Consultant(s) Title ODA Reporting for T ransport Type of document Project Report Theme Low carbon transport Sub - theme Official Development Assistance for Transport Author(s) Henrik Gudmundsson Lead contact Henrik Gudmundsson Geographical Location(s) Copenhagen, Denmark Abstract Keywords ODA, Transport, Climate, Sustainable Development Funding This research was funded by UKAID through the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office under the High Volume Transport Applied Research Programme, managed by DT Global. Acknowledgements CONCTO wishes to thank in particular the following who have provided valuable information to the study: Elizabeth Jones, Stephen Coyle and Alfie Alsop, FCDO; Carsten Staur, OECD; Ta k a yoshi Tange, Yoshie Onodera , Masaku Tsuzuki and Toru Yoshida, J ICA; Daphne Gross - Janen, BMZ; Lina Plikat, GIZ; Ari Kim, KOICA; HVT Senior Advi so r Holger Dalkmann, Sust a in2030 a nd CONCITO intern Nils Nerhus Rørstad . Issue Status Author(s) Reviewed By Approved By Issue Date 1 Draft Henrik Gudmundsson Holger Dalkmann 31.10.2024 2 Draft Henrik Gudmundsson Holger Dalkmann 11.11.2024 3 Final Henrik Gudmundsson Søren Have Holger Dalkmann 06.12.2024 i ODA Reporting for T ransport Contents Executive Summary ii 1. Introduction 6 2. Aim and Methodology 7 2.1 Aim 7 2.2 Methodology 7 2.2.1 Review of current reporting of transport ODA ................................ ................................ .............. 7 2.2.2 Review of literature ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 7 2.2.3 Interviews with ODA experts ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 9 2.2.4 Discussion of new framing of ODA reporting on transport ................................ ........................... 9 2.3 Structure of the report 9 3. ODA reporting in general 11 3.1 ODA - what and when? 11 3.2 The OECD Development Assistance Committee 12 3.3 ODA reporting requirements 12 3.4 ODA Purpose codes 13 3.5 Codes for Climate and Sustainability 13 4. ODA for transport 16 4.1 The code structure for ‘Transport and storage’ 16 4.2 ODA for Transport - volumes and comparisons 17 4.2.1 Total ODA for Transport and Storage ................................ ................................ ........................ 18 4.2.2 Breakdown of transport ODA to subsectors ................................ ................................ ............... 19 4.2.3 ODA by main donors to recipient countries ................................ ................................ ................ 21 4.2.4 Comparing Transport and Energy sector ................................ ................................ ................... 22 4.3 Background and ‘logic’ of the transport code structure 24 4.3.1 The origin of ‘Transport and Storage†in economic statistics ................................ ..................... 24 4.3.2 The peculiarity of “Storage†................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 26 4.3.3 Details on Transport sub - sectors ................................ ................................ ............................... 26 4.3.4 The case of adopting new voluntary Transport codes in CRS 210 ................................ ............ 27 4.3.5 Lessons from the background for the Transport codes ................................ .............................. 28 4.4 Boundary issues 29 4.5 Reporting practices and issues 29 5. Enhancing the framework for reporting on Transport ODA 31 5.1 Development Cooperation, Sustainability and Climate 32 5.2 The sustainable transport discourse and the upcoming UN Decade of Sustainable Transport 33 5.3 Opportunities for enhanced reporting 35 5.3.1 Level a) Using existing elements in the CRS ................................ ................................ ............. 35 5.3.2 Level b) Adding elements to CRS other than purpose codes ................................ .................... 37 5.3.3 Level c) Altering the Transport purpose codes ................................ ................................ ........... 40 6. Summary and recommendations 50 6.1 The case for taking action 50 6.2 Review of options 51 6.3 Summary of assessments and recommendations 54 7. References 56 ii ODA Reporting for T ransport Appendices Appendix A: ODA VOLUMES FOR TRANSPORT ................................ ................................ ..................... 60 Appendix B: THE ENERGY SECTOR IN CRS ................................ ................................ ........................... 65 Appendix C: REVIEW OF FRAMEWORKS AND TAXONOMIES ................................ .............................. 77 Appendix D: LIST OF INTERVIEWS ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 88 iii ODA Reporting for T ransport Tables Table 1 Example of a comprehensive reform of sector codes for Transport with potential new code numbers or code titles added In green (see chapter 5) ................................ ................................ ................ 5 Table 2: Key dates in the history of ODA reporting. Based on Führer (1994), Casadevall - Bellés & Calleja (2004) and the OECD ODA website ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 11 Table 3. Definition and specifications of ODA ................................ ................................ ............................. 11 Table 4 Policy and Rio Markers used in CRS. Note: Some names shortened for convenience (*). ........... 14 Table 5 Full code structure for DAC 210 Transport and Storage (source: DAC - CRS - CODES sheet, updated April 2024). Codes In Italics are voluntary codes. ................................ ................................ ......... 16 Table 6 ODA shares for Transport and storage; different donor groups, developing countries, ODA, disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 ................................ ................................ .................... 18 Table 7 ODA share 2022 for selected sectors (not summing to 100%) CRS: Official donors, disburse ments, constant prices USD millions 2022 ................................ ................................ .................... 19 Table 8 Ten largest donors to Transport and Storage average 2013 - 22. CRS: disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 19 Table 9 Transport ODA split by shares for subsectors. CRS: disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 ('Storage' and 'Education' are Invisibly small) ................................ ................................ .................... 20 Table 10 Share of ODA for transport subsectors by selected donors, average 2013 - 22). CRS: disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 ................................ ................................ .................... 20 Table 11. Ten largest recipients of Transport ODA in 2022. CRS: disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 21 Table 12 ODA for transport from Selected donors. CRS: disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022, average 2013 - 2022 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 22 Table 13 Transport and Energy Official donors, Developing countries, ODA, disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 23 Table 14 Transport and Energy, DAC countries, Developing countries, ODA, disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 23 Table 15 Sustainable Mobility for All concept indicated as potential Policy Marker ................................ .... 38 Table 16 Example of new CRS code for Zero Emission Transport / Electrification ................................ .... 43 Table 17 Example of new CRS code for Urban transport and following modifications ............................... 43 Table 18 Example of new CRS codes for investing in the resilience of transport infrastructures and services ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 44 Table 19 Example of new CRS code Sustainable Urban Mobility and Logistics Planning ......................... 45 Table 20 Example of a comprehensive reform of sector codes for Transport with potential new code numbers or code titles added In green ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 47 iv ODA Reporting for T ransport Figures Figure 1 Template applied by deleting categories and tags not applicable for each particular reference. ... 8 Figure 2 CRS: Official donors, disbursements, constant prices USD million 2022 ................................ ..... 18 Figure 3 ODA for T ransport and Energy, Official donors, Developing countries, ODA, disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 23 Figure 4 ODA for Transport and Energy from selected donors. ................................ ................................ . 24 Figure 5 Excerpt from ISIC 1948 available at https://unstats.un.org/unsd/classifications/Econ/isic ........... 25 Figure 6 Extract from UN 1953 SNA, available at: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/nationalaccount/sna.asp .. 25 Figure 7 Extract from UN 1968 SNA, available at https://unstats.un.org/unsd/nationalaccount/sna.asp ... 26 Figure 8 Extract from ISIC 2008, available at https://unstats.un.org/unsd/publication/seriesm/seriesm_4rev4e.pdf ................................ ......................... 27 Figure 9 Transport elements included in the WP - STAT Sustainable Energy analysis. OECD DAC WP - STAT (2022). ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 36 Figure 10 Percentages of ODA for the Transport sector marked for Adaptation (level 1 or 2) 2013 - 22. For Illustration only, numbers not comparable to figures In Chapter 4 and not double checked. ..................... 36 i ODA Reporting for T ransport Abbreviations/Acronyms BMZ Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung CPI Climate Policy Initiative CRS C reditor Reporting System DAC Development Assistance Committee DNSH Do No Significant Harm FCDO Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH ISIC International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities JICA Japan International Cooperation Agenc y HICs High - Income Countries HVT High Volume Transport MDB Multilateral Development Banks NACE Statistical classification of economic activities in the EU LDC Least Developed Countries LMICs Low - and Middle - Income Countries NDC Nationally Determined Contributions ODA Official Development Assistance OECD Organisation for Economic Co - operation and Development SDG Sustainable Development Goals SIDS Small Island Developing States SNA System of National Accounts SUM4All Sustainable Mobility for All UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change WP - STAT OECD DAC Working Part y on Development Finance Statistics 2 ODA Reporting for T ransport Executive Summary Low - and Middle - Income countries (LMICs) are facing a wide range of challenges in advancing their economic and social development and in pursuing internationally adopted goals for Climate Change and Sustainable Development, including Poverty Reduction. A number of these challenges relate to transport and mobility . Mobility is significantly constrained for millions of people in LMICs, due to lacking or impaired availability of transport options. Moreover, available transport options are often dependent on fossil fuels causing pollution, noise and emission of greenh ouse gasses as well as the burdening of trade - balances. While transport is second only to energy in attracting climate mitigation finance (yet far below estimated needs ) , substantial finance gaps for the sector have also been estimated in terms of investments needed to ensure the fulfilment of other sustainable development goals and needs of LMICs, including climate adaptation and poverty reduction . In short, the urgent needs to provide support for sustainable, low - carbon, resilient mobility options in LMICs are widely recognised. Official Development Assistance (ODA) is one of the mechanisms through which funding is provided to LMICs. ODA is managed and monitored by the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) to which all ODA donor countries are members. The traditional objective of ODA is the promotion of the economic development and welfare of developing countries . T oday, however, ODA is not only considered as a means to boost economic development and alleviate poverty but also as a lever to help LMICs pursue the full range of Sustainable Goals including the mitigation of and adaptation to Climate Change. A key question to O DA for the transport sector is therefore what role it plays in providing access for all by sustainable transport modes and climate compatible transport solutions . This is not least of interest considering that the United Nations General Assembly recently has declared that the coming ten - year period 2026 - 35 is to be the UN Decade of Sustainable Transport . With the support of the UK Aid funded High Volume Transport programme the Danish green policy think tank CONCITO was tasked to, • m ap the ODA spending on transport up to 10 years back; • review current procedures and data codes used in reporting of transport ODA ; • summarize selected literature on transport, sustainable development, and ODA; • conduct interviews with ODA experts; • deliver a set of ideas for new categories or indicators to measure and report on ODA in support of sustainable transport . In the following we summarize, • Main findings of the report • Main ideas analysed , and • Main recommendations offered The main findings include the following : Transport received $11.8 billion per year or 5.7% of all ODA (bi - and multilateral) as average for the ten - year period 2013 - 22 with a declining trend. Transport received less than Health and Education sectors, about the same as the Energy sector, and more than for example the Water and Sanitation sector. Within transport Road transport receive d the most by around half of all ODA , followed by Rail transport at 30% and Transport Policy at ca 10%. It is noteworthy that Japan is a very large donor to the transport area, providing 51% of all transport ODA in the world over the ten - year period, followed by the EU with 23% and France wi th 9%. Japan disbursed around half of its transport funding to Rail projects, and a third for Road projects. Only France gave an even larger share to rail namely 63%. Germany and th e UK are noteworthy by providing large contributions to transport policy rather than ‘physical’ projects, the UK as much 47% of the total. Hence, each donor has a very distinct profile in the transport sector. Among the main recipients of transport ODA are India and the Philippines together with other Asian countries, and Egypt in Africa. In general, the distribution of transport ODA to vulnerable groups of 3 ODA Reporting for T ransport countries such as the Least Developed Countries and the Small Island Development States is roughly similar to Total ODA; in other words, transport ODA is neither more nor less ‘unfairly’ distributed than ODA as a whole in that overall sense. Each sector is represented by certain ‘codes’ in the system that donors use to report their donations the via the so - called Creditor Reporting System (CRS) managed by the OECD DAC . It is remarkable that the ‘Transport and Storage’ sector has a very simple set of codes compared to for example the Energy sector. Transport is divided into seven subsectors , four of them representing classic infrastructure networks (Road, Rail, Water, Air transport), supplemented by ‘Transport Policy’, ‘Transport education and training and ‘Storage’. In contrast, Energy has no less than 27 detailed codes , dividing it into for example by different types of renewable versus non - renewable energy sources (wind , solar etc). The explanation is not that developing countries receive much more funding for energy than transport, actually it is at the same level. The main reason is that the transport ’codes’ have not been changed for decades , whereas the energy codes have been adjusted in several rounds in part to reflect the 2030 S ustainable D evelopment Age n da with the SDG s , and a focus on sustainable energy. Hence, there are no ‘codes’ in the system for support to for example active transport , public transport , electric busses , essential mobility for the poor, helping women reach jobs, or reducing traffic accidents . Clearly some funding is provided for such solutions , one just can’t see it in the statistics that is published. In contrast , it is found that a number of other contemporary international taxonomies and typologies of finance for development, sustainab ility or climate (‘ adjacent ’ to the CRS system used to report on ODA) do e m pl o y more elaborate c ategories and codes for transport including several of those dimensions. All in all , there seem s to be a ‘missing link’ between the global efforts to integrate development cooperation, sustainability and climate change agendas , and to support sustainable transport systems and modes in developing nations on the one side, and the current practice of defining and reporting on ODA for transport as exposed in this report on the other . We ha ve sought to establish such a link . The main ideas analysed are the following , The report has considered several ideas to provide better information on ODA for transport, in terms of what it means for Climate targets, Sustainable Development, and poverty reduction. We call them options to enhance the reporting of ODA for transport . There are mainly three sources of inspiration for the proposed options, • The historic changes that have been implemented in the Energy sector • A review of several other finance frameworks in the ‘vicinity’ of the CRS used to report ODA , with their associated typologies/taxonomies for transport • A set of four key ‘sustainable transport concerns’ that we extracted from the international policy discourse on the subject The enhancements range from proposing new ways to present information that is already reported to the CRS system, to adopting some new elements to the system, to installing a whole new set of ‘codes’ for the transport sector, including several codes for ‘s ustainable transport’ forms. More specifically, five options are discussed and exemplified, • Using so - called ‘Rio markers’ to measure if the ODA for transport contributes to climate goals . ‘Rio Markers’ are qualitative policy ‘tags’ that donor nations attach to each of the donations they provide and report to the CRS system. This does not really measure ‘how much’ each donation does for the climate but only if it is 2, 1 or 0 - ‘a lot’, ‘s omething’ or nothing’ basically; • Defining new m arker s specifically for ‘Sustainable Transport’ ( could be tags like ‘active transport; ‘public transport’ , etc ) . Again, this would not measure exactly how much goes to sustainable transport but would likely come closer. The option would however require an agreement of what ‘sustainable transport’ really is and also that all donors used the tags in the same way; • Doing a ‘cosmetic operation’ to the Transport sector code, by simply removing the ‘Storage’ sector from the name. Only very small amounts of ODA today go to ‘storage’, so the activity in the title only brings unnecessary confusion to what is at stake. Chan ging the title does however not help much towards the general weaknesses of the ‘old fashioned’ code structure. • Adding new codes in the transport sector. This could be codes for example for support to ‘Zero Emission transport’, or to ‘climate adaptation of rail transport’. This option would allow ODA 4 ODA Reporting for T ransport directly targeting these types of ‘sustainable’ activities to be counted as such in the statistics, without interfering with the reporting of other more traditional projects like road expansions or new bridges. It would only be possible track ODA for the n ew codes going forward as historic donations would obviously not apply those categories • Undertaking a major revision of the code structure in the transport sector, to bring it more ‘up to speed’ with other sectors like energy. The idea is to allow more detailed / granular accounting for what ODA spent in the transport sector goes to, including sustainable transport modes, electrification and climate adaptation, but without disconnect ing the overall structure form the historic CRS categories and the associated data accumulated over decades. A specific example is provided that brings the Transpo rt sector up to 24 ‘sub - sector’ codes, compared to the 27 in the Energy sector. As mentioned, one or more examples are provided for all five types of options; their merits are outlined as well as some potential challenges for their adoption we could imagine. The result of th is analysis we summarize in three overall assessments : • We consider that a major/comprehensive revision of the exiting framework with the addition of more granular sector codes for reporting on ODA for transport would carry the most significant merits (the fifth option above); • We offer the view that the OECD bodies responsible for managing ODA reporting constitute a very effective and expedient institutional setting and governance structure for the process to develop, negotiate and adopt such revisions to CRS purpose codes ; • We suggest that a high - level policy initiative, commitment or mandate emphasizing the need to review how finance for transport in LMICs (including ODA) is defined and measured could likely expedite the success of efforts to enhance the reporting of transport ODA, not least for a major revision to the sector codes. On this background t he main recommendations are the following . 1. It is recommended that DAC members with an interest in transport are summoned to discuss ideas and models for enhanced reporting of ODA for transport in light the UN Decade on Sustainable Transport and other relevant agendas; A key element should be a major modernization of the transport sector codes; The present report could serve among the input; 2. It is recommended that representatives of DAC members with an interest in transport reach out to current high - level initiatives of relevance for sustainable transport finance such as the preparations for the upcoming UN Decade for Sustainable Transport, The Sustainable Mobility for All initiative, and the Finance for Development Agenda, i n order to explore opportunities to generate external high - level support for a reform of Transport ODA; 3. It is recommended that representatives among of the group of DAC members instigate the submission of a proposal for discussion at an upcoming meeting of the OECD DAC working party WP - STAT; the proposal may include, š a proposal to rename the purpose code of sector 210 to ‘Transport’; š proposals regarding a modernized more granular structure of CRS codes for Transport reflecting sustainable transport options; š considerations regarding alternative options to enhance ODA reporting for transport such as the use of Rio Markers, SDG Focus codes, or new Policy Markers; š considerations regarding a process for reviewing and elaborating the proposals engaging the Secretariat in the analysis of any consequences in regard to other aspects of reporting duties, and possibly DAC members volunteering to test the application of new codes š considerations regarding regular follow - up with publications or other information products on status and trend s for Transport ODA , as part of information for the UN Decade on Sustainable Transport. The table below is a hypothetical example of a major revision to the coding system for the transport sector in the CRS , that could serve as inspiration . The details of this example are described in Chapter 5 of the report, where also strengths, weaknesses and other opportunities are discussed. 5 ODA Reporting for T ransport Table 1 Example of a comprehensive reform of sector code s for Transport with potential new code numbers or code titles added In green (see chapter 5) DAC 5 CRS Vol DESCRIPTION – ’ CO MPREHENSIVE ’ 210 Transport 211 Transport policy and administrative management 211aa Transport policy, planning and administration 211bb Public transport services 211cc Transport regulation 211XX Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning Education and training in transport and storage 212 Road transport 21210 Active transport 21220 Public transport 21230 Road adaptation 21240 Road construction 2124a Feeder road construction 2124b National road construction 2124c All - weather rural road construction 21250 Road maintenance 2125a Feeder road maintenance 2125b National road maintenance 21260 Zero Emission Road Transport 21270 Other Road transport 213 Rail transport 21330 Rail adaptation 21340 Rail construction 21350 Rail maintenance 21360 Zero Emission rail transport 21370 Other Rail transport 214 Water transport 21430 Water adaptation 21440 Water construction 21450 Water maintenance 21460 Zero Emission Water transport 21470 Other Water transport 215 Air transport 21530 Air adaptation 21540 Air construction 21550 Air maintenance 21560 Zero Emission Air transport 21570 Other Air transport 6 ODA Reporting for T ransport 1. Introduction Low - and Middle - Income countries (LMICs) are facing a wide range of challenges in advancing their economic and social development and in pursuing internationally adopted goals for Climate Change and Sustainable Development, including poverty reduction. A number of these challenges relate to transport and mobility. According to recent assessment s by the World Bank and others , 1 • h alf of the global population lack convenient access to public transport, where in regions like sub - Saharan Africa it is up to 67% ; • an estimated 1 billion people still lack access to all - weather roads, in Africa alone i more than 70% of the total rural population has no connection to transport infrastructure and systems. • The absence of safe transport infrastructure is also a major barrier to women's economic participation, reducing the likelihood of women joining the labour force by an estimated 16.5%. • Traffic accidents is the cause of death for approximately 1.2 million people each year ; and is now the leading cause for children and young people aged 5 - 29 in the Global South. Transport options are essential for gaining access to social and economic functions for people and businesses. Effective and affordable transport infrastructures and services are therefore important components of social and economic development. Yet mobili ty is significantly constrained for millions in particularly in LMICs, due to lacking or impaired availability of transport options. Moreover, available transport options are often dependent on fossil fuels causing pollution, noise and emission of greenhouse gasses as well as the burdening of trade - balances. Factors like urbanisation and rapid motori s ation exacerbate these problems, while zero emission solutions may be inaccessible or prohibitively expensive. Meanwhile, infrastructures and the stability of mobility services are increasingly exposed to impacts of climate change in both rural and urban a reas of the Global South. All in all, the urgent need to provide sustainable, low - carbon, resilient mobility options, not least for LMICs, is widely recognized (United Nations 2024a; United Nations 2024b; UN DESA 2021; Sustainable Mobility for All 2022; see also Slocat 2023; Gudmun dsson & Dalkmann 2024). Official Development Assistance (ODA) is one of the mechanisms through which funding for a broad range of development objectives are channelled to LMICs from High - Income Countries (HICs), directly or via multilateral banks, and other international organi s ations. Although ODA only constitute a small part of total financial flows to LMICs, it is an important one for supporting Sustainable Development, while also governed by a well - established reporting regime (UNCTAD 2024). Transport is one of the sectors that receives support via ODA . Currently ODA for transport is reported under a category for ‘Transport and Storage’ in the OECD DAC Creditor Reporting System (CRS) for development assistance. A key question is to what extent ODA reported through this category also provides for reliabl e measures of support to sustainable and climate compatible transport activities. The ambition behind this report is to address this question by unpacking the existing practice of reporting of ODA for transport and by exploring if other ways to categorize or indicate the provision of transport ODA could enhance the support provided for climate and sustainability goals. This will include some ideas on how to potentially modify the purpose coding for transport in the CRS. Apart from directly guiding the reporting of ODA, an enhanced reporting structure on transport could eventually also inform other international processes on climate or sustainable development finance. In particular it could help buttress the knowledge foun dations for the upcoming UN Decade of Sustainable Transport 2026 - 3 5 , a more imminent agenda in view for this analysis. It should be noted that the study is limited to ODA reporting and does not include other types of financial flows or types of international development cooperation, such as non - concessional loans, export - facilitating grants 2 , private finance, or diplomatic negotiations. The topics of ‘Climate Finance’ and ‘Sustainable Finance’ are partly addressed to the extent their reporting is overlapping ODA or is relevant for informing considerations regarding potential modifications to ODA reporting for transport. 1 The World Bank (2024). World Sustainable Transport Day: Transforming Mobility to Transform Development 2 See for example the O ECD ’s distinction of ODA from OOF, ‘Other Official Flows’. 7 ODA Reporting for T ransport 2. Aim and Methodology 2.1 Aim The aim of this report is to provide an overview of ODA currently committed for transport, and to review if existing categori s ation and reporting allows to track how transport ODA will support the delivery of poverty reduction, sustainability and climate objectives. . The outcome of the effort should help establishing a factual and conceptual basis for a discussion on ODA for transport in the context of the SDGs, the Paris Climate Agreement and the upcoming UN Decade of Sustainable Transport ( United Nations (2023) . The project thus includes the following tasks: • Task 1. Review of current reporting of transport ODA ; • Task 2. Brief review of literature ; • Task 3. Interviews with ODA experts ; • Task 4. Discussion of possible new / supplementary framing of ODA reporting on transport . The project commenced on August 6, 2024, and will end November 30, 2024. 2.2 Methodology The methodology is desk - top analysis informed by literature, data analysis, and expert interviews, each of which provides input for the critical discussion that forms the basis for recommendations regarding potential new / supplementary reporting categorie s or indicators for ODA in support of sustainable transport. The following sections explain the methods applied for each task and how they each inform the discussion and the recommendations of this document. 2.2.1 Review of current reporting of transport ODA The first task is to provide a condensed overview of historic and current ODA for transport, and to compare this to the neighbouring area of energy. The main source for this task is data extracted from the OECD DAC Creditor Reporting System (CRS) with associated guidance and other documents. The CRS is the internationally agreed system for reporting and managing ODA and other related financial flows (O ECD DAC 2024). The CRS data are available online to download in different formats and levels of detail from the OECD data explorer . We have mainly used the comprehensive dataset for Creditor Reporting System flows available here . In addition, we have collected guidance documents regarding ODA reporting from the OEDC Archives accessible online here . 2.2.2 R eview of literature While the study is not committed to do a comprehensive literature review, a systematic search for relevant material was conducted in the early stage of the work. Three main categories of references were deemed of interest for the literature review, coverin g academic as well as grey material: a) History, documents and guidance for how ODA reporting has evolved and how it functions including key definitions, procedures and categories. b) Literature addressing the role of ODA reporting and methodology in the context of supporting sustainable development and climate change in general. c) Literature on the role of transport for sustainable development and climate change particularly in ODA recipient countries, and how this role is reflected or can be reported. The literature search involved restricted academic search engines SCOPUS and Science Direct as well as the open Google Scholar. More random searches in Google, the OECD Archives and a few other repositories were also conducted, including CONCITOs own refer ence folders. 8 ODA Reporting for T ransport Search terms included various combinations of terms ‘ODA’/’Official Development Assistance’ ‘OECD DAC’; ‘ODA reporting’; ‘Sector Codes’; ‘Transport’; ‘Transport & Storage’, ‘Sustainability’; ‘Sustainable Development’; ‘Climate’, ‘Poverty’; ‘Sustainable tra nsport’ and ‘Sustainable mobility’. Numerous references are available within each of these three categories. The search was deliberately narrowed to references from 2020 onwards with a high value for this study; either seminal, condensed accounts within each of three topics, or material with rich overlaps across them. A few key references older than 2020 were nevertheless included and consulted as necessary. A special interest was paid to references addressing ODA for transport by main transport donor countries. The long list of references deemed to have potential ly significant value includes some 150 items. These items were all registered with bibliographical information including abstracts etc. in one file and then categorized using a set of criteria and tags, to register the status of the item - for example if it is in the physical possession (owned by) CON CITO - as well as its potential contributions to inform various aspects of the analysis. The template used for this exercise is shown in Figure 1 . Around 20 references were initially deemed to be of potentially ‘High’ value for the study, with some 35 with ‘Medium’ value. ‘High’ value means rich and updated information to inform one, two or all of the three categories of interest named above. ‘Medium ’ value indicates other relevant resources, with deep information on one of the categories likely for citation in the report. Only a few references were found to overlap all three categories of interest, ODA for transport in the context of Sustainable Development or Climate Change goals, most of them from before 2020. It is noteworthy that no references were found to be directly addressing the subject of this report: categorizing transport ODA with the purpose of reporting on Sustainable Development or Climate Change goals, although indirectly reflected in some OECD documents. This topic seems not to have a subject for previous re search published in English. The identified references were not all systematically read through but were used for consultation during the analysis and writing process. The report does therefore not contain a ‘literature review’ section as the selected references were drawn upon where appropriate. STATUS : OWNED TO OBTAIN NO NEED RELEVANCE : HIGH ME DIUM LOW TYPE : GREY SCI EN TIFIC CATEGORIE S TAGS 1. ODA HISTORY & METHODOLOGY (GENERAL) 2. SD/ SDG /CLIMATE & ODA/FINAN CE 3. TRANSPORT/SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT & ODA/FINANCE ODA TRANSPORT SUST/CLIMATE ODA METHODOLOGY KEY DONOR UK , EU, JAPAN, GERMANY , FRANCE ‘SNOW BALLED ’ FOR OTHE R RES … OLD ( before 2020) SPECEFIC COUNTRY BIBLIOGRPH Y; ABST RACT ; KEY QUOTES : Figure 1 Template applied by deleting categories and tags not applicable for each particular reference. 9 ODA Reporting for T ransport 2.2.3 Interviews with ODA experts The purpose of interviews for the study were two - fold. The first was to understand more about how ODA data for transport in practice are provided and subsequently used by experts in the field. This was to help uncover any rationales for or benefits of the existing transport sector coding, as well as bring forw ard any issues experienced with its function or use. Potential ideas for revisions already in the mind of experts might also emerge. The second was to tap into the broader discourse on ODA reforms in the context of the global sustainable development and climate change discourse. The hope was to find out if reforms or revision to ODA reporting in general is already underway, and if so wh ether such revisions would be conducive for or detrimental for any proposal to revise the reporting structure in the transport area. Four interviews were conducted. Three were with transport ODA experts at official institutions managing international development assistance in the UK, Germany, and Japan, respectively. These interviews mainly informed on the first purpose but also provided background on the second one. One interview was with a leading officer in the OECD Development Assistance Committee. This interview was a joint undertaking with CONCITO colleagues for a different project. This interview provided background on the second purpose. The list of interviews is included as Appendix D . In addition, valuable background information was provided by email or online by experts within the OECD Development Directorate, the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the South Korean Development Agency KOICA and GIZ in Germany. 2.2.4 Discussion of new framing of ODA reporting on transport An approach was devised for the discussion on possible new / supplementary framing of ODA reporting on transport, as informed by data, literature and interviews. The approach has the following elements , • Framing the topic by brief ly re view ing overall agendas for Development Cooperation, Sustainable Development and Climate Change, and the upcoming UN Decade of Sustainable Transport ; • Defining a ‘ladder’ of opportunities for enhanced reporting on ODA for transport in this context, following on a scale from minor supplements to major adjustments to existing practice. The ladder includes the following three main levels ; a) Reporting on transport ODA for sustainable development and climate goals without adding new elements to CRS codes (using existing ‘Rio Markers’ etc) ; b) Adding new elements to the reporting with no alterations to Purpose coding ; c) Alterations to the Purpose coding for Sector 210 Transport and Storage , again divided into three different options • At each level some ideas and opportunities are presented, exemplified and discussed , in terms of potential benefits as well as potential drawbacks and challenges to be overcome ; • The discussion of level c) is supported by Appendix C providing a review of how transport in categorized in a range of frameworks and taxonomies for international financial reporting or accounting in the context of development, sustainability and climate change ; • A summ a ry assess ment of all options from the basis for the recommendations . 2.3 Structure of the report The report includes the following chapters and appendices: Chapter 3 introduces ODA and ODA reporting in general Chapter 4 goes in depth with ODA reporting for transport, including , • overview of actual amounts of ODA provided to this sector and each of its sub - sectors ; • review of the history and background for the existing CRS coding structure for transport ; and • s ummary of interviews on current practice in the reporting of ODA for transport . 10 ODA Reporting for T ransport Chapter 5 addresses options to potentially enhance the reporting on Transport ODA applying the approach described under methodology above . Chapter 6 provides summary and recommendations. The reference list and the appendices follow after Chapter 6 . A PPENDIX A includes detailed data on volumes of ODA for transport contextualized in various ways serving as background for Chapter 4 . A PPENDIX B provides overview and background on the Energy codes in the CRS Framework and compari s ons of ODA for Energy and Transport. APPENDIX C present s a range of finance frameworks and taxonomies and explores how the transport sector is categorized in them . A PPENDIX D has the list of interviews for the project . 11 ODA Reporting for T ransport 3. ODA reporting in general This chapter briefly introduces the concept of Official Development Assistance (ODA) and describes key features of how ODA is reported to the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) and the Creditor Reporting System (CRS) of the OECD. This provides necessar y background for the in - depth review of ODA reporting for transport in the following Chapter 4. 3.1 ODA - what and when? Development aid from high - income countries to so - called “Developing Countries†was initiated in the period after the Second World War. In 1960 the OECD was established, and its Development Assistance Committee (DAC) assumed a key position in the internatio nal management and reporting of Official Development Assistance (ODA), which received its first official definition under that name in 1969. Key dates in the evolution of ODA and ODA reporting are summarized in Error! Reference source not found. . The current updated definition of ODA is shown in Table 3 . Table 2 : Key dates in the history of ODA reporting. Based on Führer (1994), Casadevall - Bellés & Calleja (2004) and the OECD ODA website Year 1960 Foundation of the OECD a nd the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) 1966 “Expanded Reporting System on External Lending†introduced, evolving into the current Creditor Reporting System (CRS) 1969 Adoption of the Official Development Assistance (ODA) c oncept by DAC, and update of the CRS to reflect it 1970 United Nations adopts target of 0.7% of national income for ODA form HICs 1972 - > Series of revisions to the definition and measurement of ODA 1998 Introduction or Rio Markers in CRS 2015 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development including SDG targets for ODA 2016 Addition of codes for ‘budget identification’ to several sectors – most recent change to Transport Sector codes (see chapter 4) 2018 Introduction of Grant Equivalent Measure for ODA in CRS 2021 OECD DAC D eclaration on a new approach to align development co - operation with the goals of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change Table 3 . Definition and specifications of ODA Definition of ODA ODA is defined as follows in the current ODA reporting directives issued to OECD members (OECD DAC 202 4) : “ Official development assistance flows are defined as those flows to countries and territories on the DAC List of ODA Recipients and to multilateral development institutions which are , i.) provided by official agencies, including state and local governments, or by their executive agencies; and ii.) ii.) each transaction of which is administered with the promotion of the economic development and welfare of developing countries as its main objective; and b) is concessional in character …†The current list (2024 - 25) of ODA recipients includes 147 countries and territories. 12 ODA Reporting for T ransport Further details prescribe how ODA concessionality is defined for ODA loans. ODA comes in different forms as grants, loans, or technical assistance provided to recipient countries. Extensive definitions and calculation methods are applied to measure ODA. ODA can be channelled as bi - lateral assistance directly between countries, as multilateral assistance via international development finance institutions such as the Multilateral Development Banks (in the case of Europe also via EU institutions). A subset within the latter called ‘multi - bi’ is where donor countries earmark certain parts of its multilateral aid to specific purposes or recipients. What counts as ODA and how to count ODA has been a subject for numerous discussions and changes throughout the history of ODA. Controversies have for example concerned the level of concessionality of loans for them to count as ODA, or counting of in - donor country expenses for refugees as ODA. These and other controversies have found technical solutions in the reporting frameworks (United Nations 2024b) but will often remain topics for discussion and potential adjustment. 3.2 The OECD Development Assistance Committee OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) has the overall purpose to promote development co - operation and other relevant policies so as to contribute to implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development . 3 It does so mainly through the following activities, • Monitor ing official development assistance ; • Setting development co - operation standards ; • Conducting regular peer - reviews of DAC member’s development finance . DAC members today (and thus the members of the DAC Committee) include 31 countries plus the European Union, counting as a member on equal footing with the member countries. In addition, some non - DAC countries are ‘participants’ (no voting rights) in DAC and a range of international organisations are ‘observers’. Mr. Carsten Staur of Denmark is the current Chair of DAC, appointed for the period 2023 - 2027. 4 3.3 ODA reporting requirements DAC members and some other participating countries regularly report their ODA to the OECD DAC Creditor Reporting System (CRS), which is the main global repository of ODA data. Reporting includes uploading data on individual ODA projects, either as commitments (for example in project contracts) or as disbursements (actually submitted funding), with the two categories kept separate . The CRS system has evolved in multiple steps since its inception as the "Expanded Reporting System on External Lending", in 1966 (Führer 1994; Casadevall - Bellés & Calleja 2024) , although elements remain from the original system (more details on this history, as it pertains to transport, is provided in Chapter 4). Extensive instructions and guidance for reporting are adopted and provided by the DAC committee and its Working Party on Development Finance Statistics (WP - STAT), assisted by the OECD Secretariat. Key references include the Converged Statistical Reporting Directives for the Creditor Reporting System (CRS) and the Annual DAC Questionnaire (OECD DAC 2024), and the ‘codes’ sheet defining all the categories and codes needed for reporting ODA ( DAC - CRS - CODES sheet ) . The CRS codes define categories of information to be reported for the ODA as well as labels to apply to reported activities within each category. The coding system covers a wide range of items from donor 3 See website of the DAC Committee , Accessed Nov. 2024 4 Resolution of the OECD Council [C( 202 2) 208] 13 ODA Reporting for T ransport organi s ations to recipient countries, to institutions channeling the aid, to sectors targeted, to different finance flows (loans, grants etc.). This coding system thereby allows for both standardized and highly nuanced reporting, analysis, and communication on multiple aspects of ODA. 3.4 ODA Purpose codes For reporting aid to various purposes, inclu ding sectors like transport and energy, the CRS Purpose codes are applied. As the name says, purpose codes refer to the purpose of the aid, in terms of what area of economic, social, or institutional activities in the recipient countries the aid is intended for. It is important to observe that purpose codes aim to, “… describe the economic and social sector of the activity and not the ultimate objective of the activity . For example, an activity to improve sanitation would be classified under the sector of “water and sanitationâ€, although its ultimate objective could be to improve health. ( OECD DAC 2022, p. 26 , emphasis added ) The codes are hierarchical. At the highest level there are 47 3 - digit so - called ‘DAC 5 codes . ’ These are often called ‘sector codes’ as many of them represent economic or policy sectors. Aid for transport is for example covered under DAC code 210 “Transport & Storage†(to be described in detail in Chapter 4) . Some of the codes do in fact not represent ‘sectors’ per se, such as code 410 “General Environmental Protection†or 510 “General Budget Supportâ€. We will nevertheless follow practice and henceforth refer to the 3 - digit DAC codes as ‘sector codes.’ Under each sector are 5 - digit ‘CRS Codes’ , where the sectors are subdivided. Donors are required to report all aid under the 5 - digit CRS - codes. There are currently 235 CRS codes under the 47 sectors. The sectors differ widely with regard to level and detail of CRS codes within them. This to some extent reflects various levels of complexity of each sector but also historic evolution in the attention paid to particular sectors in the development community. Further subdivisions under the CRS codes are so - called ‘voluntary ’ codes. These are also 5 - digit. They offer opportunities for more detailed breakdown of activities in a sector than reflected in the ‘parent’ CRS code. An example for the transport sector is the voluntary code 21021 ‘Feeder road construction ’, as a sub division under the CRS code 21020 ‘Road Transport ’. As the name says, it is voluntary for donor countries if they use codes at this level in their reporting. According to interviews conducted for this study it varies to what extent donors use voluntary codes or not. It should be noted that the publicly accessible data in the CRS systems do not include information on ODA provided at the level of voluntary codes. A final important observation about sector coding is that all donations must be reported to a particular sector code with no double counting allowed. Donations can however be split between codes (for example if 60% of ODA for a project supports construction of solar panels while 40% supports the acquisition of electric busses to use the solar energy produced, the funding is split accordingly and reported under different sector codes ). 3.5 Codes for Climate and Sustainability Finally, among the several other categories of codes to be applied in reporting ODA to the CRS it is relevant here to highlight the codes to indicate contributions to Climate Change and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Policy and Rio Markers Policy Markers represent policy issues that DAC members have found important for the assessment of how ODA contributes to a particular objective or aim. Rio Markers are Policy Markers incorporated following the 1992 Rio Summit, where conventions on Climate Change, Biodiversity and Desertification were adopted. DAC members are required to apply the markers by assigning a code to activities/projects according to their contribution to the particular Policy/Rio objective. The assignment is qualitative (ordinal) using a scale with three levels, with ‘2’ indicting the strongest direct contribution to the objective: 0. Not targeted 1. Significant objective - The objective is explicitly stated in the activity documentation. 14 ODA Reporting for T ransport 2. Principal objective - The objective must be fundamental in the design of, or the motivation for, the activity . Several makers can be applied to an activity if it is deemed to contribute to several objectives; hence they are like ‘ tags ’ and not mutually exclusive (nor additive) in contrast to the sector codes above. Table 2 Table 2 shows the existing Policy Markers, and when they were adopted (OECD DAC 2022b). There is one Rio Marker to indicate Climate Mitigation and one for Climate Adaptation. Table 4 Policy and Rio Markers used in CRS. Note: Some names shortened for convenience (*). Name of marker Year introduced Type of marker Revised Gender* 1997 Policy 2006 Environment* 1997 Policy Governance* 1997 Policy 2010, 2021 Poverty reduction* 1997 Policy 2004 (discontinued) Biodiversity 2000 Rio 2018 Desertification 2000 Rio 2018 Climate Change Mitigation* 2000 Rio 2015 Trade Development 2007 Policy Climate Change Adaptation 2009 Rio 2015 Reproductive health 2012 Policy 2017 Disaster Risk Reduction 2017 Policy Disabilities* 2018 Policy (voluntary) Nutrition 2018 Policy (voluntary) SD G Focus ‘SDG focus’ refers to the list of 17 SDGs and more than 170 SDG targets. The CRS Code sheet includes a list of all the SDG goals and targets. DAC members are recommended to assign SDG Focus codes to their reported activities/projects according to their expected contribution to the goals or targets (goals and targets are reported in one column). An activity can be assigned up t o 10 SDGs (OECD DAC 2022b). For example, a project to rebuild a road section to limit motor vehicle traffic prioritize the section for safe bicycling and thereby limit emissions could (in principle) be assigned the follow ing (but also other) codes, • Target 3.5 ‘By 2020, halve the number of global deaths and injuries from road traffic accidents ’; • Target 11.2 ‘ By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all …’ ; • Goal 13. ‘ Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts .’ However, to ‘earn’ an SDG Focus code four criteria listed below should all be met simultaneously: 1. The activity should directly contribute to the reported SDGs in the short or medium term. 2. The SDGs reported should be the principal objective of the activity, or a significant one. 3. The activity should not harm other SDGs. An activity with a substantial, unmitigated, detrimental effect to one or more SDGs should not be reported as contributing to the 2030 Agenda, regardless of its positive contributions to other SDGs. 4. SDG reporting should be coherent with the Policy Markers and, when relevant, with the information reported in other CRS fields. It is voluntary for DAC members to apply SDG codes, as opposed to most of the Policy Markers above. 15 ODA Reporting for T ransport It is noteworthy that both Policy Markers and Rio Focus codes refer to intended or expected outcomes of the aid, in contrast to the Purpose codes above, which describe activities supported by the aid. Also, d onors are largely free to decide how they tag their activities, and they do employ different strategies for it (OECD DAC 2024). 16 ODA Reporting for T ransport 4. ODA for transport As mentioned earlier development aid for transport is primarily reported to the CRS system under the sector code 210 ‘Transport and Storage ’ This Chapter will, • Introduce the structure and definition of codes used for reporting on ‘Transport and Storage’ ; • Provide an overview of actual amounts of ODA provided to this sector and each of its sub - sectors, over time and in and comparison with other sectors and ODA in total ; • Uncover the history and background for the existing codes for transport, including the peculiar combination of ‘transport’ with ‘storage’ ; • Report from interviews regarding current practice and issues in reporting ODA for transport ; • Summarize insights for the analysis and recommendations on revised codes and next steps . 4.1 The code structure for ‘Transport and storage’ Table 5 shows the full description of the sector code set for sector 210 ‘Transport and Storage’ in the CRS system with explanatory notes as provided in the DAC - CRS - CODES sheet . The main structure consists of seven CRS code subsectors, largely following conventional transport mode infrastructure categories for Road, Rail, Water, and Air transport, supplemented by more cross - cutting categories for Transport policy, Storage, and Edu cation and Training in transport/storage. In addition, a set of voluntary codes allow additional distinctions to be made between different areas of transport policy making (for example administration of public transport services ) and different subcategories of road building (National roads versus ‘Feeder’ roads; Construction versus Maintenance). Table 5 Full code structure for DAC 210 Transport and Storage (source: DAC - CRS - CODES sheet, updated April 2024). Codes In Italics are voluntary codes . CRS CODE Voluntary code DESCRIPTION Clarifications / Additional notes on coverage 21010 Transport policy and administrative management Transport sector policy, planning and programmes; aid to transport ministries; institution capacity building and advice; unspecified transport; activities that combine road, rail, water and/or air transport. Includes prevention of road accidents. Whenever possible, report transport of goods under the sector of the good being transported. 21011 Transport policy, planning and administration Administration of affairs and services concerning transport systems. 21012 Public transport services Administration of affairs and services concerning public transport. 21013 Transport regulation Supervision and regulation of users, operations, construction and maintenance of transport systems (registration, licensing, inspection of equipment, operator skills and training; safety standards, franchises, tariffs, levels of service, etc.). 21020 Road transport Road infrastructure, road vehicles; passenger road transport, motor passenger cars. 21021 Feeder road construction Construction or operation of feeder road transport systems and facilities. 21022 Feeder road maintenance Maintenance of feeder road transport systems and facilities. 21023 National road construction Construction or operation of national road transport systems and facilities. 21024 National road maintenance Maintenance of national road transport systems and facilities. 21030 Rail transport Rail infrastructure, rail equipment, locomotives, other rolling stock; including light rail (tram) and underground systems. 21040 Water transport Harbours and docks, harbour guidance systems, ships and boats; river and other inland water transport, inland barges and vessels. 21050 Air transport Airports, airport guidance systems, aeroplanes, aeroplane maintenance equipment. 21061 Storage Whether or not related to transportation. Whenever possible, report storage projects under the sector of the resource being stored. 17 ODA Reporting for T ransport 21081 Education and training in transport and storage As can be observed, ‘Transport’ is represented in the coding structure as a sector composed of distinct physical transport networks with corresponding infrastructures and associated types of vehicles or vessels; governed by overarching and more specific po licy making and administrative management for construction and operation of these networks. A peculiar element is that ‘Storage’ is included with transport. As section 4.3 will show that the actual amounts provided for ‘Storage’ are very small and insignificant for the total for the sector. Section 4.4 will seek to uncover why ‘Storage’ is joined with ‘Transport’ in the first place, and if the reasons for it seems compelling. ‘Education and training for transport and storage activities’ is not further defined but likely including for example driver training. Again, ODA reported for this activity is minimal, and we will not explore it further. It can be noted that only ‘Transport Policy’ and ‘Road transport’ subsectors come with subdivisions detailed into voluntary codes, not ‘Rail, or ‘Sea’, for example. Also noteworthy is, that the clarifications (shown in Error! Reference source not found. ) indicate boundary issues to other sectors, for example by instructing donors to report aid for managing transport and storage of goods not under the transport sector, but in sectors for the types products transported (e.g. under ‘Industry’ or ‘Agriculture’). The historic background and logic of the code set for ‘Transport and Storage’ is explored in section 4.4, while section 4.3 first will present summary data on the actual volumes of ODA reported to this sector, how it is divided, and how it compares to othe r sectors. 4.2 ODA for Transport - volumes and comparisons The section will present key data for flows of ODA reported for the ‘Transport and Storage’ sector to OECD CRS system and extracted via the OECD Data explorer . Occasionally the term ‘Transport’ is used alone, due to the insignificant amount of ODA for ‘Storage’, as will be shown. Comparisons of Transport ODA with T otal ODA and with other sectors like energy will also appear. All amounts are in billion US dollars, at constant 2020 prices levels for comparison. We primarily present data for disbursements , meaning ODA actually delivered, rather than as commitments . 5 Time series cover the ten years 2013 - 22. 6 Some data will be displayed for different groups of donors and recipient countries. Data for ‘Official donors’ include all bilateral and multilateral ODA fr o m all ODA donors . Data for ‘D AC countries’ only include s bilateral ODA fr o m those countries, not what the same countries provide through multilateral channels , except cases where t he country retains control over a specific contribution via a multilateral organi s ation (so - called ‘earmarking’). In cases or earmarked funding for multilateral programs that target particular sectors (for example transport) , the reporting country would have reported its contribution as part of its bilateral ODA to that sector (see OECD DAC 2023, p 7 - 8) . ODA from ‘EU institutions’ (including the European Investment Bank) is reported as ‘multilateral’ aid, but it can also be singled out like a ‘country’ (EU is also an independent DAC Member), as will be shown. Some data are shown for a selection of the main donors in the ‘Transport and Storage’ sector (including Japan, France, Germany, the EU and the UK). This is mainly to indicate a variation of profiles among donors we speculate could have some interest in the present study. Please note that representatives of Development Agencies/Ministries interviewed for this report have not been asked to verify ODA figures and carry no responsibility for their accuracy . All n umbers have been extracted via the OECD Explorer database and double - checked by authors. Appendix A includes additional data tables on ODA informing this section. Appendix B include s data on energy ODA in comparison wit h transport . 5 On average for 2013 - 22, 'disbursements' w e re about 6.7% lower than 'commitments; Interestingly, though, the diff e rence is much la r ger for Transport, at 32% . We did not explore possible explanations for this difference . 6 Data for 2023 were not fully available in time for this study 18 ODA Reporting for T ransport 4.2.1 Total ODA for Transport and Storage As annual average for the period 2013 - 2022 T ransport and Storage received $11.8 billion or 5.7% of total ODA. The trend has been downward over the period in terms of both amount and share for transport. As observed in Figure 2 t h e downward trend was halted and reversed fr o m 2021 . This explained by a massive hik e in donations for transport infrastructure fr o m the EU to the Ukraine , especially f or 2022 . Figure 2 CRS: Official donors, disburs e ments, constant prices USD million 2022 U nderlying data held in Appendix A and summarized in Table 6 show that the share for transport of all bilateral ODA from DAC member countries alone was 4.7%, lower than the average for all Official donors while it was correspondingly higher for multilateral organi s ation s at 8.0% as average for the period. Table 6 ODA shares for Transport and storage; different donor groups , developing countries, ODA, disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 Time period 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Aver. Official donors 7 . 3% 7 . 0% 6 . 2% 5 . 7% 6 . 0% 6 . 3% 6 . 0% 4 . 5% 4 . 7% 4 . 9% 5 . 7% DAC Countries 5 . 6% 5 . 2% 4 . 5% 3 . 8% 4 . 6% 4 . 6% 5 . 5% 4 . 4% 4 . 5% 4 . 8% 4 . 7% Multilateral Organ is ations 11 . 3% 10 . 7% 9 . 8% 9 . 6% 9 . 6% 9 . 7% 7 . 6% 4 . 5% 5 . 5% 5 . 7% 8 . 0% As Japan is a very significant donor to the transport sector (to be exposed in the following) , w e have also calculated the share of all ODA going to transport excluding Japan , which would bring the share of transport (from all other donors) down to 4.2% as average for the period, compared to the 5.7% above . In any case Transport is among the major ‘classic’ sectors for receiving ODA as indicated in Table 7 . The volume is about the same size as for Energy but less than for Health and Education (see section 4.2.4 for more detailed comparisons with the Energy sector) . Note that m ajor parts of ODA for ‘non - sector ’ needs such as humanitarian aid, disaster relief, refugees in donor countries, government policy; etc. are not displayed in the table in but is still included in counting ‘all ODA ’ used in the comparison . 19 ODA Reporting for T ransport Table 7 ODA share 2022 for selected sectors (not summing to 100%) CRS: Official donors, disburs e ments, constant prices USD millions 2022 Sector Disburs e ments Share of all ODA in 2022 Health 26 , 984 9 . 7% Education 15 , 582 5 . 6% Transport and S torage 13 , 677 4 . 9% Energy 13 , 051 4 . 7% Agriculture, forestry, fishing 9 , 964 3 . 6% Water supply & sanitation 6 , 901 2 . 5% Industry, mining, construction 3 , 801 1 . 4% Communications 1 , 164 0 . 4% As mentioned m ore details comparing Transport with Energy follow in section 4.2.4 Table 8 indicates the ten donors which have disbursed the most ODA to the Transport and Storage sector as average over 2013 - 22, either in terms of the volume (annual Millions of USD) or the share of total ODA disbursements from that donor. Japen leads by far in b oth categories. Background data shows that in fact Japan provided 51% of all transport ODA in the world over this ten - year period, followed by the EU with 23% and France with 9% (not shown in the Table). It should be noted that the EU counts as a multilate ral institution whose budget is secured by Member State contributions. Section 4.2.3 will zoom in on support for transport provided by a smaller selection of donors. Table 8 Ten largest donors to Transport and Storage average 2013 - 22. CRS: disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 4.2.2 Breakdown of transport ODA to subsectors Road transport has received the largest share of ODA for transport, almost 50% over the period 2013 - 2022. Rail transport is second with 30%, followed by Transport Policy and Management with 10.4% Storage only receives 0.4%. It is so insignificant for the sector that this activity hardly earns the prominence of being included in the sector title. In section 4.3 we seek to uncover the background for Storage being coupled with Transport in the first place. The subsector ‘Education and training‘ receives an even smaller part. The distribution is visualized in Table 9 . B y Volume of ODA for Transport B y Share of ODA for Transport Japan 4 , 045 Japan 30 . 3% EU Institutions 1 , 793 Korea 13 . 4% France 732 EU Institutions 8 . 8% Germany 347 France 7 . 7% United States 290 Australia 4 . 4% Korea 235 New Zealand 3 . 5% United Kingdom 185 Portugal 3 . 1% Australia 131 Germany 1 . 6% Italy 26 United Kingdom 1 . 6% Belgium 16 Italy 1 . 2% 20 ODA Reporting for T ransport Table 9 Transport ODA split by shares for subsectors. CRS: disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 ('Storage' and 'Education' are Invisibly small) Underlying data reveal a more nuanced picture as results are distinguished by donor groups. For the group of DAC member countries only, for example, the order is reversed with rail as the main recipient sector (45.1%), followed by Road (32.2%) and Transport Policy (8.8%). This suggests that multilateral donors in general must have had a stronger preference for support to Road than to Rail , while the reverse is the case for bilateral donors. This is confirmed by additional data tables in Appendix A . An even more differentiated result emerges when looking at some of the main individual donors to the transport area as shown in Table 10 . According to this breakdown, France and Japan have predominantly supported Rail activities (as average for 2013 - 22) although with significant amounts for Road as well from Japan (the largest donor for transport overall, as observed above). Japan seems to have provided almost no funding for Transport Policy and Management, at least via ODA as defined in the CRS system. In contrast, the UK has provided almost no support for Rail, but has their largest share allocated to Transport policy and m anagement, with nearly as much for Road. The EU (recall again, a multilateral donor) has also been most active in the Road area, as suggested above, followed by rail, and a smaller share for Transport Policy, at par with the average for all donors. It can be further noted that Germany (and Japan) has had some focus on Water Transport, that Air generally received the lowest share of the modes, that the UK is the only one in this group that has supported Storage with any significant amount , and that Germany is the only one of these with significant support to Education and training . It should be kept in mind that these numbers reflect how ODA is reported by donors to the CRS system, which may involve individual judgement regarding the sub - sector allocation of activities. Table 10 Share of ODA for transport subsectors by selected donors, average 2013 - 22). CRS: disburs e ments, constant prices USD millions 2022 Transport subsectors France Germany Japan UK EU Transport policy / administrative management 12 . 1 % 25 . 4 % 0 . 9 % 46 . 9 % 9 . 7 % Road transport 14 . 9 % 14 . 9 % 32 . 5 % 45 . 7 % 54 . 5 % Rail transport 63 . 2 % 36 . 9 % 51 . 9 % 1 . 1 % 30 . 9 % Water transport 6 . 1 % 15 . 6 % 8 . 0 % 0 . 2 % 3 . 7 % Air transport 3 . 6 % 1 . 2 % 6 . 6 % 3 . 6 % 1 . 2 % Transport policyRoad transportRail transportWater transportAir transportSETransport ODA per subsector 2013-2022Transport policyRoad transportRail transportWater transportAir transportStorageEducation and training 21 ODA Reporting for T ransport Storage 0 . 0 % 0 . 6 % 0 . 0 % 2 . 5 % 0 . 0 % Education and training 0 . 0 % 5 . 3 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 0 . 0 % 4.2.3 ODA by main donors to recipient countries ODA is obviously not only about who reports which donations but equally much about where the funding goes and who receives it. Table 11 shows the top ten recipient countries only for the year 2022. India received the largest amount, followed by the Philippines and Bangladesh. Except for Egypt all in top ten were in Asia. The combined volume of these ten countries represents 80% of all glo bal ODA for transport in 2022. Table 11 . Ten largest recipients of Transport ODA in 2022. CRS: disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 Transport ODA recipients Volume of Transport ODA Mio. US D Share of global Transport ODA India 3 , 086 36% Philippines 1 , 122 13% Bangladesh 935 11% Egypt 417 5% Indonesia 284 3% Cambodia 251 3% Viet Nam 239 3% Myanmar 231 3% Papua New Guinea 151 2% Thailand 149 2% Appendix A includes data on the volumes and shares of Transport ODA that has gone to selected groups of vulnerable nations for the period 2013 - 22, namely ‘Least Developed Countries (LDC)’, ‘Land Locked Developing Countries (LLDC)’ and ‘Small Island Develop ing States (SIDS)’. I t can be noted that that t ransport ODA disbursed to these groups of vulnerable countries does not deviate much from the ( slightly declining ) trend of transport ODA for all groups , nor from the distribution of Total ODA for all sectors to the same groups. For example , LDCs received around 28% of all ODA to developing countries as well as 28% of all Transport ODA as average for the ten - year period . In other words, ODA for transport does not seem to disfavour disadvantaged countries more than ODA in general . This is however not a strong indicator for impact on poverty considering the largest share of people living in poverty are actually found in Middle Income Countries ( OECD 2024a) . Also , data divided by country income groups is included in Appendix A. However , these data are harder to interpret since a very large share of total ODA (30%) is provided to ‘countries unallocated by income ’, which is not the case for Transport (only 2%). The full range of global flows of Transport ODA from donors to recipients are complex and difficult to convey in a simple manner . Table 12 shows the relative size of Transport ODA from the five previously selected donors (Japan, EU, France, Germany, UK) to all recipient countries, as well as how these shares were split on recipient countries for the period 2013 - 22. The colours represent ODA from each donor. It is clear from th is graph that Japan, as the largest global provider of Transport ODA, also plays a key role for the donations to the main recipient countries in Asia. Apart from Asian countries also Kenya in Africa figures in the top ten of recipients of Japanese transport ODA for this period. For France, Egypt is the largest partner followed by Marocco, hence a focus on North Africa, but also countries in Asia and Latin America are prioritized. Germany also spreads its transport donations over the three continents, although China and India top the list, while the background data shows that Marshall Islands in Oceania also stand out. For the UK African countries clearly dominate. Finally, the EU is special due to very large donations for Ukraine (only top ped by Japan’s contributions to its three largest Asian partners). Again , it should be noted that the EU conveys funding from member states also for this recipient. 22 ODA Reporting for T ransport Table 12 ODA for transport from Selected donors. CRS: disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022, average 2013 - 2022 4.2.4 Comparing Transport and E nergy sector This section presents some data and graphics comparing ODA for the Energy sector with Transport. Fu r ther details and additional dat a breakdowns are found in Appendix B. Figure 3 s how s annual ODA disbursements to the Transport and Energy sector s from all ODA donors combined , including DAC members, multilateral organi s ations, and others, over the last ten years . 23 ODA Reporting for T ransport Figure 3 ODA for T ransport and Energy, Official donors, Developing countries, ODA, disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 It can be observed that Transport received higher amounts in the first period of the ten - year period while since 2019 it has varied from year to year w hich sector gets the most . If we examine the trend lines, it will seem that Energy is on the rise. However, the surge in ODA for both sectors in 2022, triggered by exceptional support for Ukraine, obscures a clear interpretation . Table 13 below includes the numbers behind the graph (plus the average for the ten - year period). Table 14 provide s the same information only for bilateral aid from DAC countries . For the latter donor group , the Energy sector received a bit more than transport, but still at roughly the same level. Table 13 Transport and Energy Official donors, Developing countries, ODA, disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 Time period 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Aver Energy 8 ,415 9 ,450 10 ,297 10 ,134 11 ,478 11 ,526 11 ,761 10 ,644 10 ,174 13 ,051 10 ,693 Transport and storage 12 ,094 11 ,539 11 ,437 11 ,422 12 ,410 12 ,702 12 ,073 10 ,201 10 ,701 13 ,677 12 ,094 Table 14 Transport and Energy, DAC countries, Developing countries, ODA, disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 Time period 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Aver Energy 6 ,095 5 ,657 5 ,232 4 ,881 5 ,953 5 ,691 6 ,808 5 ,774 6 ,269 8 ,581 6 ,094 Transport and storage 4 ,502 4 ,414 5 ,393 5 ,595 6 ,103 5 ,860 6 ,536 5 ,927 5 ,624 7 ,609 5 ,756 The results are much more diverse when look ing at individual donor countries which may have individual priorities regarding support to different sectors. Error! Reference source not found. below shows the average disbursements per year over the ten - year period for five selected donors. Germany and Japan seem to have “specialized†in their fields (Energy versus Transport) , although Japan is also a large - scale donor within Energy. France has provided equal amounts to the two sectors. The EU has leaned towards Transport and the UK towards Energy. M ore detail s can be found in Appendix B. 02000400060008000100001200014000160002013201420152016201720182019202020212022ODA for Transport and Energy 2013-2022EnergyTransportLinear (Energy)Linear (Transport) 24 ODA Reporting for T ransport Figure 4 ODA for Transport and Energy from selected donors . 4.3 Background and ‘logic’ of the transport code structure This section traces the history behind the current structure for reporting ODA for the transport sector, seeking to unpack any underlying logics as well as thereby implied constraints to, and opportunities for future changes to the existing system. Due to limited availability of historic documentation for procedures for adoption and modifications to the CRS system, some of which occurred several decades back, we cannot necessarily reconstruct a precise justification for each element in the current tr ansport code set. However, the tracing does uncover valuable insights, while the most recent changes to the transport coding (occurring 2015/16) are both better documented and more easily explained, as we shall see. 4.3.1 The origin of ‘Transport and Storage†in economic statistics According to Benn (2012) the origin of DAC sector codes generally lies in the International S tandard I ndustrial C lassification of All E conomic A ctivities , ISIC. ISIC was established by the United Nations in the 1940’es and has evolved in several versions since. ISIC is used for official statistical purposes throughout the world, often with local adaptions and further detailing, for as example the European NACE system. Importantly, ISIC also forms a basis for the international System of National Accounts (SNA) , which is the internationally agreed standard for how to compile measures of economic activity in a country. SNA is adopted for National Accounting by most nations, including many LMICs. 7 In the following we therefore seek to uncover transport sector definitions and categories in historic and current versions of those systems, shifting between ISIC and SNA, depending on which framework’s history we have been able to unpack. Interestingly, already in the first version of the ISIC system of 1948, we find a classification of economic activities including ‘Division 7 Transport, Storage and Communication’, as shown in Figure 5 . 7 It may be of interest t hat a large - scale revision to the SNA is currently underway called ‘ Towards the 2025 SNA ’ with the better integration of measures of well - being and sustainability as core ambition. 050010001500200025003000350040004500FranceGermanyJapanUKEUODA for Transport and Energy aver. 2013-2022TransportEnergy 25 ODA Reporting for T ransport Figure 5 Excerpt from ISIC 1948 available at https://unstats.un.org/unsd/classifications/Econ/isic In the first SNA from 1953 we can observe the same sector category ‘Transportation, storage and communication’ as shown in Figure 6 . Here, however, transport has been subdivided further into ‘water’ and ‘railway’ transport, while ‘road’ by assumption would be covered by ‘other’. Even if we found no direct evidence for a process of transposition of these categories to the “Expanded Reporting System on External Lending†(later CRS), which was initiated in 1966, it is highly likely that this is exactly what happened, considering the close match to the structure of even today’s sector 210 ‘Transport and storage’ in the CRS, and also the assertion by Benn (2012) above. s Figure 6 Extract from UN 1953 SNA, available at : https://unstats.un.org/unsd/nationalaccount/sna.asp Subsequent versions of both ISIC and SNA reflect economic and technological development of society which also affects transport. In the 1968 update of the SNA for example ‘Air transport’ and ‘Services allied to transport’ are added to the transport sector. The resulting structure shown in Figure 7 brings us further steps towards the present CRS categories. 26 ODA Reporting for T ransport Figure 7 Extract from UN 1968 SNA, available at https://unstats.un.org/unsd/nationalaccount/sna.asp Finally, in the latest and currently operational 2008 version of ISIC (and 2009 version of SNA), ‘Communication’ has been shifted from ‘Transportation and Storage’ to a new Section “Information and communicationâ€, reflecting the rapidly growing role of thi s sector in the economy. The change is also mirrored in the current version of ‘Transport and storage’ in the CRS. The full current structure of ISIC is shown in Figure 8 , which we will return to after a short intermezzo on ‘Storage’. 4.3.2 The peculiarity of “Storage†We have not been able to retrieve any explicit reason for the original positioning of ‘Storage’ together with ‘Transportation’ in the history of ISIC or SNA. Nevertheless, according to explanatory notes in guidance documents there seems to be an underlying logic of economic analysis according to which both transport and storage add value to produced goods without altering them physically during their passage fr om production to consumption. Hence transport and storage share at least this distinction from production and consumption; in modern terms, both activities constitute interrelated parts of what would today be called supply chains. To our understanding, however, such reasoning would not suggest any severe consequences of for example shifting ‘Storage’ activities to be reported in other sectors. One may note that the DAC guidance to the 210 sector code (see Table 5 Code 21061) actually already suggests so. Moreover, as we shall see in Chapter 5 there are other economic accounting taxonomies that do not combine the two sectors. 4.3.3 Details on Transport sub - sectors If we look closer at the ‘Sections’ in the ISIC framework (latest version from 2008) we find these are divided into more detailed subcategories (‘Divisions’, ‘Groups’ and ‘Classes’). 8 This structure of ISIC Section H ‘Transportation and Storage’ is shown in Figure 8 . Here the ‘groups’ represent different transport modes much like in the previously illustrated versions of the SNA (and reflected in the DAC CRS codes for transport and storage), whereas the ‘Classes’ distinguish further between passenger and freight transp ort within each mode, and between urban and non - urban transport for land transport. This level of detail is not reflected in the CRS. There are other deviations between the ISIC and the CRS sub sector cat egories for ‘Transportation and Storage’, such as much more detail to the ‘warehouse/storage’ sector in ISIC; that ‘Pipelines’ are included here in ISIC (while included under ‘Mining’ etc in CRS ); and that ‘Postal activities’ are also included here in ISIC (instead placed under ‘Communications’ in CRS ). In contrast ‘Transport Policy and administration…’ and ‘Education and training in transport and storage’ are included in CRS but not in ISIC with its stricter focus on economic activity proper . Finally, the elements found in the detailed level of voluntary codes in CRSs (as shown in italics in Table 5 ) are also not found in ISIC (e.g. distinctions between ‘construction’ and ‘maintenance’ of roads). 8 8 We did not manage to recover a similar document detailing the substructure for transport in the current SNA 2009. 27 ODA Reporting for T ransport In this way we observe both high overall correspondence (due to the likely common origin) and major differences in detail (due to subsequent evolutions) for ‘Transport and Storage’ between the current ISIC/SNA on the one side and the current CRS coding on the other. Figure 8 Extract from ISIC 2008, available at https://unstats.un.org/unsd/publication/seriesm/seriesm_4rev4e.pdf 4.3.4 The case of adopting new voluntary Transport codes in CRS 210 Lastly in this historic account, we will review in more detail the only ‘recent ’ major modification to the codes for CRS sector 210 namely the addition of new voluntary codes in 2015/16, mentioned briefly above and shown in italics in Table 5 . This is possible because documentation of the rationale for and process of adoption is available in the OECD A chieves of documents. The background for the addition of the new voluntary codes was not any transport sector - internal considerations however, but a large - scale, long - term analytic effort called ‘Aid - on - budget’, following up on the Paris High - Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness back in 2005 (OECD 2005). This effort was initiated by critical observations that g eneric donor sector categorisations of aid applied at country level were often found not t o relate meaningfully to recipient governments’ sectoral or administrative budget cla ssifications . This mismatch allegedly contributed to obfuscate the tracking of aid and its impact on developing economies (Moon & Mills 2010) . The Aid - on - budget project was conducted in collaboration between the Working Party on Development Finance (WP - STAT) under OECD DAC and the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) . The project involved pilot analysis of the national budget accounts of multiple ODA recipient countries to test various ways to improve the match between those structures and alternative sector classifications. The project was successful in the sense that when aid projects were re - coded to use more detailed purpose codes, a significant increase in the proportion of aid that could be mapped to the budget s in all cases was found – in some cases almost 100%. It was also found that the workload required in recoding affected projects in the new way was low in all cases (see aid - on - budget website ) . 28 ODA Reporting for T ransport As a follow - up the government of Canada in collaboration with Publish What You Fund (PWYF) in May 2015 presented a specific proposal to the WP - STAT with the aim to better align CRS codes to partner country budget classifications. It was argued that partner countries expressed a demand for such alignment for the purposes of economic forecasting and planning, as well as for reporting purposes to enable partner country transparency and accountability of aid (OECD DAC 2015). The proposal was welcomed by WP - STAT and referred to review by the Secretariat. In 2016 WP_STAT finally adopted these no less than 53 new codes to the CRS in large measure following the original proposal. They are commonly referred to as ‘budget identifier’ codes. Due to concerns raised by some members about additional efforts required for reporting all new codes were entered in the CRS at the level of ‘voluntary codes’. Seven of the adopted codes were in DAC sector 210 (again see italicised items in Table 5 ). Only one proposed new code within transport was rejected , namely adding ‘pipelines’ , because pipeline codes are already included under the Minerals and mining sector in CRS (OECD DAC 2016). 4.3.5 Lessons from the background for the Transport codes Here we will briefly summarize the historic account and discuss what it may imply for the possibility to introduce modifications or addition to the current CRS code structure in ‘Transport and storage’. It could be demonstrated how the original structure and logic of the CRS sector codes for ‘Transport and storage’ emerge from underlying international systems of economic classification and accounting governed by the United Nations. It seems obvious that it has been a firm intention by OECD DAC to apply internationally agreed classifications for economic activities when setting up and evolving the CRS, in order to secure the support of and comparability between DAC member countries. Subsequent evolution and modifications to those systems are therefore also echoed in the CRS coding. Even the latest and best documented modification, namely the 20 1 5/16 addition of new voluntary codes in transport reflect an intention to optimize the match between the reporting of ODA and the corresponding National Accounts of partner countries, in the name of transparency. Notably, this historic and intended anchoring of the CRS to underlying or overarching international frameworks may suggest limitations the degrees of freedom available for proposing major coding revisions. An entirely new structure completely detached from exiting overarching accounting systems like SNA may for example undermine the accountability and transparency of ODA. On the other hand, it is clear that there is far from (and need not be…) a complete correspondence between neither purpose nor internal logics of for example the ISIC the SNA and CRS. First of all, ISIC and SNA systems are purely descriptive of the economy, while the CRS is established and evolved to a different end, namely a normative goal of promoting economic and social development in LMICs (and now more broadly to support their sustainable development). Secondly, there is not ‘one’ unform global system for classifying societal ‘activities’ be they economic or otherwise. Not least the SNA is a comprehensive and complex system with multiple different accounts using separate typologies to classify transactions, stocks, international balance - of - payments, etc. Thirdly, ISIC meanwhile, has a narrower focus on productive economic activities , which is also reflected in the ‘transport’ area. The subsector activities in ISIC Section H ‘Transport and storage’ do for example not appear to include the construction or management of the related infrastructures , but only the transport movements as a n activity : this is in stark difference to CRS sector 210 , where construction, operation and maintenance of (transport) infrastructure is a key element, along with Policy and administration of them. In short, the later version of the two systems ISIC and CRS one looks at, the larger the deviations are at the detailed level. This gradual detachment may suggest opportunities to adapt and fine tune the CRS system towards its own and evolving ends, especi ally at the more detailed levels of sub - sector codes, not directly emulated on for example ISIC. Finally, the specific differences could even potentially inspire modifications to the CRS codes for transport. Hence it would at lea s t not be in conflict with the current ISIC code system for ‘Transport and Storage’ ( as shown in Figure 8 ) if it should be decided introduc e distinctions in the CRS between urban and non - urban transport or between for example freight and passenger transport. 29 ODA Reporting for T ransport What could be observed, though is that any modifications to the code system must pass through the DAC / WP - STAT committee system which may require significant analytical support as well as solid justifications. Also, at least the 2015/16 change demonstrate s that adopting voluntary codes may meet less resistance that introducing new mandatory ones. 4.4 Boundary issues Looking at current practice an important aspect to consider could be is if all or most ODA supporting transport is actually reported under the sector code 210 ‘Transport and Storage’, or if flows of ‘undisclosed’ transport support might go under other purp ose codes. If this was the case to a significant degree, it could lead to under - or misrepresentation of ODA for transport (sustainable or otherwise) if only flows to the 210 ‘Transport and Storage’ sector are considered or tracked. We already noticed in the previous section that different accounting systems apply different philosophies (or pragmatic choices) with regard to categorizing major items like infrastructure construction, pipelines, and postal services under ‘transport’ or n ot. How about this for the CRS? Browsing through the full set of purpose codes and the accompanying guidance (OECD DAC 2024) we observe at least two codes outside sector 210 with explicit relation to transport/mobility. • CRS code 23642 ‘ Electric mobility infrastructures ’, reported under the DAC sector 236 Energy Distribution ; • CRS code 32172 ‘Transport equipment industries’ reported under DAC sector 321 Industry . The first example refers more specifically to charging systems for electric vehicles. According to one informed observer (Interview; BMZ , Oct . 2024 ) this particular code emerged during a major reform of the Energy sector codes in 2018. While the category of support arguably could belong to either energy or transport sectors, it made sense to use the opportunity of the energy code revision to see it i nstalled in the CRS , allowing for an integral reporting on energy (production, distribution, storage, efficiency ) . The second example of ‘T ransport equipment’ refers to ‘ Shipbuilding, fishing boats building; railroad equipment; motor vehicles and motor passenger cars; aircraft; navigation/guidance systems’ . We are less aware of the background here, but OECD DAC guidance on reporting on the purpose of aid explicitly underscores that , “ Manufacturing of transport equipment should be included under code 32172. †(OECD DAC 1999). This seems consistent with the overall logic of the CRS that support for industrial activities li ke these is reported in the ‘industry’ section of the CRS, and not sectors using the industrial products. Despite the plausible justifications both examples indicate the potential significance of definitions and (negotiable) system boundaries for what ‘counts’ as transport ODA. Next, we considered if the CRS system might invite some transport - related ODA to be reported under other sectors with a more implicit reference to transport. This could plausibly be the case for example for some types of ‘multisector’ aid under purpose code 430, for example, • 43030 ‘ Urban development and management ’ which mentions ‘ Urban infrastructure and services ’ and ‘ urban development and planning ’; • 43040 ‘ Rural development ’, which includes ‘ integrated rural development projects’ ; • 43060 ‘Disaster Risk Reduction, which includes ‘ flood prevention infrastructure ’ etc . More remotely perhaps, this might also apply to sectors such as 150 ‘Government & Civil Society’ including code 15190 ‘ Facilitation of orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility’ It was not feasible within the project to examine this question in any depth, but the subject was touched upon in interviews with ODA experts, as per the following section. 4.5 Reporting practices and issues To understand more about the existing reporting practices for ODA for the transport sector and any issues or challenges in regard to them, three interviews were conducted with experts in ODA reporting departments or agencies of the UK, Japan, and Germany (see Appendix D for list of interviews). 30 ODA Reporting for T ransport Additional background on reporting procedures was provided by other experts at the OECD Development Co - operation Directorate, The Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Korea International Corporation Agency, KOICA. The following summarizes the information provided regarding current reporting practices for Transport ODA including boundary issues as introduced above. In general, a ll informants across agencies confirmed that the DAC/CRS system and the associated Transport and S torage Purpose co des are systematically applied to report on ODA for transport. It is a well - established practice with institutionalised procedures. In many cases, Purpose codes are applied to activities already at the outset, while in some cases codes may be added or alte red before the final reporting. Ministries of Development/Foreign Affairs, and Development Agencies and other bodies typically c ollaborate in the reporting process to the OECD DAC. Japan (JICA) Japan International Cooperation Agency ( JICA ) aims to contribute to the promotion of international cooperation as well as the sound development of Japanese and global economy by supporting the socioeconomic development, recovery or economic stability of developing regions. 9 Japan provides grants, loans, and technical assistance for many types of transport, depending on the local needs and opportunities - Road, Rail, Air, Water, etc. Key general aims are to support economic growth and reduce poverty by improving transport netw orks in recipient countries. Loans may for example go to support infrastructure construction while other aid is provided for efficient management and maintenance of transport systems and services. Also, aid is provided for developing Urban Transport plans or Master Plans. All transport aid is reported under the CRS transport sector codes. JICA applies voluntary CRS codes to transport projects where relevant and provides JICA data to the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) as the MOFA is the responsi ble authority to report to the OECD DAC. Experts at JICA did not report major problems using or matching the transport sector codes to activities. Transport projects in support of Sustainable Development are often improving for example Road or Rail networks or assisting p olicy p lanning. Some projects may involve several modes or subsectors. DAC rules allow that the ODA can be split and reported to separate subsectors accordingly. Support for integrated urban master planning is suitable for reporting under code 21010 ‘Transport po licy and administr ative management’. JICA applies Rio Markers and SDG Focus codes to activities as deemed appropriate. No specific national targets for the contributions of JICA - provided ODA towards Rio Markers or SDGs are currently formulated or monitored by JICA itself. All in all, it was not confirmed that JICA currently sees any need to modify definitions or coding structure for transport ODA (Interview, JICA, Oct. 2024). Germany (BMZ) The Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development ( BMZ ) coordinates the development cooperation of the Federal Republic of Germany. 10 Reporting of ODA to OECD DAC is the responsibility of BMZ with operational assistance and quality assurance by the German Statistical Office gathering information from several line ministries and agencies including the BMZ. CRS coding of activities (for example in the transport area) is often proposed to BMZ by project implementors. The proposed coding will be reviewed by BMZ. In some cases, coding is dependent on who is the receiving organi s ation in the partners countries. This can for example be a Transport Ministry or an Urban Development agency. In the view of the BMZ expert, the existing coding structure for the transport area represents a traditional perspective on ODA with a focus on economic growth and export of commodities. The code structure generally lacks some granularity, for example with regard to accounting for sustainable transport modes such as public transport or cycling. Specific targets for ODA/Finance defined by the German Government for example necessitates deeper analysis of transport projects than offered by general modal struct ure of 9 Website of JICA. 10 Website of BMZ 31 ODA Reporting for T ransport the ODA sector coding. Such analysis for example applies to indicators like Rio Markers as well as assessment of how activities contribute to selected SDGs. The more granular voluntary codes in the transport sector are not applied for BMZ supported activities. Not all transport ODA is reported to the transport sector, as for example in some cases where transport system development is part of an urban development plan. To review all transport related ODA from Germany requires additional analysis compared to what is reported as transport to the CRS. However, it is often beneficial if transport systems are integrated with and controlled by for example urban development plans and investments, rather than vice versa, which makes reporting under an urban code appropria te. Other cases were mentioned where the application of transport sector codes may be in question, for example some infrastructure for airports where the real purpose is industrial development. The expert at BMZ sees a need for reviewing the transport codes in order to provide more granularity and sensitivity. e.g., to current agendas on integrated/sustainable mobility, and climate adaptation. New codes should be part of the regular reporting fra mework rather than added as voluntary codes. Introducing new P olicy M arkers could also be considered, but they would need to be backed by a clear international p olitical commitments or mandates for being of any value ( interview, BMZ, Oct . 2024 ) . United Kingdom (FCDO) The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) lead s the UK’s diplomatic, development and consular work around the world. 11 FCDO generally applies the DAC purpose coding structure for transport ODA at the outset of projects. This is aligned with the budgeting process and therefore strictly controlled. The sector coding limits opportunities of significant changes in the objectiv es of a project. Other aspect of the CRS coding structure such as Rio Markers are also applied, but at programme level, and hence less controlled. SDG Focus codes are not explicitly applied to transport projects or programmes. Experts at the FCDO have for some time been aware of limitations to the existing CRS code structure for the Transport area. The inclusion of ‘Storage’ in the definition is peculiar. The code structure is old and has not been updated to current agendas (com pared to the Energy sector). For example, if a major effort was put into support for transport decarboni s ation via ODA, it would not be well reflected in the current coding structure for transport (some would appear in Energy). Many projects are discussed in the context of Climate Mitigation/Adaptation, but these are not able to be reflected in the purpose codes. There are some challenges in reporting on activities across sectors /adjacent to transport, such as urban planning or safe road designs. The purpose would not be solely transport related and cannot be reported only as such. Reporting on ‘Nexus’ issues may require a matrix structure, but still needs to avoid double counting (interview, FCDO, Oct. 2024). 5. Enhancing the framework for reporting on Transport ODA The previous chapters have highlighted key features of ODA reporting in general and for transport, including the history behind the present reporting framework, as well as key aspects of the current situation with regard to both the volumes of ODA for th is sector and the practice of reporting on it . This chapter will respond to the final task in the assignment to discuss possible new / supplementary ways to fram e the r eporting of ODA for transport , including ideas for adjust ments to the purpose codes for the transport sector in the CRS. Th o se ideas we refer to as ‘e nhanc ing the framework for reporting ’, meaning ways to provide more and better information on how transport ODA contributes to deliver transport - related international goals for Climate Change and Sustainable Development including poverty reduction, compared to what is presently observed . ‘Reporting’ here refers to both new input on transport ODA to the Creditor Reporting System CRS (for example via new codes or markers applied to activities) and new output on transport ODA in terms of possible extracts of the (already, or additional) data reported that could serve as indicators . 11 Website of FCDO 32 ODA Reporting for T ransport The chapter begins by briefly outlining important context for th is discussion in terms of the overall discourse on development cooperation aligned with goals for sustainable development and climate change ( section 5.1) as well as the more specific context of the global s ustainable t ransport agenda and the upcoming UN Decade of Sustainable Transport ( section 5 . 2) . On t his background the discussion of potential enhancements in section 5.3 will introduce and exemplify three types of approach, suggesting increasing levels of intervention in to existing framework s and practice s . • Level a) Reporting on transport ODA for sustainable development and climate goals without adding new elements to CRS code system . This will be exemplified with a recent case of reporting on Sustainable Energy by the OECD DAC using Rio Markers ; • Level b) Adding new elements to the ODA and CRS reporting framework with no alterations to the purpose coding . This will be exemplified by discussing the provision of new ‘policy marker s ’ for ‘sustainable transport ’ and adjusting the eligibility criteria for ODA ; • Level c) Introducing alterations to the p urpose coding for Sector 210 Transport and Storage in the CRS . A set of options will be considered including more or less far - reaching alterations , š Renaming the Sector 210 to ‘Transport’ and possibly moving sub sector s into and out of it ; š Adding new more detailed/granular codes of ‘sustainable’ types of transport activities within the existing structure of the transport sector; š Major revision of the code structure for the transport sector . Most attention is paid to the options at level c), as this has been perceived as a primary interest behind commissioning the present study. T h e discussion of this level is underpinned by Appendix C providing a r eview of a range o f other taxonomies and typologies to account for international finance in the context of development, sustainability and climate . Th e Appendix exposes how finance for transport is categorized in those related frameworks , the results of which are summarized as part of the discussion s in section 5.3 . 5.1 Development Cooperation, Sustaina bility and Climate The discourse on development cooperation in the context of S ustainable D evelopment and C limate C hange is wide ranging and has extended over decades . Her e we will only highlight a few elements in the history of particular importance for the present task . Sustainable Development Agenda The concept of Sust a inable Development was forged by the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987 (WCED 1997) and turned into a global political agenda at the UN Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted in 2015 introduced the S ustainable Development Goals (SDGs) , which are central for the current discourse . Development cooperation is covered extensively . T he very first SDG aims to End Poverty everywhere, while the last SDG nr.17 on Partnerships includes more than ten specific targets for increasing resource mobilisation and support for ‘D eveloping countries ’ including an increase of ODA. 12 The 2030 agenda did not adopt a specific S DG for transport, but transport i s directly or indirectly reflected in several SDG targets including Target 11.2 aiming to “provide access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons†by 2030. †13 The entire SDG goal and target framework has subsequently been directly incorporated the CRS via the use of SDG Focus codes (see chapter 3). 12 The UN website on the Sustainable Development Agenda. 13 https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal11#targets_and_indicators 33 ODA Reporting for T ransport The Climate Convention The UNFCCC Climate Convention of 19 9 2 came with a distinction of Parties to the convention in Annex I and Annex II countries, largely following a separation into ‘Developed’ and ‘Developing’ c ountries observed at the time , each with different obligations according to the convention . 14 Subsequent decisions at the annual Conferences of the Parties have adjusted the membership to each country group and specified different responsibilities and commitments of the se . Along this process the notions of C limate M itigation and C limate A daption have been codified, subsequently leading to the incorporation of ‘Rio Markers’ for those two aims in th e reporting framework for ODA. Notably the Paris Agreement of 2015 consolidated a commitment of ‘ D eveloped countries ’ to collective ly mobiliz e through 2025 upwards of USD 100 billion per year for cl imate mitigation and adaptation actions in ‘D eveloping countries ’ (UNFCCC 2015) . At the recent COP29 in Baku, agreement was reached on a future higher collective quantified goal on climate finance of 300 billion by 2035 15 . A significant proportion o f international climate finance to ‘developing countries’ is provided as ODA (OECD 2024 b ) . Following the 2015 adoption of both the 2030 Sustainable Development agenda and the Paris Agreement several steps have been taken at the international scene to review progress on the se commitment s, to advance the implementation of them , and to integrate them in framework s and policies for development cooperation in general and ODA reporting in particular . OECD DAC Declaration The OECD DAC plays a key role in several of these efforts . Promoting S ustainable Development h as been directly incorporate d in the over arching objective of the DAC from 2017 onwards (OECD DAC 2017) , and the OECD also plays k ey role s in the international reporting on c limate f inance (interview, OECD DAC , Oct. 2024) In 2021 the DAC adopted the important OECD Declaration on a new approach to align development cooperation with the goals of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change Commitment (OECD 2021). In the declaration the DAC promise d to work towards greater accountability and transparency in how ODA is define d , account ed for and report ed in regard to climate, biodiversity and the environment. Among the s pecific commitments was that b y the end of 2022, the DAC would , inter alia , • b e more transparent in how development and climate finance is tracked ; • make reporting and data sharing processes more accessible to developing countries ; • h armonise DAC members’ reporting in our Creditor Reporting System (CRS), especially with regard to Rio markers : • d evelop a method for the CRS to measure specifically donor efforts on sustainable energy transition. Examples of follow - up to those commitments will be drawn upon in the discussion of measures to enhance transport reporting in section 5 .3. 5.2 The s ustainable t ransport discourse and the upcoming UN Decade of Sustainable Transport A discourse on what the global commitment s towards S ustainable D evelopment and Climate Change would mean for mobility and the transport sector emerged soon after the Rio Summit in 1992 and has evolved through various forms and venues since the n (see for example Gudmundsson et al 2015). While th is discourse has not led to a politically adopted international definition of “Sustainable Transport †or “Sustainable Mobility†16 several key events at the global UN level have led forward to the current situation where the world is about to enter the U N Decade on Sustainable Transpor t 2026 - 3 5 . In 201 4 the U N Sec retary General established a High - Level Advisory Group on Sustainable Transport (HLAG) . In its r eport Mobilizing Sustainable Transport for Development ( HLAG 2016) , the Group offered t en recommendations on how the transport sector c ould advance sustainable development with poverty 14 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change 15 https://unfccc.int/news/cop29 - un - climate - conference - agrees - to - triple - finance - to - developing - countries - protecting - lives - and 16 Some sources distinguish “Sustainable Transport and “Sustainable Mobilityâ€, others not. For brevity we ignore the distinction s here. 34 ODA Reporting for T ransport eradication at its core, promote economic growth , and bolster the fight against climate change . Among the recommendations were to, • m ake transport planning, policy and investment decisions based on the three sustainable development dimensions (…) and a full life cycle analysis ; • integrate all sustainable transport planning efforts with an appropriately balanced development of transport modes ; • e stablish monitoring and evaluation frameworks for sustainable transport, and build capacity for gathering and analyzing sound and reliable data and statistics ; • increase international development funding and climate funding for sustainable transport. In particular the la tter t wo can be seen as impetus for the present task. The HLAG recommendations were acknowledged and discussed at the first Global Sustainable Transport Conference in November 2016 . No formal resolution was made at the time but according to the final Statement parti cipants gave priority attention to the concerns of developing countries, particularly those of Africa, LDCs, LLDCs and SIDS. The statement further noted that “ tremendous opportunities to re - think the current, largely unsustainable, transport policies, and to fast - track best practices to a new paradigm of sustainable transport in particular in developing countries †. 17 In 2019 the United Nations Environment Assembly of the United Nations Environment Programme adopted Resolution 4/3 on ‘ Sustainable mobility ’ (UNEA 2019) . In the Resolution the Assembly is … “ Considering that sustainable mobility, including electric mobility, sustainable biofuels, active mobility (walking and cycling), public transport, shared mobility, low - emission and efficient fuels, efficient combustion engines, hydrogen and e - fuels, and compressed li quid natural gas, is a strategy for improving air qua lity and human health, particularly in urban settings and also in other settings .†In 202 1 a group of UN bod ies issued the UN interagency report Sustainable Development, Sustainable T ransport ( UN DESA 2021) , forming the bases for the Second Global Sustainable Transport Conference the same year . The report highlighted that progress had been insufficient with regard to sustainable transport including the relate d SDG targets . It was emphasized that O DA is critical to supporting investment needs and filling financing gaps in countries in special situations ; yet a decrease in gross bilateral ODA disbursements from OECD DAC countries towards the transport sector could be observed for several vulnerable groups of countries during 2010 – 2017 (compare similar observation s for 2013 - 2022 in Chapter 4 of this report) . Development partners were advised to avoid ‘siloed and short - term approaches ’ by aligning their ODA to the national sustainable transport strategies of developing countries and consider supporting bundled, harmonized sustainable transport projects across jurisdictions and country borders. The rep o rt did not discuss specific changes to the CRS such as categories or codes for sustainable transport in the reporting of ODA . T he ‘Beijing’ Statement adopted at the subsequent Second Sustainable Transport Conference observed the lack of sustainable transport in many developing countrie s, but did not address transport ODA let alone reporting to the CRS. 18 The UN Decade of Sustainable Transport preparations In November 2023 the U N General Assembly adopted a R esolution announcing an upcoming UN Decade on Sustainable Transport 2026 - 3 5 (United Nations 2023) . Consulting the Resolution and document s for the subsequent High - Level event to advance it does not reveal a clear specification of ‘Sustainable Transport’ o r how progress towards it is supposed to be measured and reported in the context of ODA or otherwise ( United Nations 2024). The General Assembly Resolution however ma k e s it clear , that “… emphasis should be placed on low - emission, energy - efficient, quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient modes of transport and an increased reliance on interconnected transport networks, including public transport systems, for seamless and “door - to - door†mobility and connectivity of people and goods. †(UN 2023). All in all, there seems to be a ‘ missing link ’ between the international attention to integr ate development cooperation, sustainability and climate change agendas and to support sustainable transport systems and 17 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/Global - Sustainable - Transport - Conference - 2016 18 https://sdgs.un.org/sites/default/files/2022 - 06/GSTC2_Conference_Report.pdf 35 ODA Reporting for T ransport modes in developing nations one the one side , and the current practice of defining and reporting on ODA for transport as exposed so far in this report on the other. 5.3 O pportunit ies for enhance d reporting The following section will introduce and discuss ideas to enhance reporting on transport ODA on the backgro u nd and context reviewed so far. The ideas are tiered at the three levels explained earlier . At each level ideas a re introduced, justified, exemplified and discussed , including possible drawbacks or obstacles to be overcome in pursuing them . 5.3.1 Level a) Using exi s ting elements in the CRS Level a) concerns opportunities to enhance reporting without necessitating new input or coding to the CRS , and hence with a focus on output . The reason s to address this level are twofold namely a) that dat a reported to the CRS already contains some information pertinent to the present concern, which is not regularly broadcast , and b) that such an approach may be less resource co nsuming, and more expedient to implement than new input requirements for reporting such as new CRS codes . The approach considered here is to use information on transport activities coded wit h Rio Markers and / or the SDG focus codes in the CRS , as potential indicator s of s ustai n ability and climate impacts of t ransport ODA . According to one of the interviews for th is study a similar type of exercise is performed on annual basis as far as transport ODA from that particular country is concerned (see section 4. 5 ) . Exemplifications As a potential ‘model’ for this approach covering the full landscape of ODA donor countries , we refer here to a n effort undertaken by the DAC WP - STAT assisted by the OECD secretariat to measure specifically donor efforts on the S ustainable E nergy transition , as described in a document called Tracking members’ support for sustainable energy transition ( OECD DAC WP - STAT 2022). The effort wa s a follow - up to the commitments in the DAC ‘Alignment Declaration’ (OECD DAC 2021, see section 5.1). In this case t he OECD Secretariat extracted data from the CRS data repository on all reported bilateral ODA for various energy related purposes flagged with the Rio Marker for Climate Mitigation ( at level 1 or 2 , see chapter 3) . Interestingly th e effort did not only cover Energy purpose code 230 by also parts of the T ransport sector code 210 because energy efficiency is a n element SDG 7 on sustainable energy, and transport is a key energy demand/ end - us e sector. Figure 9 illustrates the criteria used for filtering Transport ODA data for the exercise . Findings included that ODA in support of S ustainable E nergy transition (both supply side and demand side) slightly decreased over 2016 - 20 . As for the Transport elements it was shown among others, that ODA fulfilling the criteria were for 77% provided to in the Ra il subsector ( OECD DAC WP - STAT 2022). The reporting process was deemed to be manageable by the members of the WP - S TAT because it did not require changes to the reporting system or additional efforts to provide data but could utilize information already reported to the system . 36 ODA Reporting for T ransport Figure 9 Transport elements included in the WP - STAT Sustainable Energy analysis . OECD DAC WP - STAT (2022). To further exemplif y this approach , we extracted data ourselves from the CRS dat a base RioMarkers: Aid activities targeting global environmental objectives . We looked at the t ransport sector only and in this case for the ‘Climate Adaptation’ Marker instead of Mitigation ( also at level 1 or 2) . Figure 10 Error! Reference source not found. shows the resulting percentages of all Transport ODA marked for A daptation for five selected do n ors for the years 2013 - 22. The numbers themselves should not be considered here, but the figure illust r ates the possibilit y for example to observe differences across donors and over in time , in terms of how focussed T ransport ODA is to support a daptation . Data could also be filtered for example for adaptation only as a ‘Principal’ concern (much lower percentages ) o r for individual transport subsectors. Figure 10 Percentages of ODA for the Transport sector marked for Adaptation (level 1 or 2) 2013 - 22. For Illustration only, numbers not comparable to figures In Chapter 4 and not double checked. 37 ODA Reporting for T ransport It should be feasible to conduce similar analysis for other Policy Markers such as ‘Gender’ or ‘Disabilities’. As mentioned in section 3.5 the Marker for ‘Poverty reduction’ has been discontinued, for reasons unk n own to us . We also briefly tested applications using SDG Focus codes . T his however proved less straightforward due to the m any different SDG s referenced to individual activities by donors (up to ten applicable to each activity), and t h e voluntary nature of these codes leading to further variations in data across donors . This should however not lead to a conclusion that SDG focus codes are not useful as indicators ; how to appl y them effectively could rather be a s ubject for further research . Discussion The examples suggest that using Rio marked activities as ‘sustai n ability’ indicator s is a both feasible and recognized approach a s it has already been adopted by the DAC to ’officially’ report on Sustainable Energy as part of fulfilling the OECD DAC 2021 Declaration , at least as a one - time exercise . Our own exercise exemplified how such an approach could be narrowed only to transport and extended to other Policy Markers than climate mitigation . In principle an assessment of ‘transport sector performance’ with regard to relevant Markers could be repeated regularly using the annually updated CRS data . Results could be presented in publications or interfaces provide d by the OECD or other entities as recurring indicators . The feasibility of the approach should however be balanced against the relevance and reliability of the results as ways to ‘enhance ’ reporting of ODA for Transport . First of all , Rio and other P olicy markers only cover some goals or impacts related to transport and sustainability (see the list of Policy Markers in Chapter 3, Table 4 ) . For reasons unknown to authors the Policy Marker for Poverty Reduction was for example discontinued from 2004. Other goals are reflected by SDG target codes , but as noted above th e se may be less operational for comparison . Secondly , Rio Markers are qualitative and offer little information as to how exactly each activity contribute s to the res pe ctive aims ( e.g., mitigation or adaptation ). In short , they are quite weak indicators for their respective aspects of sustainability. Third , practices f or the application of markers to activities var y across donors , limiting comparability . V arious limitations to the quality and reliability of Rio M arker data have been observed in internal reviews ( e.g., OECD DAC WP - STAT 2020 ), as well as more critically by some independent research (for example by Toetzke et al 2022, and more specifically for transport ODA by Stu t zman 2023 ) . On the other hand , there is also research find ing activities tagged with green P olicy M arke r s do clearly contribute to reducing emissions more than non - tagged one s (Apergis et al 2024). Moreover , efforts are underway to fu r ther improve the reporting on M akers ( OECD DAC WP - STAT & ENVIRONET 2024). Overall , this approach seems as a plausible pragmatic contribution to enhance reporting on transport, although the scope , format , how to interpret result , and how the se should be communicated would warrant further discussion s ; even more so if extende d to cover SDG Focus codes as well as Rio Makers . 5.3.2 Level b) Adding elements to CRS other than purpose codes This level will ad d ress ways to enhance reporting by adopting n ew elements to the exi s ting CRS system without ch anging Purpose codes as to be addressed at the following level in section 5.3.3. The two option s to be briefly exemplified include what we distinguish as i) a positive approach namely to add (a) new policy marker (s) specifically relevant for ‘Sustainable Transport’ , and ii ) a negative approach namely to integrate exclusion measu res for ‘unsusta ina ble transport’ in the eligibility criteria for ODA itself . The first option extends directly from the approach at level a) above, whereas the second w ould represent a more controversial and intrusive , but potentially also more operational approach . Both options to introduce new elements would allow only to flag future activities for their contribution to ‘Sustainable Transport’, compared to Level a) data which could apply both backwards and forwards in time due to the utili s ation of already reported information . 38 ODA Reporting for T ransport Ex a mpl e - New Policy Markers Defining new policy makers for ‘Sustainable Transport’ could follow the exiting scheme for Policy Markers in the CRS which includes the following elements ( see OECD DAC 2018), • a definition ; • a set of criteria for eligibility ; • exemplifications ; • a set of FAQs to guide the practical application . In section 5.2 it was noted that an internationally adopted definition of “Sustainable Transport†do es not ex ist today . In th is exemplification we exploratively assume a concept adopted in by the S UM4All initiative as a tentative definition ( Sustainable Mobility for All 2017) . Table 15 illustrates th is concept partially transposed to elements in the Policy Marker scheme of the CRS . Table 15 Sustainable Mobility for All concept indicated as potential Policy Marker In order to avoid the risk of misinterpreting the concept, and d ue to constraints on time we do not attempt to provide examples of activities for principal or significant objectives , nor FAQs in Table 15 . F urther operationali s ation of those elements could however be pursued by consulting the SUM4All follow - up report Global Roadmap of Action Toward Sustainable Mobility (Sustainable Mobility for All 2019) , w hich provides m ultiple examples of policy measures or activities mapped to one or more of the four object ives , or by consulting additional literature . Discussion SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY DEFINITION Four objectives: Universal Access, Efficiency, Safety, Green Mobility CRITERIA FOR ELIGIBILITY Universal Access – This objective accounts for distributional considerations and places a minimum value on everyone’s individual travel needs — providing them with at least some basic level of access and paving the way for meeting the mobility needs of all. Efficiency – This objective seeks to ensure that transport demand is met effectively, at the least possible cost. Since efficiency cuts across multiple aspects, we arbitrarily define the boundary for this objective from a strictly “macro - economic†perspect ive: the optimi s ation of resources (i.e., energy, technology, space, institutions, and regulations) to generate an efficient transport system or network. Safety – This objective aims to improve the safety of mobility across all modes of transport by avoiding fatalities, injuries, and crashes from transport mishaps across all modes of transport, thus averting public health risks, and social and economic loss es associated with unsafe mobility. Green Mobility – This objective aims to address climate change through mitigation and adaptation, and to reduce both air and noise pollution EXAMPLES OF TYPICAL ACTIVITIES Examples of activities that could be marked as principal objective… Examples of activities that could be marked as significant objectiv e … FAQ … 39 ODA Reporting for T ransport Clearly, t he example above o nly hints at the beginning of a hypothetical process . I t w ould likely be a cumbersome task to construct a ful l- fledged Policy M arker for sustainable transport/mobility , due to the high level of abstraction of the concept , its many aspects , a nd potential contradictions between them . Authors themselves no te th is highlight ing “… complex trade - offs and synergies among these objectives that make the decision - making process for society challenging . †(Sustainable Mobility for All 2017, p 23 ) . B asing a Policy Ma rker o n this broad concept ‘Sustainable Transport/Mobility’ could also lead to overlap s with already existing Policy and Rio markers and thereby introduc e distortions in the reporting . In addition to conceptual and technical issues of operationali s ation there is also is a potential for value - or policy - based disagreements amon g donor and / or recipient countries that could obscure the adoption of a comprehensive uniform ma r ker for ‘Sustainable Transport’ . It would likely be easier to adopt this approach if an international high - level political agreement to ‘codify’ sustainable transport in some more operational way was adopted . Ideally the upcoming UN Decade , and the prospect of a third global conference on Sustainable T ransport could offer opportunities for this . A more pragmatic way forward could be to define a set of P olicy M arker s for the “… reliable, sustainable and resilient modes of transport â€, called for in the General Assembly Resolution on the upcoming UN D ecade (United N ations 2023) . Such M arkers may for example be specified for walking, cycling , publi c transport and zero emission transport . ODA could be tagged with those markers, and indicators on the disbursement of ODA to activities marked with them could be tracked. How to operationalize this a pproach further , including if such markers were to be voluntary og mandatory could be a topic for further analysis and discussion . Ex a mp le - New eligibility criteria The overall definition of ODA (see Chapter 3) is bolstered by a set of strict ly defined criteria for what can be counted in and how the counting should go . Yet the se criteria have evolved in several stages since the origin of the notion making ODA a somewhat different concept today than ori ginally, affecting also how to report on it ( Casadevall - Bellés & Calleja 2024 ) . In other words what is eligible for ODA is a topic for potential negation among the members of the DAC committee , while also clearly a topic of global significance, considering for example commitments encoded in UN resolutions. With this in mind, i nstead of introducing a positive notion of ‘Sustainable Transport ’ Markers in the CRS framework as exemplified above , w hat w e call a negative approach could be to integrate exclusion measures for ‘unsustainable transport’ in the eligibility criteria for ODA itself . To exemplif y , we refer to a proposal by a group of OECD DAC member countries to exclude finance for fossil fuels fr o m being elig ible for ODA as reflected in th e Declaration on a new approach to align development cooperation with the goals of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change (OECD DAC 2 0 21) . The Declaration asse r ts that DAC members as part of partner country energy system planning, “… will work to identify alternative sustainable, low emissions, efficient, clean and renewable energy solutions to any current ODA fossil fuel support. †(OECD DAC 2021, p. 2 ). The Declaration itself does not deny ODA for fossil fuels , but it includes following footnote (p. 5) , ¨â€We - Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, European Union, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Korea, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and United States - further commit to limit our ODA investments in fossil fuels to when there are no economically or technically feasible clean energy alternatives; and are part of host country transition planning, consistent wit h Paris Agreement and NDC commitments. ODA may be used to support efficiency improvements of existing fossil fuel based power generation facilities, as well as their decommissioning and we will notify the DAC of intended activities. We also recognise that in limited contexts – such as emergency and humanitarian crises – where access to grid - based power is unavailable, fossil fuel based power may still warrant ODA support. †The intended effect of this D eclaration is thus no t a complete stop to any ODA involving fossil fuels but to limit it to situations where the re are no viable alternatives (while also supporting plans to advance those) . The text is a footnote because it failed to achieve unanimity in the DAC committee, alt h ough only very few countries opposed (Interview OECD DAC, Oct . 2024) . It is thereby guiding individual countries rather than the DAC as a whole. W e have not succeeded in recovering any evidence regarding how this commitment is further operationalized or how s ignatory countr ies manages or report s on it . We are therefore not awa re 40 ODA Reporting for T ransport if for example ODA for transport is in any way affected by the alleged limiting ODA investments in fossil fuels to when there are no economically or technically feasible clean energy alternatives - for exampl e if this has constrained ODA for any projects involving fossil fuel driven buses, motorcycles, trucks , etc. Discussion Due to the limited information available we are not able to discuss th is example in any detail. What may be said is that changing ODA eligibility criteria could potentially be a very str on g mechanism to shift the direction of supported activities towards sustainable transport solutions (see also Appendix C on Sustainable Finance taxonomies and associated exclusion criteria) , while i t could potentially also have substantial far - reaching implications for donor as well as recipient countries . A s the example of the footnote to the OECD Declaration amply demonstrates, it would likely be both controversial and difficult to intervene in ODA eligibility criteria . This idea will not be pursued further. 5.3.3 Level c) Altering the Transport p urpose codes The account in section 4.3 demonstrated that purpose codes for the transport sector ha ve been modified in the past with the latest example in 2015/16. Th ose latter change s had the aim to improv e aid trac e ability . Code revisions in other sectors such as Energy have for example be en motivated by changes in the demand for support to new activities , or by external policy developments such as the adoption of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda (OECD DA C WP - STAT 2018) . Alterations may include adding new codes , altering names and descriptions of codes , shifting coded activit ies to other sectors , and likely also striking codes, although we are n ot aware of any examples of th e latter . New codes may be entered as ‘regular ’ codes or ‘voluntary’ ones , as described in chapter 3. The change to transport sector codes in 2015 /16 introduced only voluntary new codes. Within this level c) three different options for alterations are considered, in in creasing order of intervention : • Moving codes in and out of sector 210 and chang ing its title ( c 1) ; • Adding new sub - codes in sector 210 to provide more granularity ( c 2) ; • Major revision of the code structure in the sector ( c 3) . c 1) Moving codes and shifting titles The most obvious and likely eas ie st change to make regarding the Transport and Storage sector coding c ould be losing the ‘Storage’ part of the title . As shown in section 4.2 aid for ‘Storage ’ constitutes a very minor part of the sector total ; A s shown in section 4.3 the background for the combination is found in historic version s of the international ISIC and SNA accounting standards , fr o m which the CRS coding in other ways has been gradually detached ; and as can be seen in Appendix C , none of the other major contemporary finance taxonomies reviewed there maintain the same combination. As the Storage category is not entirely unused the contributions for storage would still need to be reported somewhere . The CRS reporting guideline itself already suggests that parts of Storage should be reported to the sector of the resource s being stored (OECD DAC 2023) . This leaves only support for multipurpose / cross sector storage facilities in the ‘S torage ’ code . It sh ould hardly be too controversial to shi ft th ose remaining activities and the associated code for example to sector 321 ‘Industry ’. Yet even less of a problem would be to change the sector title to ‘Transport ’ only , while still maintain ing the S torage code with in it . Any of these alterations would have mostly cosmetic impact . A somewhat more substantive change could be to move Energy code 23642 ‘Electric mobility infrastructures’ (= EV charging etc.) into T ransport. Many ODA projects for sustainable transport target vehicle electrification , and some of those may be more effective if support for infrastructure and vehicles is part of the same packag e. Shifting this code to the T ransport sector could p resumably also help ra ise the profile of transport ODA as part of the green transformation. On the other ha n d , the coding structure itself does not n ecessarily discourage cross - sector projects , as it is common practice to split activities by different purpose codes . There are also log ical connection s between e - mobility charging and other energy inf rastructures suggesting to keep ing the code where it is . In the EU taxonomy on Sustainable Finance EV charging is for example also coded as an activity in the energy sector , not transport (see Appendix C ) . All in all , it seems that a decision to mov e this code to transport w ould require more detailed analysis of potential benefits and drawbacks than we are able to offer here. 41 ODA Reporting for T ransport No further discuss ion of options to move codes will be provided ; the proposal to anyway change the name of the sector to ‘Transport’ is the key take - away here . c 2 ) Adding new codes to 2 10 Transport The main issue for consideration in this analysis is how to add new appropriat e codes to the Transport secto r. Th e aim would be to more clearly display, uncover , and report on aid for ‘sustainable ’ transport solutions. P otentially such added visibility might also serve to invite and eventually attract more funding to such activities in dire need. The need for new codes to serve such aims w as raised in some of the interviews with reporting experts . A heightened emphasis o n sustainable solutions would also see m wel l aligned with strains in the discourse on development cooperation in the context o f Sustainable D evelopment and Cl imate C hange as summarized in section 5.1 . For example , by implement ing aims and commitments in the OECD DAC Declaration of 2021 towards “… greater accountability and transparency in how ODA is defined, accounted for and reported in regard to climate, biodiversity and the environment “ (OECD DAC 2021) . Providing more nuanced information regarding the types of transport activities supported by ODA would also seem most relevant for the programming and monitoring of the upcoming UN decade of Sustainable Transport. Arguably , four concerns stand out in this context as potential key ‘new’ issues for transport ODA compared with ( or in addition to) the tradition al concern for infrastructure - driven economi c growth and poverty reduction reflected in the present transport sector coding framework , 19 • a concern for providing support to accelerate the transition to zero emission so lutions such as electrification for passenger and goods transport , adapted to the mobility needs , transport condition s, and economic capacit ies of LMICs ; especially considering impacts on income disparit y; opportunities for local manufacturing ; electrifying public transportation, and job creation : • a concern for providing, modernizing, and safeguarding ( sustainable) transport modes such as walking, cycling, public transport, informal transport a s well as effective intermodal connections between them , especially in the context of developing cities and urban areas ; • a concern for ensuring adaptation and enhanc ing resilience of critical infrastructure a nd mobility services towards impacts of climate change such a flooding and droughts, including the provision o f all - weather roads in rural areas with low or unstable connectivity to markets and services ; • a concern for increas ing the capacity to provide , implement and manage comprehensive sustainable transport , mobility and logistics plans aligned with compact urban development plans, national development strategies , and NDCs . Assuming that these concerns are real and imminent, and further assuming that ODA would b e among the effective mechanism s to address them in the context of at least some developing regions and countries , t he question for the following exemplification and discussion is : h ow could this the n be fleshed out in an operational set of purpose codes t o be integrated in the exi s ting , largely modal structure of Sector 210 in a consistent way to help ensure that th e financial contributions via ODA are made visible , transparent and reportable ? Inspiration from alternative frameworks (Appendix C ) To seek inspiration for this reflection a set of international finance frameworks operating in the interface between development, sustainability and climate change were consulted. ‘Frameworks’ are here understood as typologies or taxonomies used to categorize, account for, or analyze financial flows. The aim was to explore how transport is defined and categorized in already operating or emerging frameworks in what we can call the ‘vicinity’ of the CRS, and how climate , sustainability and development objectives impinge on the c onceptuali s ation and codification of transport with in them . An underlying pro position is that building on other already established typologies in the ‘vicinity’ of the CRS may not only provide ideas for relevant c od es for the transport sector in the CRS but cou ld also ease the ir eventual acceptance and adopt ion and facilitate their practical application . 19 See also UNEP (2023), UN DESA (2021). Gender equality in transport should be no less of a concern than the four highlighted o nes here however in this context assumed to be addressed better than by way of introducing a new CRS Transport code to reflect it . 42 ODA Reporting for T ransport Three types of Typologies/Taxonomies (= ‘frameworks’) were identified and briefly reviewed: • Development F inance Taxonomies, represented by the World Bank Sector Taxonomy and Definitions (2016) ; • Sustainable Finance T axonomies , represented by the EU T axonomy for S ustainable A ctivities ( European Commission 2023). and the ASEAN Taxonomy for Sustainable Finance (Asean Taxonomy Board 2024 ); • Climate Finance Analysis, represented by the Global Landscape of Climate Finance (CPI 2024; 2023) and a WRI - led review of climate finance for the transport sector (Zhang et al 2024) . Appendix C provides the review of the se selected fr a m eworks and explains more about what they each can bring to the discussion. This section will summarize key points of th e review. It should be stressed first , that the sample of frameworks is very limited indeed and the review is brief due to various constraints ; much more rich material is available for harvest for any follow - up analysis. Secondly , due to the particular purpose and context of each framework it is not advisable to simply ‘copy - paste’ any associated transport typologies directly onto the CRS. The Sustainable F inance Taxonomies are for example intended to guide private sector investments towards sustainable options, while Climate Finance Analysis cover both public and private finance. Only the Development Finance Taxonomy of the World Bank has a focus closely res embling the CRS , but in contrast to the others it is less oriented towards the cont emporary sustainability and climate agendas . Instead , t he review has first sought for commonalities across the se contemporary international finance frameworks in terms of how finance for the transport sector is generally structure d , detail ed , and characteri zed , and second for particular useful categories for potential assimilation to the CRS . These are key findings on the first point : There are some commonalities but also significant variations in terms how transport activities themselves are subdivided in the transport sections of each of the framework s reviewed , • All frameworks make distinctions between overall transport modes (Road, Rail, Water…) ; • Four out of five framework s distinguish between urban and non - urban transport ; • Three out of five frameworks separate transport infrastructure from transport operation /service ; • Two out of five frameworks separate passenger and freight transport ; • No frameworks include ‘Storage’ or ‘Education for transport’ as part of transport sector . Only the first of these feature s are shared by the CR S , which in contrast does presently not employ distinctions into urban/non - urban ; passenger/freight or infrastructure/ operation (but maintenance) . In regard to sustainability aspects the following can be noted, • Four out of five frameworks employ further distinctions for ‘sustainable transport’ modes (active; public, etc .; the Sustainable Finance T axonomies even down to for example “Operation of personal mobility devices and cycle logistics†) ; • Three out of five frameworks include separate categories for ZE V s / transport e lectrification ; • Three out of five frameworks include c limate adaptation indirectly, not as transport investment categories but as criteria to fulfil for being eligible as climate finance None of these distinctions are found in the CRS typology (except if you count ‘Rio Marker’ for adaptation) . The lessons to be drawn from this brief example is again, and obviously , not that the CRS should adopt all of these distinctions in its Transport Sector codes in order to ‘live up to’ contemporary standards for sustainable finance . Each framework has more or less explicit reasons for its distinctions , which may not apply to ODA in general or the CRS . The key message is rather that there is a quite some precedence in contemporary finance frameworks for incorporating and encoding exactly those four ‘sustainable transport’ concerns that were proposed above. Examples and d iscussion s The following will outline a range of options for adding new codes to the Transport and Storage s ector of the CRS . Each option responds to one or more of the highlighted ‘sustainable transport’ concerns , for the 43 ODA Reporting for T ransport most by incorporating / adapting element s fr o m one of the exemplified frameworks (the details of which are found in Appendix C ) . Each option comes with a brief discussion . The examples are mo u lded over the existing structure of Sector 210 in most cases without showing the more detailed voluntary codes (assumed unchanged) . For convenience ‘Storage’ is assumed to remain in transport here . Changes compared to the present coding are highlighted in green colour. Note that t hese first options below are ‘minimal’ in the sense that they intend to introduce the least possible ‘disturbance ’ to the existing framework. Nevertheless , even minor additions to codes are likely to require some adapta t ion to the delimitation/description of other codes , as will be noted . O ption s for more thorough revision of the sector’s categories are presented in the following section c3) . Example i) : Transport electrification Table 16 Example of new CRS code for Zero Emission Transport / E lectrification CRS CODE DESCRIPTIO N - Z ERO EMISSION 21010 Transport policy and administrative management 21014 Transport Electrification / Zero - Emission Transport 21020 Road transport 21030 Rail transport 21040 Water transport 21050 Air transport 21061 Storage T he promotion of zero emission transport , more specifically transport electrification adapted to needs and conditions of LMICs, is a key concern. It is also included as an element in several Sustainability/Climate finance framework s . In the context of ODA , the focus would not likely be towards private cars while there are other modes with need s of support . The interpretation of results for such a category should consider potentially negative impacts on income disparit ies as well as opportunities for local manufacturing and job creation . Also, which modes a re electrified would matter. In this example elec trification/ZE is highlighted as one separate code . An alternative could be to include electrification as a subcode under each of the existing mode categories, or perhaps better , to a revised and more detailed set of mod al codes where active transport, public transport, informal transport, or freight transport are separated (see subsequent exam p les in the following) . A further opportunity could be to also incorporate the existing Energy code 23 642 Electric mobility infrastructures (mentioned also in sub section c above) in the transport sector . It could be joined with the proposed code ‘21014’ or kept separate as two subcodes . Th e incorporation c ould ‘strengthen’ the green profile of transport but may on the other h and ‘sever ’ links to the ‘Energy Dis t ribution ’ sector wh ere the code sit s to d ay. Th e best solution could be a topic for discussion as part of a subsequent process . Example ii) : Urban Transport Table 17 Example of new CRS code for Urban transport and following modifications CRS CODE DESCRIPTION - URB AN 21010 Transport policy and administrative management 21015 Urban Transport 21020 Rural an d Inter - urban roads 21030 Rail transport - non - urban 21040 Water transport 21050 Air transport 21061 Storage 44 ODA Reporting for T ransport ‘Urban transport’ is not as such a sustainability concern, but support for sustainable transport modes will very often address an urban context . It may be more manageable to co mbine investments in those modes under one ‘Urban’ code instead of having to defin e separate new categories for several modes . An Urban Transport code may also encompass i nte r mod al activities such as urban passenger terminals or Cyc le Rapid Transit ; or ‘new ’ modes ( e.g., micromobility, areal mobility) not foreseen by mod a l categories . Alternatively, a split by sustainable modes could be made instead of the Urban Transport category or these could be implemented as further detailed levels under it (see section C3 for an example with separation of modes). In th at case support for electrification for each mode could be added as a further subdivision rather than the general code discussed in the previous section. Several other frameworks reviewed in Appendix C include urban transport as a separate category , also the World Bank Taxonomy which (apart fr o m that) is a near full match with transport in the CRS. The World Bank d es cription of the category reads as follows, “Urban Transport are Infrastructure, services, technologies, and administration involved in moving people, vehicles or goods in urban or metropolitan settings. Conceptually, the urban transport system is intricately linked with urban form and spatial structure. Urban transit is an important dimension of mobility, notably in high density areas.†(World Bank 2016) As indicated in Table 17 the separate category may require modification s to Road and Rail categories . The revised terminology for roads here is the one used by the World Bank . The World Bank has not modified the R ail Title as we do here altho u g h th eir description places M e tro and other urban rail in th e Urban Transport category. As a minor detail Road and Rail c ould keep their present CRS code s despite the changes. Overall , this example represents a step towards almost full correspondence between CRS and the World Bank taxonomy. This could potentially help expedite this modification. We are not aware if there should be other benefits from th is correspondence . Example iii) : Transport adaptation and resilience Table 18 Example of new CRS code s for investing in the resilience of transport infrastructure s and services CRS CODE DESCRIPTION - ADAPT 21010 Transport policy and administrative management 21020 Road transport 21021 Feeder road construction 21022 Feeder road maintenance 21023 National road construction 21024 National road maintenance 21025 Road transport adaptation 21030 Rail transport 21035 Rail transport adaptation 21040 Water transport 21045 Water transport adaptation 21050 Air transport 21055 Air transport adaptation 21061 Storage 21065 Storage adaptation 21081 Education and training in transport and storage The adaptation of transport infrastructure and services towards climate resilience is a key concern. It is re f lected in directly in some of the f rameworks reviewed in Appendix C , as adaptation - oriented criteria for 45 ODA Reporting for T ransport finance to count as climate oriented . Introducing direct purpose codes for transport adaptation might improve the basis for recurring overall assessment s of the provision of Adaptation Climate Finance . In the example in Table 18 a new code for adaptation is introduced for each of the existing infrastructure sectors ( and even for Storage , if relevant) . The rationale is that adaptation activities would likely be managed by agencies already involved in construction and management of the respective networks . I n this particular example the exi s ting voluntary subcodes for Road Transport a re also displayed in the table to indicate how the full coding structure in the road sector might appear . An even more granular structure could be envisaged where adaptation activities were further subdivided to the Feeder and National Road levels. As observed earlier the current framework does not have similar subcodes for the other networks. This coding example assumes that adaptation activities and finances are possible to identify and disentangle from construction and maintenance activities . In some cases , this might be obvious (for example, increasing the height of embankments to protect rail infrastructure from flooding ). In many other cases however, it may be more difficult if adaptation measures for example are integral to the construction of new infrastructure such as a new rural all - weather road . This could be an argument for using adap tation ‘only ’ as a Rio - marker as in the present system , rather than constructing purpose codes for it. Another option not included in the example c ould be to add a category for all - weather ru r al road s , in order to highlight the importance of supporting this element in overcoming poverty and exclusion for disadvantaged rural populations , while at the same time incorporating resilience (and hence not needing a specific ‘adaptation’ purpose code ) . We are not aware to what extent it is the intention or practice today to include this under code 21021 ‘feeder road construction’ or if this is a different category a ll together. This is only a voluntary code however, and in that sense less useful to secure comprehensive reporting. A final issue concerns potential asymmetries following the introduc tion of adaptation purpose codes in transport and not in other sectors, equally exposed to climate change impacts . Example iv) : Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning Table 19 Example of new CRS code Sustainable Urban Mobility and Logistics Planning CRS CODE DESCRIPTION – SUMP 21010 Transport policy and administrative management 21011 Transport policy, planning and administration 21012 Public transport services 21013 Transport regulation 21016 Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning 21020 Road transport 21030 Rail transport 21040 Water transport 21050 Air transport 21061 Storage The final example in this section refers to the last o f the four concerns raised namely the need to enhance capacity for sustainable urban mobility planning (‘SUMP’) aligned with urban and national development strategies and the NDCs . I n contra s t to the other examples this is not one that appears in the Finance frameworks reviewed in Appendix C as it concerns the governance frameworks and capacity building rather than financial or finance sector related activities per se. In contrast , several recent studies and reports have highlighted exactly the need to enhance the capacity of LMICs in this area to help overcome challenges associated with urban sprawl, congestion, pollution as well as increasing energy consumption a nd GHG emissions (see for example Cinderby et al. 2024; UNEP 2023; Alves et al 2023; Prieto - Curiel et al. 20 23; UN DESA 2021; Rogers 2019) . In addition to mobility for persons , a ctivities under this code should be considered to include urban freight transport and logistics as well, as a topic of increasing importance arguably overlooked in present strategies and support (Alves et al. 2024; SLOCAT & Kuhne 2024 ; Agora Verkehrswende & GIZ 2023 ). 46 ODA Reporting for T ransport In the conte x t of the present sector structure th is category is proposed as a new code under 21010 ‘Transport policy and administrative management ’ which is therefore shown in Table 19 including the existing (voluntary) sub - codes for this category. Arguably, these categories already allow to report ODA for transport planning activities, be it SUMPs, Transport Master Plans or other related concepts. Singling it out a s a new code (separated from for example general / national transport planning) would be for the purpose of making this type of support more visible and separately reportable and to enhance the attention to activities for the urban level . Whether the se are sufficiently important cause s to justify a separate code could be a topic for discussion in the relevant communities. c 3) Major revision of the Sector 210 code structure The four examples of new codes presented and discussed above could be combined in various ways and included in a revised framework. This section will exemplify how this could go hand in hand with a major revision to the code structure . Ex e mp lification This example incorporate s new elements introduced in the previous section c 2) plus some more . T he incorporation is made in a way that draws inspiration fr o m the revision to the structure of the Energy sector undertaken in 2015/16 (see Appendix B ). Before 2015 ‘Energy’ activities were all combined under the sector code 230, including subsectors for Energy generation, Energy distribution etc. After the change Energy was divided into six separate sectors , four of which reflecting forms of energy generation technologies ( R enewable energy; N on - renewable energy, Nuclear, etc) , one including energy dis tribution, and one for energy policy. With a similar reasoning 20 the Transport sector c ould be split into separate sectors for the different ‘transport technologies ’ namely the existing networks of Road, Rail, Water and Air. Also Transport Policy c an become its own sector similar to for Energy, and potentially justifiable by its status as the third largest in terms of ODA volumes for the different categories today. The appropriate coding (for which space is available in the existing Purpose code structure of the CRS ) could be sectors 211 to 215. The distinction between ‘generation’ and ‘distribution’ in Energy does not have a complete parallel in transport, although one could in principle argue that the transport networks form separate ‘distribution’ channels for transport demands ‘generated’ in society, for example divided into generation of passenger transport demand and freight transport demand. For simplification we will not explore the latter distinction here although it might be a topic for further discussion. As regards ‘Storage’ we have not designated a separate sector for it as we here assume that it is shifted to another sector , for example under ‘Industry ’ as suggested under c 1 ) in this section. The ‘new’ sectors can now be populated with subcodes reflecting the different concerns for sustainable transport exemplified in the previous section . The full example is shown in Table 20 . It must be stressed that this is only one example among many conceivable hypothetical combinations. Also to consider the numbering only as indicative for the proposed logic , and partial anyway . The structure is explained in the following with a summary discussion towards the end. Under the first new or revised sector ‘211 Transport Policy’ ‘Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning ’ is included as a new subsector as was illustrated under c 2 example iv) above. In addition, ‘ Education and training in transport and storage ’ is moved to here in parallel to what is has been done in the Energy area . The second sector ‘212 Road T ransport’ is expanded in four ways or ‘elements’ compared with today . The first element is to introduce separate categories for ‘sustainable transport mode s ’ here divided into ‘Active ’ and ‘Public’ transport respectively. The former would include activities to support walking, cycling and possibly other non - motorized or semi - motorized micromobility modes . The latter would include regular public transport but potentially also informal transport, if not awarded a separate code. This is an alternative to the example of an integrated ‘U rban Transport ’ category under the c2 example ii) above , which would be less needed here. 20 Although the actual reasoning behind the modification to energy codes was not recovered as discussed in Appendix B 47 ODA Reporting for T ransport Table 20 Example of a comprehensive reform of sector code s for T ransport with potential new code numbers or code titles added In green DAC 5 CRS Vol DESCRIPTION – COMPREHENSIVE 210 Transport 211 Transport policy and administrative management 211 aa Transport policy, planning and administration 211bb Public transport services 211cc Transport regulation 211XX Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning Education and training in transport and storage 212 Road transport 21210 Active road transport 21220 Public road transport 21230 Road adaptation 21240 Road construction 2124a Feeder road construction 2124b National road construction 2124 c All - weather rural road construction 21250 Road maintenance 2 125a Feeder road maintenance 2125b National road maintenance 21260 Zero Emission Road Transport 21270 Other Road transport 213 Rail transport 21330 Rail adaptation 21340 Rail constructi on 21350 Rail maintenance 21360 Zero Emission rail transport 21370 Other Rail transport 214 Water transport 21430 Water adaptation 21440 Water construction 21450 Water maintenance 21460 Zero Emission Water transport 21470 Other Water transport 215 Air transport 21530 Air adaptation 21540 Air construction 21550 Air maintenance 21560 Zero Emission Air transport 21570 Other Air transport 48 ODA Reporting for T ransport The second element is to incorporate support for resilience/ adaptation of road infrastructure as illustrated under c2 example iii) above. The new structure also inherits the current distinction between ‘Road Construction’ and ‘Road Maintenance’, and thus now includes three types of activities related to Road infrastructure. Here is also added a new code for All - weather rural road construction , as discussed but not include d in the adaptation - only example previously exemplified ( Table 18 ) . It is indicated as a voluntary subcode following the logic of the existing structure, although this may not be the optimal solution. The third element is to incorporate the category for ‘Zero Emission /Electrification’ from c2 Example i) above, but here only for road transport (see below for electrification of other modes). Fourth and finally adding a new category ‘Other Road Transport’ to include support not covered by the other categories. This could for example hypothetically include support for road transport demand management systems and technologies (including road user charging, etc). The following sectors ‘213 Rail,’ ‘214 Water’ and ‘215 Air’ correspond to the remaining networks in the existing structure. To match the logic of the Road sector these are also divided into Adaptation , Construction, and Maintenance, the former again to bring forward activities to enhance the resilience of those respective systems towards the impacts of climate change. 21 Also for those three sectors ‘Zero Emission/Electrification’ activities are singled out, while the ‘Other’ category again aims to capture support not related to infrastructures themselves. This would all in all bring the number of 5 - digit CRS codes for transport up to 23 (or 24) compared to the 27 in the Energy sector. As noted above, the existing voluntary subsector codes distinguishing ‘feeder’ and ‘national’ roads are preserved now under the respective ‘construction’ and maintenance’ domains. These would need new code numbers if maintained. Discussion A s already noted, multiple options for designations and perturbations of new and existing codes are conceivable. The intended benefits of the example proposed here is to allow more detailed / granular accounting for what ODA spent in the transport sector goes to, including sustainable transport modes , electrification and climate adaptation , in part in fused wit h categories used in other adjacent finance f rameworks, but without introducing a complete disconnect to historic CRS categories and the associated da ta accumulated over decades. Obviously , the exemplified structure would nevertheless require a full reconsideration of the sector and subsector descriptions and accompanying guidance. The potential benefits of the added granularity would in each case need to be weighed against the required work to introduce and maintain the revised system , as well as any issues regarding accountability and transparency . An ob vious critical issue for th e present ed version of a more granular structure would be several potential overlaps. For example, if ODA to support the electrification of an urban BRT - system sh ould be coded under ‘21220 Public transport’ or ’21260 Zero emissions Road Transport ’. Or similarly, if a system for collecting road tolls would be coded under ‘Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning’; ‘Transport regulation’ or ‘Other Road transport.’ Some overlaps could be overcome by removing or collapsing codes, but at the loss of potentially desirable gr anularity. In contrast some overlaps could instead be overcome by further splitting and detailing codes. For example , if ‘Electrification’ was made a subcategory under each (new) mode such as ‘Active Transport ’ and ‘Public Transport’ (rather than only as a general category under ‘road transport electrification’) the overlap would disappear , with the added value of being able to target electrification to the most sustainable modes . Solution s to all such issues are not provided here, let alone the provision of an ‘optimal’ system. Hopefully the examples could nevertheless inspire reflection and discussion among experts in the field . A further consideration to flag here is the distinction between regular and voluntary codes. Introducing new codes as voluntary would likely ease their adoption as they could be applied by those donors who would find them informative and manageable in light of natio nal priorities. On the other hand, voluntarism would undermine the potential application of new codes and frameworks for reporting on global trends and commitments across all donors. A n altogether different concern is the inherent limitations of upholding the general structure of the CRS based on a traditional division of societies into separate economic and administrative sectors in the first 21 The order of the subcategories is intended to stipulate that Adaptation could become a prime concern for transport infrastructure. 49 ODA Reporting for T ransport place . While the current CRS system also does include several DAC 5 ‘sectors’ which are actually not ‘sectors’ per se but representing more cross - cutting activities such as ‘General Environmental protection’, ‘Trade Policies and regulations’, ‘General budget support’ etc. still at least the transport sector as it appears in the CRS today is very much anchored in and moulded over a classic ‘sector’ template, as also exposed in chapter 4. This template does not necessarily provide a complete or indisputable account of what ‘transport systems ’ are , or how they impinge positively or negatively on goals for climate change , sustainable development or poverty reduction, or even of ‘all things related to transport’ within the ODA context. Th e partly ‘constructed ’ nature of what defines ‘transport ODA’ w ere exemplified in section 4.4 on b oundary issues ; it also emerged in the interviews on current practice and popped up again in the elaboration of examples for a new coding structure above . Possible a lternative perspectives for and system boundaries of transport were reflected in Section 5.2 for example when the High - Level Advisory Group on Sustainable Transport recommended to “... make transport planning, policy and investment decisions based on the three sustainable development dimensions (…) and a full life cycle analysis †(HLG 2015) , and when the UN interagency report Sustainable Development, Sustainable Transport advised development partners to “… avoid siloed and short - term approaches †(U N DESA 2021). A ‘full life - cycle analysis ’ would normally mean a consideration of impact chains from ‘cradle to grave’ (JRC 2010) . F or transport for example , the full system view c ould encompass processes from the extraction of minerals for producing vehicles, propulsive energy and infrastructures, over the operation and maintenance of transport systems , to the eventual scrapping and recycling of all components at the end of their useful life. This view would imply a complete break with the sectoral approach in CRS purpose codes today . The more moderate aspiration to ‘avoid siloed approaches’ would likely suggest at least not to consider transport in isolation fr o m its in ter faces with spatial systems on the one side and energy systems on the other. The same would be implied by the ‘Avoid - Shift - Improve’ concept for sustainable low - carbon transport strategies, including effective land use planning on the one side and the provision of cleaner transport technologies on the other ( see for example Slocat 2023; Dalkmann & Brannigan 2007). While the cited perspectives have not necessarily been intended to inform the particular context of ODA for transport , the y nevertheless offer an invitation to reconsider different approaches to future codification , with the overall rationale to support a long - term fundamental transformation of the transport system needed for developing and developed economies alike. However, f urther reflections on what would be an appropriate framework for ODA reporting in the longer - term future (assuming that ODA would still be needed in forthcoming decades) sh ould most likely be addressed from a top - down perspective on ODA reform rather than f ro m a t ransport - specific bottom - up perspective as the one applied here . 50 ODA Reporting for T ransport 6. Summary and recommendations This final chapter will, • summarise key points from the report that jointly build s a case for action; • review the ideas and options for action elaborated in chapter five: • on this basis provide overall recommendations for action ; 6.1 The case for taking action On the basis of the analysis so far, we find that a strong case can be made for taking action to enhance the approach to international reporting of ODA for the transport sector, • While far from the largest recipient sector overall, ‘Transport and Storage’ is still the end point for around 12 billion USD annually in ODA, on par with the energy sector (see section 4.2) , and hardly less important in terms of providing for sustainable development including poverty reduction, climate mitigation and climate adaptation; • While transport is second only to energy in attracting climate mitigation finance (yet far below estimated needs ( CPI 2023 a ) ), substantial finance gaps for the sector have also been estimated in term of investments needed to ensure the fulfilment of other sustainable development goals and needs of LMICs, including climate adaptation and poverty reduction (e.g. UNCTAD 2023; and see chapter 1); • ODA (including for Transport) forms a largely undisclosable component of contemporary reporting on climate finance and infrastructure investments for sustainable development (OECD 2024b); no international activities ( by the OECD or otherwise) to report separately and systematically on Transport ODA or its impacts ha ve been identified; • The UN Decade of Sustainable Transport 2026 - 35 is approaching so far with only limited framing and guidance in term of what ‘sustainable transport’ means, how progress towards is to be measured and monitored, or how it is supposed to be financed, considering in particular the needs of low - and middle - income countries ( see section 5.2); • The current reporting format/framework for transport ODA in moulded over a notion of large - scale transport infrastructure investments as key to economic growth assuming subsequent ‘trickle - down’ effects leading to reduced poverty, a notion which seems inco mplete at best (Carter et al 2024), not least in the much broader context of the emerging discourse on sustainable transport and mobility ( e.g. Alvers et al 2023; UN DESA 2021); • No major efforts to review or revise the code structure for ODA to the transport sector has been undertaken for at least 10 years (or longer), including no moves to reflect the adoption of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda with the SDGs, the Paris Ag reement on Climate Change, or any United Nations’ resolutions and declarations regarding ‘Sustainable Transport’ (see section 5 .3); • This in comparison with the energy sector, which has seen two major revisions in the same period, in large parts driven by concerns for matching up to the SDG targets for Energy and to facilitate reporting on sustainable versus less sustainable energy form s; Notably reviews that appear to have been relatively consensual and expedient procedures mastered by the WP - STAT working Party of the DAC supported by the OECD secretariat (see Appendix B); • Interviews with Transport ODA experts suggest a variety of perspectives in terms of how suitable the current reporting framework is for reflecting or ensuring the general purpose of aid to the sector or any more specific concerns for sustainability; the va riety of perspectives suggests a basis for discussion of various options for action, rather than for providing a ready - made model for an enhanced reporting approach (see section 4.5) . All in all, we see compelling reasons to initiate a process to review the current approach while also suitable procedures and contextual opportunities being a vailable for setting such a process in motion. 51 ODA Reporting for T ransport 6.2 Review of options A range of ideas and options to enhance the reporting approach was explored in Chapter 5. All of them sought to enhance the focus on ‘sustainable transport’ in ODA reporting. Some would represent small steps that could likely be implemented with limited effort and be completed within a short timeframe such as changing the name of sector 210 in the CRS to ‘Transport’. Others involv ing more significant modifications to exiting practice may require longer time to process , including analysis of potential unfavourable consequences, testing in practice, or negotiating different ‘paradigms’ for trans port ODA (for example introducing a whole new code structure for the sector moulded over multiple sustainable transport concerns) . It should be noted that the ideas are not necessarily additive or cumulative. Some represent alternative options that would not make sense in the same scenario, for example adopting Policy Makers for ‘sustainable transport’ while at the same time introducing new CRS codes for sustainable transport modes. Which ones to pursue may therefore depend on circumstances , including the position of different DAC member countries in regard to perceived needs to enhance ODA reporting for transport . To move closer to a set of recommendations we will undertake a critical review (in tabular format) of the five main options introduced and exemplified in chapter 5 : • Using existing elements in the CRS • Adding elements to CRS other than purpose codes • Cha nging the name of sector 210 and moving codes • Adding new sub - codes in sector 210 to provide more granularity • Major revision of the code structure in the sector For each o ption we highlight merits as well as challenges (potential obstacles) to consider for their further pursuit, before we su mmarize a recommendation for how to mov e forward with each option . Using existing elements in the CRS The option proposed is to introduce regular international reporting (by the OECD or other bodies) of Transport ODA with existing Rio Markers (and possibly other Policy Markers or SDG focus codes) to recurringly indicate the contribution of Transport ODA to deliver the associated sustainability objectives. Merits Challenges to consider • Markers are recognized by DAC and donors as means to report on ODA for climate and other sustainability objectives ; • Possible to do without changing the exiting reporting framework or to solicit additional data input from DAC members ; • Could be applied to historic as well as upcoming flows ; • Indirectly justified by the OECD DAC declaration (2021) promising to ‘… work towards greater accountability and transparency in how ODA is defined, accounted for and reported in regard to climate, biodiversity etc. ’; • OECD DAC secretariat would be able to produce the analysis using existing data if so requeste d. • Rio markers are qualitative, imprecise, and disputed as indicators of ‘sustainability’ of ODA; SDG Focus codes less even tested as common indicators ; • No framework or c hannel currently exists for producing regular ‘indicator’ reports on the status for Transport ODA (by OECD or others) ; • OECD DAC Declaration (2021) may not be perceived to include a sufficiently specific mandate to initiate a process for this reporting on the Transport sector ; • The existing dated code structure remains . 52 ODA Reporting for T ransport Summary recommendation : This option we would consider as less effective to overcom e limitations of the existing purpose coding and reporting practice . It could be tested out ( as briefly indicated in the analysis ) and pursued if the subsequent options c ould not find support among any DAC member countries . Its further pursuit may require or be expedited by an international poli cy commitment akin to the existing DAC declaration . Adding elements to CRS other than purpose codes The main option proposed here is to define one or more specific Policy Markers for Sustainable Transport for DAC members to apply to transport projects as relevant , and to initiate regular reporting of the results as indicators of ODA for Sustainable Transport. The starting point could be a general concept of Sustainable Transport/Mobility (for example via Sustainable Mobility for All initiative) , which would need to be operationalized (for example by using individual sustainable transport modes such as a ctive transport, public transport /i nformal transport, Z ero E mission transport as markers /indicators ). A separate option to modify ODA eligibility criteria to disallow ODA for predefined ‘unsustainable’ transport activities was introduced but not further promoted , due to its like ly controversial character . Merits Challenges to consider • The ‘Marker’ method is generally recognized by DAC and donors as means to report on ODA objectives ; • Markers are designed to reflect prioritized objectives or impacts (= normative concepts like Sustainable T ransport) compared to Purpose codes which are statistical categories ; • Procedure and template for existing markers could be applied to new ones ; • Potential to customize Marker s to the needs of the transport community allowing more nuanced tracking of transport ODA than today ; • UN Decade as (indirect) opportunity . • No or only vague international policy commitment s exists to initiate reporting on such a marker (compared to Rio conventions or similar for other markers) ; • Complications to agree on definitions and measures, considering likely different concepts and priorities for ’sustainable transport’ among DAC members ; • No framework or channel currently exists for producing regular ‘indicator’ reports on the status for Transport ODA (by OECD or others) ; • The existing dated code structure remains . Summary recommendation : Th is option may be more effective than the f irst one to enable track ing of transport ODA in terms of transport - specific sustainability characteristics , but still less effective than changing t he purpose codes due to inherent limit s to markers . An operational definition of ‘Sustainable Transport’ criteria may be challenging to negotiate without a n international commitment akin to Rio conventions. The option could be pursued if the other options cannot find support among DAC members . Changing the sector title and moving codes . The option proposed was to change the name of sector 210 to Transport. The Storage category could remain or be moved to other sectors ; the code for Electric mobility infrastructure could be adopted or not. Merits Challenges to consider • Storage represents a too small part of finance for the sector to ‘deserve’ being included in the sector title ; • New title would send more clear messages about what the finance in the sector is used for ; • Contemporary Sustainable finance and Climate finance frameworks do not combine Transport with Storage ; • Very little preparations or testing needed . • Mostly a cosmetic operation ; • Storage is still combined with Transport in ISIC and SNA statistical frameworks ; • Rest of the existing dated code structure remains . 53 ODA Reporting for T ransport Summary recommendation : Changing the name seems like an obvious move to make in any case. However, it does little to improve the tracking of transport. Should therefore only be pursued if part of a broader package of changes . Moving codes in or out of the sector does not seem necessary. Adding new sub - codes in sector 210 to provide more granularity The option is to add one or more new codes to the Transport sector to statistically embody various ‘sustainable transport’ concerns. Specific ideas were to consider codes for ‘Electric/Zero E mission transport ’; ‘ Urban Transport’ (as a possible proxy for individual ‘sustainable’ urban transport modes); ‘Adaptation ’ and ‘Sustainable Urban Mobility Planning’. Each one would have their own merits and come with their own challenges. New codes were proposed as regular rather than voluntary to facilitate international training/comparison . Merits Challenges to consider • Opportunity to bring the code structure more in line with contemporary interests to advance sustainable transport solutions through ODA; • Adding one or two new codes to the existing structure introduces limited disturbance to existing reporting practices of donors; even less so if new codes are voluntary ; • Adding one or two new codes may not require new international policy commitment s (other than e xisting DAC Declaration 2021 with UN Decade of Sustainable Transport as supplementary justification ) : • Several other finance frameworks include codes for example for ‘Urban transport’ or ‘Zero Emission/Electric transport’ ; • Institutional and procedural framework is in place to support the process of reviewing and implementing new purpose codes (OECD DAC WP - STAT supported by OECD DAC secretariat ). • Not all DAC members may be convinced that adoption of new codes is necessary or helpful ; • Considerations regarding transparency, budget compatibility, possible spill - over effects to other sectors, etc. may uncover drawbacks of new codes ; • Adopting new codes as voluntary would disallow systematic reporting , while regular/ mandatory codes would be more intrusive to existing practice ; • Not possible to trace new codes back in time . Summary recommendation : This is likely the best opportunity if a major revision to the code structure (following option) is no t support ed by DAC members ( or international ly request ed ) . Which of the exemplified (or other) changes to p ursue would depend on the perceived need s among DAC m embers and should therefore be discussed in the proper institutional setting ( OECD DAC WP - STAT) . We speculate that Electric/ Zero Emission transport may be among the more likely new codes to gain support due to significance for decarbonisation in LMICs, its presence in many other finance frameworks, and limited disturbance to exiting codes. A rguments for the other examples were however also presented . Major revision of the code structure in the sector The final option is to revise the existing code structure of the Transport sector to accommodate several new subsector categories in a logically consistent and future - oriented way. A concrete example (shown in Table 20 ) is inspired by past changes to the Energy sector code s as well as the individual options for new codes discussed earlier . The example introduc es more granular accounting for ODA spent on sustainable transport modes, electrification , and climate adaptation , w hile retaining existing modal categories, allowing for continuity and flexibility for reporting. It should be stressed again that th e example is only one among multiple options available and that the full consequences have not been analysed. 54 ODA Reporting for T ransport Merits Challenges to consider • Opportunity to bring the code structure for transport fully in line with contemporary priorities to advance sustainable transport solutions through ODA ; • C ould be a significant contribution to operationalize UN Decade of Sustainable Transpor t by providing ‘missing link’ between sustainable transport discourse and ODA practice; • Major revision possible w h ile maintain ing key structural elements of the existing sector codes , similar to p revi o us revisions in the Energy sector ; • Provides closer correspondence to some other contemporary frameworks for sustainability / climate finance accounting; • Institutional and procedural framework is in place to support the process of reviewing and implementing new purpose codes (OECD DAC WP - STAT supported by OECD DAC secretariat). • Currently n o international policy declaration , mandate or request we are aware of directly promotes the adoption of new specification s for transport ODA ; • Not all DAC members may be convinced that adoption of new codes is necessary or helpful; • Justification for specific changes need to be prepared and promoted through proper channels; may require a ‘testing’ phase involving two or more DAC members; • Considerations regarding transparency, budget compatibility, possible spill - over effects to other sectors, etc. may uncover drawbacks to a major revision of the transport codes ; • Not possible to trace new codes back in time. Summary recommendations : This option we consider as the most interesting one to pursue, considering all the elements in ‘The case for taking action’ that were presented in section 6.1. The challenge among the ones highlighted in the table that could be most critical at this point is the lack of an external international policy declaration , mandate or request to undertake such a revision . It is therefore recommended to also explore and if possible advance available options for such a n impetus to emerge. Future even ts in the context of the UN Decade of Sustainable Transport, or the Finance for Development process could offer opportunities at the policy level. 6.3 Summary of assessments and r ecommendations The following recommend a tions are based on three overall assessments summarized here: First, i t is our assessment , based o n the review of options , that a proposal for a major/ comprehensive revision of the exiting framework and secto r codes for reporting on ODA for transport w ould carr y the most significant merits in terms of both delivering a needed moderni s ation of the existing framework, incorporating key concer ns for transport and sustainability at a granular level , providing a logical structure aligned with other sectors , and avoiding major disruptions through preserving core elements of the exiting framework . We presented an example in section 5.5.3 of the report , while highlighting that the example is only intended as an illustration for potential discussion . T he other options reviewed we see as possible alternatives to discuss in case a major revision to the transport codes is not found feasible – with the exception of the change of name of the sector fr o m ‘Transport and Storage’ to ‘Transport’ , which we believe would make se nse in any case . Second, i t is our assessment , based on the history of modifications to the CRS , that the OECD DAC WP - STAT assisted by the OECD DAC Secretariat , constitute s a responsive, effective and expedient institutional setting and governance structure for the process to develop, negotiate and adopt such revision s to CRS purpose codes . Even major modifications have previously been processed in two - three years or less. The Secretariat has also been timely in providing analysis of current reporting practices for example in regard to commitments in the 2021 OECD DAC declaration on sustainable energy , similar to ideas proposed in our analysis as alternative approaches to enhance transport reporting . In case new Policy Markers for Sustainable Transport were to be adopted the Secretariat would likely assist in their 55 ODA Reporting for T ransport implementation but could not be tasked to develop a rationale or concept for them. We therefore find that the ke y effort should be to prepare a proposition on an enhanced coding framework for transport for present ation to the WP - STAT for consideration. Third, it is our assessment, based on the review of the discourse on ‘sustainable transport ’, that ODA for transport is not a topic that has been in focus for many previous international p olicy initiatives . Transport i s not ‘blessed’ by its own SDG and U N initiatives and resolutions have not paid attention to the role of ODA for transport. We propose that a high - level policy initiative, commitment or mandate could likely expedite the success of efforts to enhance the reporting of transport ODA. For example, we observed that one of the major reforms of energy sector codes was motivated by the adoption of SDG 7 on energy , and directly triggered by a request from the high - level international initiative Sustainable Energy for All . We also observed that the OECD DAC (2021) Declaration on a new approach to align development cooperation with the goals of the Paris Ag reement on Climate Change led to the new reporting practices including the assessment of DAC members contributions to sustainable Energy (and transport) using Rio marker indicators. This leads us t o recommend (below) that current high - level initiatives of relevance for sustainable transport finance are identified and explored for opportunities to generate support for the present subject . This could for example include the preparation s for the upcoming UN Deca de for Sustainable Transport, The Sustainable Mobility for All initiative, and t h e Finance for Development Agenda. The s pecific recommendation s for action are as follows : 1. It is recommended that DAC members with an interest in transport are summoned to discuss ideas and models for enhanced reporting of ODA for transport in light the UN Decade on Sustainable Transport and other relevant agendas; A key element should be a pote ntial major modernization of the transport sector codes; The present report could serve among the input; 2. It is recommended that representatives of DAC members with an interest in transport reach out to current high - level initiatives of relevance for sustainable transport finance such as the preparations for the upcoming UN Decade for Sustainable Transport, The Sustainable Mobility for All initiative, and the Finance for Development Agenda, i n order to explore opportunities to generate external high - level support for a reform of Transport ODA; 3. It is recommended that representatives among of the group of DAC members instigate the submission of a proposal for discussion at an upcoming meeting of the OECD DAC working party WP - STAT; the proposal may include, š a proposal to rename the purpose code of sector 210 to ‘Transport’; š proposals regarding a modernized more granular structure of CRS codes for Transport reflecting sustainable transport options; š considerations regarding alternative options to enhance ODA reporting for transport such as the use of Rio Markers , SDG Focus codes , or new Policy Markers ; š considerations regarding a process for reviewing and elaborating the proposals engaging the Secretariat in the analys is of any consequences in regard to other aspects of reporting duties , and possibly DAC members volunteering to test the application of new codes. š considerations regarding regular follow - up with publications or other information products on status and trend s for Transport ODA , as part of information for the UN Decade on Sustainable Transport . 56 ODA Reporting for T ransport 7. References Alves, B. B., Mjahed, L. B., & Moody, J. (2023). Decarbonizing Urban Transport for Development. Mobility and Transport Connectivity Series, World Bank, Washington, DC, 101 p. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/006565c0 - c51b - 4614 - a1a2 - 35c29ece447b (date accessed 11/11/24) Apergis, N; Pinar, M; Unlu, E (2024). Does classification of green aid flows matter for environmental quality? Empirical Economics (2024) 66, pp. 53 – 73 Agora Verkehrswende & GIZ (2023). Leapfrogging to Sustainable Transport in Africa. Twelve Insights into the Continent’s Sector Transformation. 68 p. ASEAN Taxonomy Board (2024). ASEAN Taxonomy for Sustainable Finance (Version 3), 25 APRIL 2024. https://www.theacmf.org/images/downloads/pdf/ASEAN - Taxonomy - Version - 3.pdf#page=113&zoom=100,92,96 (date accessed 01/11/24) Bräuninger, M.; Perschon, J.; Hertel, C.; Field, S.; Foletta, N. (2012). Achieving sustainability in urban transport in developing and transition countries. Federal Environmental Agency (Umweltbundesamt), Dessau - Roblau, Germany, 2012. Carter, P et al. (2024). When growth does – and does not – reduce poverty. Practical thinking on investing for development. British International Investment, Norfund. https://assets.bii.co.uk/wp - content/uploads/2024/05/22082549/When - growth - does - and - does - not - reduce - poverty.pdf (date accessed 22/11/24) Casadevall - Bellés, S & Calleja, R (2024). The Evolution of the ODA Accounting Rules. CGD NOTE 376, JUNE 2024, Center for Global Development. Washington DC. Cinderby et al. (2024) . Inclusive climate resilient transport challenges in Africa. Cities, March 2024 CPI (2024). Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2024. Climate Policy Initiative, October 2024. https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/publication/global - landscape - of - climate - finance - 2024/ (date accessed 14/10/24) CPI (2023b). Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2023 Methodology, November 2023. https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp - content/uploads/2023/11/GLCF - 2023 - Methodology.pdf (date accessed 14/10/24) CPI (2023). Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2023. Climate Policy Initiative, November 2023. https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/publication/global - landscape - of - climate - finance - 2023/ (date accessed 14/10/24) Dalkmann, H. & Brannigan, C. (2007). Transport and Climate Change. Module 5e: Sustainable Transport: A Sourcebook for Policy - Makers in Developing Cities. Deutsche Gesellschaft Für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), Eschborn. Ehlers, T; Gao, D; Packer, F (2021). A taxonomy of sustainable finance taxonomies. BIS Papers No 118, Bank for International Settlements 2021. https://www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/bispap118.pdf (date accessed 07/11/24) European Commission (2023). A user guide to navigate the EU Taxonomy for sustainable activities. June 2023. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, June 2023. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication - detail/ - /publication/603ca4c7 - 44ae - 11ef - 865a - 01aa75ed71a1/language - en (date accessed 16/10/24) Führer, Helmut (1994). The Story of Official Development Assistance. A History of the Development Assistance Committee and the Development Co - Operation Directorate in Dates, Names and Figures. OCDE/GD(94)67. OECD, Paris Gudmundsson, H & Dalkmann, H (2024). The importance of Sustainable Mobility to Climate and Development – Is Denmark ready to play a part? CONCITO, Copenhagen, 62 p. https://concito.dk/en/udgivelser/the - importance - of - sustainable - mobility - to - climate - and - development - is - denmark - ready - to (date accessed 06/09/24) 57 ODA Reporting for T ransport Gudmundsson, H; Hall, RP; Marsden, G; Zietsman, J (2016). Sustainable Transportation: Indicators, Frameworks, and Performance Management. Springer Texts in Business and Economics, Berlin. 304 p. Guerrero, O; Guariso, D; Castaneda, G (2023). Aid effectiveness in sustainable development: A multidimensional approach. World Development 168, August 2023 HLAG (2016). Mobilizing Sustainable Transport for Development. Analysis and Policy Recommendations from the United Nations Secretary - General's High - Level Advisory Group on Sustainable Transport High - level Advisory Group on Sustainable Transport. United Nations JRC (2010). International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook - General guide for Life Cycle Assessment - Detailed guidance. European Commission - Joint Research Centre - Institute for Environment and Sustainability. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2010 OECD (2024a). Development Co - operation Report 2024. Tackling Poverty and Inequalities through the Green Transition. OECD publishing , Paris, 351 p + app. OECD (2024). Integrating climate action into development finance, OECD Development Perspectives, No. 45 . OECD Publishing, Paris OECD (2005). Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, OECD/LEGAL/5017 OECD DAC (2024a). Converged Statistical Reporting Directives for the Creditor Reporting System (CRS) and the Annual DAC Questionnaire. DAC Working Party on Development Finance Statistics. DCD/DAC/STAT(2024)40/FINAL, OECD, Paris. 4. September 2024 OECD DAC (2024b). Learning from DAC Peer Reviews: DAC Declaration on a new approach to align development co - operation with the goals of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. DCD/DAC/AR(2024)1. OECD, Paris, 13 September 2024. OECD DAC (2022b). DAC Working Party on Development Finance Statistics. Handbook for reporting the SDG focus of development co - operation activities. DCD/DAC/STAT(2020)7/REV3. OECD, Paris OECD DAC (2021). Declaration on a new approach to align development cooperation with the goals of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, OECD/LEGAL/0466 OECD DAC (2018). CONVERGED STATISTICAL REPORTING DIRECTIVES FOR THE CREDITOR REPORTING SYSTEM (CRS) AND THE ANNUAL DAC QUESTIONNAIRE Annexes - modules D and E. DCD/DAC/STAT(2018)9/ADD2/FINAL. OECD, Paris OECD DAC (2017). A New DAC: Innovations for the 2030 Agenda. Dac High Level Communiqué, 31 October 2017, 30 - 31 October 2017, OECD Paris OECD DAC (2016). BUDGET IDENTIFIER PROPOSAL FOR APPROVAL UNDER WRITTEN PROCEDURE. DAC Working Party on Development Finance Statistics. DCD/DAC/STAT(2015)30/REV1, OECD, Paris OECD DAC (2015). SECRETARIAT ASSESSMENT OF THE BUDGET IDENTIFIER PROPOSAL. DAC Working Party on Development Finance Statistics. DCD/DAC/STAT(2015)24, OECD , Paris OECD DAC (1999). REPORTING ON THE PURPOSE OF AID. DCD/DAC(99)20. OECD, Paris, 12 - Jul - 1999 OECD DAC WP - STAT (2022). Tracking members’ support for sustainable energy transition. DAC Working Party on Development Finance Statistics, DCD/DAC/STAT(2022)36/REV1. OECD , Paris OECD DAC WP - STAT (2020). Assessing the policy objectives of development co - operation activities. DCD/DAC/STAT(2020)27. OECD, Paris, 12 June 2020 OECD DAC WP - STAT (2019). REVIEW OF THE OECD CRS SECTOR CLASSIFICATION IN LIGHT OF THE SDG7 ON ENERGY. DAC Working Party on Development Finance Statistics. DCD/DAC/STAT(2019)24/FINAL OECD, Paris, 28 November 2019 OECD DAC WP - STAT (2018). REVIEW OF THE OECD CRS CLASSIFICATION IN LIGHT OF THE SDG7 ON ENERGY. DAC Working Party on Development Finance Statistics. DCD/DAC/STAT/RD(2018)2/RD7. OECD, Paris, 12. Juni 2018 Official Journal of the European Union (2021). Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139 of 4 June 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council. 58 ODA Reporting for T ransport Prieto - Curiel, R., Patino, J. E., & Anderson, B. (2023). Scaling of the morphology of African cities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(9) SLOCAT (2023). SLOCAT Transport, Climate and Sustainability Global Status Report, 3rd Edition. Partnership for Sustainable Low Carbon Transport. https://tcc - gsr.com/ (date accessed 23/08/24) Rogers, John (2019). Capacity Building Needs Assessment and Strategy to Promote Low Carbon Development in High Volume Transport for selected Low - Income and Lower - Middle income Priority Countries in Africa and South Asia. Applied Research Programme in High Volume Transport, Project HVT/007. 29 April 2019. https://slocat.net/wp - content/uploads/2020/06/HVT007_Capacity - Building - Strategy_Low - Carbon_FINAL.pdf (d ate accessed 27/11/24) Songwe, V., Stern, N., & Bhattacharya, A. (2022). Finance for climate action: Scaling up investment for climate and development. Report of the Independent High - Level Expert Group on Climate Finance Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, 97 p. Statistical Office of the United Nations (1949). International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities. Lake Success, New York, 31. October 1949 Stutzman, E (2023). Is the World Bank effectively supporting transport decarbonization? Bank Information Center. Accessed 21. November 2024. https://bankinformationcenter.org/en - us/update/is - the - world - bank - effectively - supporting - transport/ Sustainable Mobility for All (2019). Global Roadmap of Action Toward Sustainable Mobility. Washington DC, License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0. https://www.sum4all.org/ Sustainable Mobility for All (2017). Global Mobility Report 2017: Tracking Sector Performance. Washington DC. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 https://www.sum4all.org/Sustainable Mobility for All (2023). Global Mobility Report 2022: Tracking Sector Performance. Washington D.C. UNCTAD (2024). Aid under pressure: 3 accelerating shifts in official development assistance. UN GLOBAL CRISIS RESPONSE GROUP, United Nations, April 2024. UNCTAD (2023). World Investment Report 2023: Investment and sustainable energy . United Nations Publications , New York, 2023 https://unctad.org/system/files/official - document/wir2023_en.pdf (d ate accessed 25/11/24) UN DESA (2021). Sustainable transport, sustainable development. Interagency report for second Global Sustainable Transport Conference. United Nations, 2021. UNEP (2023). Progress in the implementation of resolution 4/3 on sustainable mobility. Report of the Executive Director. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi. UNEP/EA.6/3, November 2023 UNFCCC (2015). Adoption of the Paris Agreement. Conference of the Parties Twenty - first session Paris, 30 November to 11 December 2015. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1, 12. December 2015 United Nations (2024a). General Assembly High - level Meeting on Sustainable Transport. Concept Note. United Nations, New York, Wednesday, 17. April 2024 United Nations (2024b). Inter - agency Task Force on Financing for Development, Financing for Sustainable Development Report 2024: Financing for Development at a Crossroads. United Nations, New York, 244 p. United Nations (2023). A/C.2/78/L.27/Rev.1 Strengthening the links between all modes of transport to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. United Nations General Assembly, 14 November 2023 UNEA (2019). Sustainable mobility. Resolution 4/3 adopted by the United Nations Environment Assembly on 15 March 2019. United Nations Environment Assembly of the United Nations Environment Programme. UNEP/EA.4/Res.3. United Nations, Nairobi, March 2019 UNSD (2008). International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities. Revision 4. Statistical papers Series M No. 4/Rev.4, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Statistics Division, United Nations, New York WCED (1987). Our Common Future. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford World Bank (2016). Sector Taxonomy and definitions, Revised July 1, 2016 59 ODA Reporting for T ransport Zhang, Yiqian; Caldwell, Molly; Laxton, Valerie; Welle, Ben; Liu, Kangjie Zé; Castellanos, Sebastian (2024). Access to Climate Finance in Low - and Middle - Income Countries: 14 Case Studies for the Transport Sector. Working Paper, WRI sept 2024 [DRAFT, not published version ] 60 ODA Reporting for T ransport APPENDIX A: ODA VOLUMES FOR TRANSPORT U nderlying and supplementary data for Chapter 4. Data on Energy in Appendix B. ‘All sectors’ means total ODA. TOTAL AND TRANSPORT ODA BY DIFFERENT DONOR GROUPS APP A Table 1 CRS: Official donors, developing countries, disburs e ments, constant prices USD millions 2022 Time period 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Aver. All sectors 164 889 164 484 184 170 198 677 205 267 202 936 201 857 229 197 227 922 277 303 205 670 Transport and storage 12 094 11 539 11 437 11 422 12 410 12 702 12 073 10 201 10 701 13 677 11 826 Share 7 % 7 % 6 % 6 % 6 % 6 % 6 % 4 % 5 % 5 % 6 % APP A Table 2 CRC; DAC countries, developing countries, ODA, disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 Time period 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Aver. All sectors 108 798 108 194 116 236 126 871 128 811 124 211 123 971 131 573 139 176 177 024 128 487 Transport and storage 6 095 5 657 5 232 4 881 5 953 5 691 6 808 5 774 6 269 8 581 6 094 Share 6 % 5 % 5 % 4 % 5 % 5 % 5 % 4 % 5 % 5 % 5 % APP A Table 3 CRS: Multilaterals organisations, developing countries, ODA, disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 Time period 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Average All sectors 50 132 50 563 56 146 56 582 59 842 57 197 61 268 82 019 70 356 82 660 62 677 Transport and storage 5 667 5 412 5 496 5 413 5 736 5 572 4 639 3 705 3 869 4 694 5 020 Share 11 % 11 % 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 % 8 % 5 % 5 % 6 % 8 % APP A Table 4 CRS: Official donors minus Japan, developing countries, disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Aver . All sectors without Japan 149 599 153 941 172 910 187 377 192 185 191 590 189 567 215 484 213 012 257 692 192 336 Transport and Storage without Japan 8 850 8 441 8 527 8 593 8 371 8 816 7 356 6 295 5 840 6 716 7 780 Transport and Storage share of ODA without Japan 5,9 % 5,5 % 4,9 % 4,6 % 4,4 % 4,6 % 3,9 % 2,9 % 2,7 % 2,6 % 4,2 % 61 ODA Reporting for T ransport APP A Table 5 CRS: Selected donors, Shares for Transport, Developing countries, ODA, disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 Time period 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Aver . France All sectors 7 416 7 391 7 152 7 797 8 860 9 248 9 747 12 612 11 723 13 166 9 511 Transport and storage 688 907 531 572 808 709 914 901 580 713 732 Share 9 % 12 % 7 % 7 % 9 % 8 % 9 % 7 % 5 % 5 % 8 % Germany All sectors 11 135 13 735 17 873 24 131 24 321 22 547 22 090 25 898 25 897 32 850 22 048 Transport and storage 357 134 539 465 294 325 517 395 183 260 347 Share 3 % 1 % 3 % 2 % 1 % 1 % 2 % 2 % 1 % 1 % 2 % Japan All sectors 15 290 10 543 11 260 11 300 13 082 11 346 12 301 13 725 14 915 19 641 13 340 Transport and storage 3 245 3 098 2 910 2 830 4 040 3 886 4 717 3 906 4 861 6 961 4 045 Share 21 % 29 % 26 % 25 % 31 % 34 % 38 % 28 % 33 % 35 % 30 % United Kingdom All sectors 10 488 10 642 11 405 12 471 12 592 12 998 14 391 12 498 9 406 12 029 11 892 Transport and storage 312 236 226 232 306 197 96 90 68 86 185 Share 3 % 2 % 2 % 2 % 2 % 2 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 2 % EU Institutions All sectors 15 987 17 035 16 930 20 157 19 641 19 423 18 141 23 671 22 412 30 531 20 393 Transport and storage 1 980 1 728 1 799 2 314 2 065 2 130 1 401 1 070 1 441 1 998 1 793 Share 12 % 10 % 11 % 11 % 11 % 11 % 8 % 5 % 6 % 7 % 9 % 62 ODA Reporting for T ransport TRANSPORT ODA FOR GROUPS OF VULNERABLE RECIPIENTS APP A Table 6 CRS: Developing countries, ODA, disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 Time period 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Aver . Transport and storage Developing countries 12 094 11 539 11 437 11 422 12 410 12 702 12 073 10 201 10 701 13 677 11 826 Least developed countries 3 582 3 256 3 244 2 843 3 361 3 837 3 598 3 228 3 088 3 600 3 364 Land locked developing countries 2 172 2 083 1 914 1 673 1 821 1 888 1 568 1 358 1 181 1 296 1 695 Small island developing states 450 485 504 423 437 549 523 670 497 548 509 Shares of transport ODA Least developed countries 30 % 28 % 28 % 25 % 27 % 30 % 30 % 32 % 29 % 26 % 29 % Land locked developing countries 18 % 18 % 17 % 15 % 15 % 15 % 13 % 13 % 11 % 9 % 14 % Small island developing states 4 % 4 % 4 % 4 % 4 % 4 % 4 % 7 % 5 % 4 % 4 % Shares of All ODA Least developed countries 32% 29% 28% 26% 28% 30% 30% 31% 29% 23% 28% Land locked developing countries 17% 17% 16% 16% 16% 16% 17% 17% 15% 13% 16% Small island developing states 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% APP A Table 7 CRS: ODA, average for 2013 - 22; disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 Recipient countries by income groups All sectors Transport and storage Least D eveloped C ountries 28% 28% Other low - income countries 4% 0% Lower - middle income countries 25% 53% Upper - middle income countries 14% 17% More advanced developed countries and territories 0% 0% Countries unallocated by income 30% 2% 63 ODA Reporting for T ransport TRANSPORT ODA BY TRANSPORT SUBSECTORS APP A Table 8 CRS: Official donors, Developing countries, ODA, disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 Time period 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Ave r. Transport policy and administrative management 11 % 13 % 13 % 13 % 10 % 10 % 7 % 11 % 9 % 6 % 10 % Road transport 57 % 57 % 55 % 50 % 46 % 48 % 47 % 45 % 43 % 38 % 49 % Rail transport 21 % 20 % 22 % 27 % 33 % 30 % 34 % 28 % 38 % 45 % 30 % Water transport 6 % 5 % 5 % 4 % 7 % 8 % 8 % 9 % 6 % 6 % 6 % Air transport 4 % 5 % 5 % 4 % 3 % 3 % 3 % 6 % 4 % 4 % 4 % Storage 0 % 0 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 0 % 0 % 1 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Education and training in transport and storage 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % APP A Table 9 CRS: DAC countries, Developing countries, ODA, disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 Time period 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Aver. Transport policy and administrative management 10 % 13 % 14 % 14 % 7 % 9 % 5 % 10 % 7 % 4 % 9 % Road transport 42 % 41 % 40 % 31 % 28 % 33 % 34 % 28 % 25 % 22 % 32 % Rail transport 35 % 33 % 36 % 44 % 51 % 42 % 48 % 43 % 56 % 62 % 45 % Water transport 7 % 5 % 6 % 5 % 9 % 11 % 11 % 9 % 7 % 6 % 8 % Air transport 5 % 7 % 5 % 7 % 4 % 4 % 3 % 9 % 5 % 5 % 5 % Storage 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Education and training in transport and storage 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 1 % 0 % 0 % 0 % APP A Table 10 CRS: Multilaterals organisations, Developing countries, ODA, disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 Time period 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Aver . Transport policy and administrative management 12 % 13 % 11 % 11 % 13 % 14 % 11 % 15 % 14 % 10 % 12 % Road transport 72 % 74 % 72 % 68 % 66 % 59 % 65 % 67 % 65 % 63 % 67 % Rail transport 6 % 6 % 10 % 15 % 16 % 22 % 18 % 10 % 14 % 18 % 14 % Water transport 6 % 3 % 4 % 3 % 3 % 3 % 4 % 6 % 4 % 7 % 4 % Air transport 3 % 3 % 3 % 2 % 2 % 2 % 2 % 2 % 2 % 1 % 2 % Storage 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Education and training in transport and storage 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 64 ODA Reporting for T ransport APP A Table 11 Selected donors, transport sector profiles, Developing countries, ODA, disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 AVERAGE FOR 2013 - 22 EU Institutions United Kingdom Japan Germany France Transport policy and administrative management 10 % 47 % 1 % 25 % 12 % Road transport 54 % 46 % 33 % 15 % 15 % Rail transport 31 % 1 % 52 % 37 % 63 % Water transport 4 % 0 % 8 % 16 % 6 % Air transport 1 % 4 % 7 % 1 % 4 % Storage 0 % 2 % 0 % 1 % 0 % Education and training in transport and storage 0 % 0 % 0 % 5 % 0 % APP A Table 12 Selected Multilateral donors, transport sector profiles, Developing countries, ODA, disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 AVERAGE FOR 2013 - 22 World Bank Group EU In 1 stitutions Inter - American Development Bank Asian Development Bank African Development Bank All Multi Total for Transport and s torage 1 393 1 .792 28 557 567 5 020 % of All Multi from each 28 % 36 % 6 % 11 % 11 % 100 % Split by Subsectors Transport policy 10 % 10% 68% 14% 5% 12% Road transport 77 % 54% 28% 74% 92% 67% Rail transport 4 % 31% 0% 5% 0% 14% Water transport 6 % 4% 2% 4% 0% 4% Air transport 3 % 1% 2% 3% 3% 2% Storage 0 % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Education and training in transport and storage 0 % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 65 ODA Reporting for T ransport APPENDIX B: THE ENERGY SECTOR IN CRS This appendix provides selected information on CRS coding and ODA reporting for the Energy sector in comparison with Transport and Storage. • Overview of the Energy sector code structure in the CRS compared to Transport and Storage ( frequently referred to as ‘Transport’ in the following ). • History and background for (revisions to) the code structure for the Energy sector. • Summary data on volumes of ODA for Energy compared to Transport Current Energy codes compared to Transport codes As described in the main text, ODA for T ransport is reported under sector (DAC 5) code 210 Transport and s torage in the CRS. Th at sector is divided into seven main sub - sector CRS codes , plus seven voluntary subcodes further detailing the codes for ‘Transport policy and administrative management’ and ‘Road transport’. The structure for the Energy sector is more detailed as shown in the Table below . ‘Energy’ has the overall sector (DAC 5) code 230, but the sector is further divided into the subsequent six sector codes 231 - 236 , four of which reflect specific forms of energy generation technologies (Renewable energy; Non - renewable energy; Nuclear; Hybrid), one for Energy distribution , and one for Energy policy . Under these six sectors there are in total 28 5 - digit CRS Codes for reporting Energy ODA, compared to the only seven for Transport. The Energy Sector only has two voluntary codes (under ‘Energy Policy’) compared to the seven for Transport. However, voluntary codes are somewhat less significant as reporting on them is less systematic and data for them was not found via the OECD data explorer. The overall impression is thus a much more nuanced reporting framework for Energy ODA compared to transport, where the Energy purpose code structure also directly reflects sustainability and climate concerns such as the distinction between various renewable versus non - renewable energy r esources. It is also noteworthy that the sector Energy distribution includes CRS code 23642 E lectric mobility infrastructures , an activity closely related to sustainable transport. The following section will report on our (only partly successful) attempts to reconstruct the logic and reasoning behind the present code structure for Energy. 66 ODA Reporting for T ransport APP B Table 1 Current structure of Energy sectors and codes in the CRS DAC5 CODES CRS CODE S Voluntary codes Description 230 Energy 231 Energy Policy 23110 Energy policy and administrative management 23181 Energy education/training 23111 Energy sector policy, planning and administration 23112 Energy regulation 23182 Energy research 23183 Energy conservation and demand - side efficiency 232 Energy generation, renewable sources 23210 Energy generation, renewable sources - multiple technologies 23220 Hydro - electric power plants 23230 Solar energy for centralised grids 23231 Solar energy for isolated grids and standalone systems 23232 Solar energy - thermal applications 23240 Wind energy 23250 Marine energy 23260 Geothermal energy 23270 Biofuel - fired power plants 233 Energy generation, non - renewable sources 23310 Energy generation, non - renewable sources, unspecified 23320 Coal - fired electric power plants 23330 Oil - fired electric power plants 23340 Natural gas - fired electric power plants 23350 Fossil fuel electric power plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS) 23360 Non - renewable waste - fired electric power plants 234 Hybrid energy plants 23410 Hybrid energy electric power plants 235 Nuclear energy plants 23510 Nuclear energy electric power plants and nuclear safety 236 Energy distribution 23610 Heat plants 23620 District heating and cooling 23630 Electric power transmission and distribution (centralised grids) 23631 Electric power transmission and distribution (isolated mini - grids) 23640 Retail gas distribution 23641 Retail distribution of liquid or solid fossil fuels 23642 Electric mobility infrastructures 67 ODA Reporting for T ransport Background and development of Energy Codes Like all CRS Purpose codes the Energy codes originate in the International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC) system) established in the late 1940’es (Benn 2011). The precise historic transposition of ISIC codes to the CRS c ould be recovered from online sources, but the general history is likely similar for Energy, Transport and other sectors. Going forward to available online sources it can be observed that by 1999 all Energy sector codes were included under the same DAC 5 sector , namely code 230 ‘Energy generation and supply ’ (OECD DAC 1999) . In that sense the Energy sector code structure was similar to sector 210 Transport a nd Storage , although already then with more detail to Energy than Transport . As shown in the Table below there were 17 subsector CRS codes (compared to the seven for transport). The split between energy generation and distribution was already reflected in the CRS codes but had not been elevated to separate sectors yet . APP B Table 2 1999 - 2014 version of Energy sector codes in the CRS DAC5 CODES CRS CODE Description 230 23010 Energy policy and administrative management 23020 Power generation/non - renewable sources 23030 Power generation/renewable sources 23040 Electrical transmission/ distribution 23050 Gas distribution 23061 Oil - fired power plants 23062 Gas - fired power plants 23063 Coal - fired power plants 23064 Nuclear power plants 23065 Hydro - electric power plants 23066 Geothermal energy 23067 Solar energy 23068 Wind power 23069 Ocean power 23070 Biomass 23081 Energy education/training 23082 Energy research We have identified two main revision rounds to the energy sector codes, one in 2015/16 and one in 2018/19 leading to the current structure. 2015/16 revision Unfortunately, it has not been possible to retrieve much information regarding the first revision in 2015/16 in terms of who initiated it, what the motivation was, or how the modifications came about. The key source is summary notes from a meeting of the DAC Working Party on Development Finance Statistics in April 2014 (OECD DAC WP - STAT 2014). The notes observe that the OECD Secretariat had p resented an updated proposal for revising purpose codes in the Energy sector category, based on a first version that had already been discussed at the June 2013 WP - STAT meeting (documentation not retrievable) . T he objective for the revision was reportedly “to facilitate the use of the codes for reporting and analytical purposes, including through easier identification of the different energy sources (e.g. renewable energy). †(OECD DAC WP - STAT 2014). It appears that the WP members were in general agreement with revised proposal while some minor adjustments were proposed by representatives of the UK , Germany and t he Netherlands . Subsequent documents confirm that the final modifications were adopted by written proc edure in June 2014. 68 ODA Reporting for T ransport The subsequent “ LIST OF CRS PURPOSE CODES taking effect in 2016 reporting on 2015 flows (updated April 2016) †22 contain s the revised structure where the Energy sector code 230 is split over the new sectors 231 - 236. Comparing the former and the revised CRS purpose code table , we can see how some codes have been “upgraded†to the DAC5 - level: • 23030 ‘Power generation/renewable sources’ became 232 ‘Energy generation, renewable sources ’ • 23020 ‘Power generation/non - renewable ’ sources became 233 ‘ Energy generation, non - renewable sources ’ • 23064 ‘Nuclear power plants ’ became 235 ‘ Nuclear energy plants ’ with 23510 ‘ Nuclear energy electric power plants and nuclear safety ’ as subsector • 23040 ‘Electrical transmission/ distribution’ became 236 ‘Energy distribution’ • 23 0 1 0 ‘Energy policy and administrative management’ became 231 • 234 ‘Hybrid energy plants’ was added as a new sector code. While a stated rationale for this change has not been possible to identify, the changes create a new level of aggregation opportunity (for example renewable versus non - renewable energy) in the OECD Data Explorer. It also groups the different flows in ways that make them easier to understand. Furthermore, the following new CRS - codes were, as far as we can establish, implemented at this point: • 23183 Energy conservation and demand - side efficiency • 23350 Fossil fuel electric power plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS) • 23360 Non - renewable waste - fired electric power plants • 23610 Heat plants • 23620 District heating and cooling In addition, the process to include better ‘budget identifier’ codes (explained in section 4.3.4 of the main report) also led to the introduction in 2015 onwards of two new voluntary codes under 231 Energy policy, • 23111 Energy sector policy, planning and administration • 23112 Energy regulation 2018/19 revision The background for the second revision is more explicitly outlined in available documents. According to OECD DAC WP - STAT (2018; 2019) the primary context was ongoing work to improve the alignment between DSG targets to CRS purpose codes, in this case particularly SDG 7 on Energy. In May 2018 the Sustainable Energy for All Initiative (SEforALL) approached the OECD DAC to signal that the existing CRS classification was not able to properly capture the types of development co - operation projects that would promote decentrali z ed electricity and clean cooking solutions , in the context o n SDG 7 on Energy . The relevance of decentralised electricity solutions as a key element in efforts to achieve universal energy access by 2030 was also confirmed by representatives of t he International Ener gy Agency (IEA) . To that effect it was proposed to establish codes separating small, isolated grids from large , centralized grids However, along the process of revising the code structure several other issues in the existing structure were uncovered, including examples of relevant activities with no matching code, ’messy’ codes absorbing very different types of activities, and ‘empty ’ codes with no use in practice. In total the following seven new energy related codes were finally adopted for use in the reporting of 2018 ODA in 2019 and onwards, while ten other codes were modified. None were removed, despite the reported non - use. • 23231 Solar energy for isolated grids and standalone systems • 23232 Solar energy – thermal applications 22 Available here . 69 ODA Reporting for T ransport • 23631 Electric power transmission and distribution (isolated mini - grids) • 23641 Retail distribution of liquid or solid fossil fuels • 23642 Electric mobility infrastructures • 32173 Modern biofuels manufacturing • 32174 Clean cooking appliances manufacturing, market development and distribution As can be observed from the numbering the two latter new codes are not placed in the 230 - 236 Energy sectors but in ‘Industry’ sectors. Despite the more detailed information available for the 2018/19 revision compared to 2015/16 there are still new elements not directly explained or justified in the documents we recovered for this analysis. This includes the codes for ‘ Retail distribution of liquid or solid fossil fuels ’, and ‘ Electric mobility infrastructures ’, both of which have transport relevance. The following summary observations are proposed as take - aways for the present context : • Current Energy codes are more detailed and nuanced that current Transport codes, while still allowing aggregated analysis for example by renewable versus non - renewable energy • Energy code structure ha d undergone major revisions in at least two rounds within the last ten years, not paralleled in the transport sector , partly to align with sustainability concerns • The Energy sector includes several codes directly capturing finance with a sustainability/climate purpose, including electric mobility charging • Revisions of codes may be triggered by outside events and stakeholder input (in case, the Sustainable Energy for All Initiative ) • Motivation/Justification for adopted changes is not always fully available or clear • Revisions initiated by one concern may evoke other less related issues, and may impinge on coding in other sectors • Revisions to codes can take a long time but not necessarily more than 2 - 3 years from initiation to implementation , even for major modifications 70 ODA Reporting for T ransport Volumes of ODA for Energy compared to Transport The following will present some data sets and graphics to indicate the levels and types of ODA for the Energy sector based on data reported to the OECD CRS system and extracted via the OECD Data explorer. All numbers in million USD constant 2022 prices. By request the data will compare the levels of ODA for Energy with Transport using different metrics and data filters aiming to provide triangulations and confidence of the overall result that finance for the two sectors in general is on the same level, wh ile more diversity can be teased out at disaggregate levels. The figure below s how s annual ODA disbursements to the Transport and Energy sector s from all ODA donors combined , including DAC members, multilateral organi s ations, and others, over the last 10 years . Transport received higher amounts in the first period of the ten - year period while since 2019 it has varied from year to year w hich sector gets the most . If we examine the trend lines, it will seem that Energy is on the rise. However, the surge in ODA for both sectors in 2022, triggered by exceptional support for Ukraine, blurs the interpretation . APP B Figure 1 ODE for transport and Energy, Official donors, Developing countries, ODA, disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 The Table below includes the numbers behind the graph (plus the average for the ten - year period). The following ones provide the same information using different data filters . APP B Table 3 Official donors, Developing countries, ODA, disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 Time period 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Aver Energy 8 415 9 450 10 297 10 134 11 478 11 526 11 761 10 644 10 174 13 051 10 693 Transport and storage 12 094 11 539 11 437 11 422 12 410 12 702 12 073 10 201 10 701 13 677 12 094 Below we look only at bilateral ODA from DAC Member countries. APP B Table 4 DAC countries , Developing countries, ODA, disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 Time period 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Aver Energy 6 095 5 657 5 232 4 881 5 953 5 691 6 808 5 774 6 269 8 581 6 094 02000400060008000100001200014000160002013201420152016201720182019202020212022ODA for Transport and Energy 2013-2022EnergyTransportLinear (Energy)Linear (Transport) 71 ODA Reporting for T ransport Transport and storage 4 502 4 414 5 393 5 595 6 103 5 860 6 536 5 927 5 624 7 609 5 756 The volumes for both sectors increase significantly if data for ODA Commitments are used as in the following two tables instead of ODA Disbursements as in the previous ones. The overall relative balance between the two sectors does not shift much, although Energy is slightly larger here in terms of committed finance compared to actually disbursed finance (above tables) for the ten - year period , for both selections of donor groups (all ODA or only bilateral bi DAC countries) . APP B Table 5 Official donors, Developing countries, ODA, commitments , constant prices USD millions 2022 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Aver Energy 17 033 12 745 16 075 17 930 17 342 17 071 11 544 16 246 10 004 19 650 15 564 Transport and storage 14 233 15 920 17 193 14 113 14 992 15 330 15 255 12 654 12 304 14 343 14 634 APP B Table 6 DAC countries , Developing countries, ODA, commitments, constant prices USD millions 2022 Time period 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Aver Energy 7 882 6 985 8 594 10 016 9 584 9 573 6 964 9 503 5 413 11 634 8 615 Transport and storage 7 012 8 091 9 528 7 617 7 659 6 944 9 228 5 032 6 772 8 391 7 627 The results are much more diverse when we look at individual donor countries which may have individual priorities regarding support to different sectors. The figure below shows the average disbursements per year over the ten - year period for five selected donors. More details are found in the table s below . Germany and Japan seem to have “specialized†in their fields (Energy versus Transport) , although it is clear that Japan is a large - scale donor within Energy as well. France has provided equal amounts to the two sectors. The EU has leaned towards Transport and the UK towards Energy. APP B Figure 2 ODA for Transport and Energy from seleceted donors 050010001500200025003000350040004500FranceGermanyJapanUKEUODA for Transport and Energy aver. 2013-2022TransportEnergy 72 ODA Reporting for T ransport APP B Table 7 : Selected donors, comparing Transport with Energy, Developing countries, ODA, disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 Time period 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Aver. France Transport and storage 688 907 531 572 808 709 914 901 580 713 732 Energy 551 535 546 668 822 655 983 757 624 1 034 718 Germany Transport and storage 357 134 539 465 294 325 517 395 183 260 347 Energy 1 194 1 550 2 019 2 087 1 807 1 864 1 860 1 799 1 522 2 091 1 779 Japan Transport and storage 3 245 3 098 2 910 2 830 4 040 3 886 4 717 3 906 4 861 6 961 4 045 Energy 916 1 048 1 444 1 470 1 797 1 585 1 741 1 550 1 483 2 336 1 537 United Kingdom Transport and storage 312 236 226 232 306 197 96 90 68 86 185 Energy 247 161 168 289 167 319 525 279 351 205 271 EU Institutions Transport and storage 1 980 1 728 1 799 2 314 2 065 2 130 1 401 1 070 1 441 1 998 1 793 Energy 1 187 1 206 948 1 685 1 683 1 520 942 1 543 906 1 358 1 298 Finally, we can compare the disaggregation for each sector. The relative distribution of finance across the subsectors is visualized in the figures below. The aim is to convey an overall impression of the structure with the more granular level in the Energy sector indicated. Actual values are found in tables with various breakdowns and filters for Energy further below and for Transport in Appendix A. Overall results show that t he largest Energy sector for the ten - year period is Energy Generation with renewable sources (33%) followed by Energy distribution (29%), and Energy policy (24%). For the Transport subsectors it is Road (49%), followed by Rail (30%) and Transport policy (10%). This represents disbursements of ODA from all Official Donors. 73 ODA Reporting for T ransport APP B Figure 3 Relative ODA shares for Transport subsectors, Official donors, Developing countries, disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 Vtcpurqtv rqnke{ cpf cfo kpkuvtcvkxg o cpcigo gpv Tqcf vtcpurqtv Tckn vtcpurqtv Y cvgt vtcpurqtv C kt vtcpurqtv ì ì TRANSPORT 74 ODA Reporting for T ransport APP B Figure 4 Relative ODA shares for Energy sectors, Official donors, developing countries, disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 APP B Figure 5 Energy ODA. CRS: Official donors, Developing countries, ODA, disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 Time period 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Aver Energy 8 415 9 450 10 297 10 134 11 478 11 526 11 761 10 644 10 174 13 051 10 693 Energy policy 1 825 2 847 3 042 1 731 1 920 2 893 3 378 2 413 3 242 2 795 2 609 Energy generation, renewable sources 2 546 2 685 3 153 3 573 3 973 3 967 3 292 3 932 3 171 4 546 3 484 Energy generation, non - renewable sources 1 360 1 593 1 191 1 460 1 984 1 374 1 425 1 045 788 1 380 1 360 Hybrid energy plants 0 0 0 0 33 16 12 10 9 17 10 Nuclear energy plants 136 120 91 233 178 91 50 22 42 56 102 Energy distribution 2 549 2 205 2 820 3 138 3 391 3 186 3 605 3 223 2 921 4 256 3 129 Äœpgti{ rqnke{ cpf cfokpkuvtcvkxg ocpcigogpv Ĝì Ĝì Äœpgti{ eqpugtxcvkqp cpfì Äœpgti{ igpgtcvkqp. tgpgycdng uqwtegu / ownvkrng vgejpqnqikgu J{ftq/ gngevtke rqygt rncpvu Uqnct gpgti{ hqt egpvtcnkugf itkfu Uì Ykpf gpgti{ Igqvjgt gpgti{ ì D h ì ì Äœpgti{ igpgtcvkqp. pqp/ tgpgycdng uqwtegu. wpurgekhkgf Eqcn/hktgf gngevtke rqygt rncpvu Q h g ì ì ì Pcvwtcn icu/hktgf gngevtke rqygt rncpvu Ğì Pì Jì P g r ì ì ì Fì Äœngevtke rqygt vtcpuokuukqp cpf fkuvtkdwvkqp *egpvtcnkugf itkfu+ Ĝì T i f ì ì ì T f ì ì Äœpgti{ rqnke{ Äœpgti{ igpgtcvkqp. tgpgy cdng uqwtegu Äœpgti{ igpgtcvkqp. pqp/tgpgy cdng uqwtegu Äœpgti{ fkuvtkdwvkqp ENERGY 75 ODA Reporting for T ransport APP B Figure 6 Energy ODA CRS: Official donors, Developing countries, ODA, disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 Time period 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Aver . Energy 8 415 9 450 10 297 10 134 11 478 11 526 11 761 10 644 10 174 13 051 10 693 Energy policy 22 % 30 % 30 % 17 % 17 % 25 % 29 % 23 % 32 % 21 % 24 % Energy generation, renewable sources 30 % 28 % 31 % 35 % 35 % 34 % 28 % 37 % 31 % 35 % 32 % Energy generation, non - renewable sources 16 % 17 % 12 % 14 % 17 % 12 % 12 % 10 % 8 % 11 % 13 % Hybrid energy plants 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Nuclear energy plants 2 % 1 % 1 % 2 % 2 % 1 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1 % Energy distribution 30 % 23 % 27 % 31 % 30 % 28 % 31 % 30 % 29 % 33 % 29 % APP B Figure 7 CRS: DAC countries, Developing countries, ODA, disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 Time period 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Aver . Energy 4 502 4 414 5 393 5 595 6 103 5 860 6 536 5 927 5 624 7 609 5 756 Energy policy 1 149 942 1 514 1 016 1 155 1 296 1 828 1 200 1 334 1 724 1 316 Energy generation, renewable sources 1 733 1 852 1 791 2 121 2 135 2 286 2 127 2 347 2 103 2 675 2 117 Energy generation, non - renewable sources 563 617 602 897 1 240 843 1 045 855 691 1 282 863 Hybrid energy plants 0 0 0 0 27 16 12 3 9 16 8 Nuclear energy plants 81 78 44 101 98 43 12 5 22 38 52 Energy distribution 9 76 9 24 1 442 1 460 1 449 1 376 1 513 1 516 1 465 1 874 1 399 76 ODA Reporting for T ransport APP B Figure 8 DAC countries, Developing countries, ODA, disbursements, constant prices USD millions 2022 Time period 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Aver . Energy 4 502 4 414 5 393 5 595 6 103 5 860 6 536 5 927 5 624 7 609 Energy policy 26 % 21 % 28 % 18 % 19 % 22 % 28 % 20 % 24 % 23 % 23 % Energy generation, renewable sources 38 % 42 % 33 % 38 % 35 % 39 % 33 % 40 % 37 % 35 % 37 % Energy generation, non - renewable sources 13 % 14 % 11 % 16 % 20 % 14 % 16 % 14 % 12 % 17 % 15 % Hybrid energy plants 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Nuclear energy plants 2 % 2 % 1 % 2 % 2 % 1 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 1 % Energy distribution 22 % 21 % 27 % 26 % 24 % 23 % 23 % 26 % 26 % 25 % 24 % 77 ODA Reporting for T ransport APPENDIX C: REVIEW OF FRAMEWORKS AND TAXONOMIES Introduction A search for contemporary typologies and taxonomies used in multinational accounting, assessment or reporting of financial flows in the context of climate, sustainability and development objectives was conducted via the www . The aim was to create a frame of reference for reconsidering the way transport is categorized and codified in the CRS . Hence the search was limited to such typologies / taxonomies (= frameworks) that explicitly included transport as a sector with underlying categories. Three types of frameworks were selected : • Development F inance Taxonomies ; • Sustainable Finance T axonomies ; • Climate Finance Reporting . For each type one or two specific examples were briefly reviewed. The review ha d no intention to provide a full account of each framework, only to identify how transport is categorized / coded in each framework, plus enough context to allow a consideration of whether the respective frameworks and its transport coding might have relevance for reporting of ODA as well. Development finance Taxonomies The only accessible example found in this category is the taxonomy used by the World Bank to manage its loan portfolio (World Bank 2016). Considering the long - standing key role of the World Bank in international development and the close correspondence of purpose to the OECD DAC and its CRS system it was found relevant to check if this typology could suggest relevant items for transport. The present 2016 version of the taxonomy is an update from previous editions, while no further updates since then. The taxonomy covers 11 sectors including transport. Sectors are defined as “ High - level grouping of economic activities based on the on the types of goods and services produced , and mutually exclusive.†The transport sector (overall Code TX) is divided into the seven categories sho wn in APP C Table 1 . APP C Table 1 Transport Categories in the World Bank Sector Taxonomy and definitions (2016). TX Transportation Rural and inter - urban roads Railways Aviation Ports/Waterways Urban Transport Public Administration – Transportation Other transport No further breakdown is provided in the manual, hence the listing, while almost identical to the CRS codes overall, is less detailed, due to the lack of voluntary codes present on CRS. For each sector the taxonomy provides a straightforward description to help allocate projects including a Definition , examples of Included activities, and examples of Excluded activities. The text for code CT ‘Urban Transport is shown as an example below. 78 ODA Reporting for T ransport Excerpt from the World Bank Sector Taxonomy and definitions (2016) The main differences compared to CRS are, • The addition of the urban transport code ; • The absence of ‘Storage†(included in various industrial sectors) ; • The absence of ‘Education and Training for transport and storage’ . What may be most interesting for the present purpose is the urban transport category, as it explicitly mentions some of the ‘sustainable transport’ modes of interest like ‘public transport’ and ‘non - motorized transport’. Key takeaways from the World Bank Taxonomy, • Close correspondence in terms of concept and purpose to OECD CRS ; • Well established ; • Adding ‘Urban transport’ while avoiding ‘storage’ and ‘education’ in the transport code . Sustainable Finance taxonomies Several frameworks have in recent years emerged to guide investments and expenditures away from unsustainable activities and towards ones believed to underpin Sustainable Development and climate goals. Finance taxonomies and Green Bond standards primarily target business finance but may also extend influence on the development of economic sectors more widely (Ehlers et al 2021). EU Taxonomy Prominent among them is the EU taxonomy for sustainable activities , that entered into force in 2020. The EU Taxonomy is a classification system defining criteria for finance to economic activities that are aligned with the EU’s net zero trajectory towards 2050 as well as other broader environmental goals. It is intended to help EU scale up sustainable investment, by creating security for investors, protecting private investors fr om greenwashing, aiding companies in becoming more climate - friendly , and mitiga ting market fragmentation. 23 23 https://finance.ec.europa.eu/sustainable - finance/tools - and - standards/eu - taxonomy - sustainable - activities_en 79 ODA Reporting for T ransport Several sets of criteria have been defined for allowing finance for each type of economic activity to qualify as sustainable. These criteria have been extensively debated both at the technical and the political level. What is of most interest here is not so much the criteria or their use for guiding private sector investments, but rather the structure of sectors and subsectors adopted for the taxonomy. The sector structure that has emerged is at least partly the result of efforts to create robust categories of relevance for assessing climate and environmental sustainability of a broad range of economic activities. The full Taxonomy structure is complex and still evolving. Sectors are linked but not directly mapped to categories the EU NACE system, an adaptation of ISIC. Activities deemed eligible for sustainable finance with regard to Climate Mitigation or Adaptatio n in the Transport sector currently includes the 17 ‘subsector’ categories shown in APP C Table 2 (O fficial Journal of the European Union (2021). APP C Table 2 Transport Activities in the EU Taxonomy (for Climate Mitigation and Adaptation) Section 6 TRANSPORT (climate mitigation and adaptation) Passenger interurban rail transport Freight rail transport Urban and suburban transport, road passenger transport Operation of personal mobility devices, cycle logistics Transport by motorbikes, passenger cars and light commercial vehicles Freight transport services by road Inland passenger water transport Inland freight water transport Retrofitting of inland water passenger and freight transport Sea and coastal freight water transport, vessels for port operations and auxiliary activities Sea and coastal passenger water transport Retrofitting of sea and coastal freight and passenger water transport Infrastructure for personal mobility, cycle logistics Infrastructure for rail transport Infrastructure enabling low - carbon road transport and public transport Infrastructure enabling low carbon water transport Low carbon airport infrastructure Some categories more indirectly related to transport are found elsewhere in the taxonomy, for example under Energy , ‘Installation, maintenance and repair of charging stations for electric vehicles in buildings and parking spaces attached to buildings’. This is equivalent to the CRS, coding the same activities to the energy sector. For each category the taxonomy describes which activities are considered under the category and defines criteria for sustainable investment in the particular eligible sector. Two examples are briefly indicated in APP C Table 3 (only minor parts of criteria are shown; highlights added). 24 24 Extracted from EU Taxonomy COMPASS https://ec.europa.eu/sustainable - finance - taxonomy/sectors/sector/6/view 80 ODA Reporting for T ransport APP C Table 3 Examples of transport activities and criteria in the EU taxonomy. Based on the EU Taxonomy Navigator Sector Infrastructure for personal mobility, cycle logistics Infrastructure enabling road transport and public transport Goal Contributing to climate mitigation Contributing to climate adaptation Description Construction, modernisation, maintenance and operation of infrastructure for personal mobility, including the construction of roads, motorways bridges and tunnels and other infrastructure that are dedicated to pedestrians and bicycles, with or without electric assist. Construction, modernisation, maintenance and operation of motorways, streets, roads, other vehicular and pedestrian ways, surface work on streets, roads, highways, bridges or tunnels and construction of airfield runways, including the provision of architec tural services, engineering services, drafting services, building inspection services and surveying and mapping services and the like as well as the performance of physical, chemical and other analytical testing of all types of materials and products, and excludes the installation of street lighting and electrical signals. Criteria (extracts) The infrastructure that is constructed and operated is dedicated to personal mobility or cycle logistics: pavements, bike lanes and pedestrian zones, electrical charging and hydrogen refuelling installations for personal mobility devices. 1. The economic activity has implemented physical and non - physical solutions (‘adaptation solutions’) that substantially reduce the most important physical climate risks that are material to that activity. 2. The physical climate risks that are material to the activity have been identified … In addition to the criteria for Climate Mitigation and Adaptation there are also criteria sets for Circular Economy where some transport activities are covered, while the criteria for Sustainable Water use, Pollutions prevention, and Biodiversity so far do not target transport (De la Peña , 2023) To supplement the assessment of the individual environmental goals (Climate Mitigation etc), the principle of ‘Do No Significant harm’ (DNSH) is also applied in the assessment to avoid major negative effects on other areas of concern. This is equivalent to the application of SDG Focus codes in the CRS. The EU is also working on extending criteria to social sustainability. ASEAN taxonomy for Sustainable Finance T he Asean Taxonomy Board has developed the ASEAN Taxonomy for Sustainable Finance , recently issued in its 3 rd version (Asean Taxonomy Board 2024). The ASEAN taxonomy was found worth reviewing here since it is adopted by a group of countries that includes several LMICs and catering to their specific needs ( Asean consist of Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam) . It is not binding in the same sense as the EU one, and some individual Asian nations have also developed own versions. The stated intention of the ASEAN Taxonomy is to serve as a common building block to enable ‘an orderly and just transition’ and foster sustainable finance across the Asean Member States (Asean Taxonomy Board 2024). It covers similar environmental dimensions as the EU one including Climate Mitigation and Adaptation. It applies a classification system to assess economic activities based on criteria also not unlike the EU ones. It has however incorporated Tiers allowing more or less stringent criteria levels to be applied depending on the development stage and priorities of each country. 81 ODA Reporting for T ransport The categories include a ‘red’ label level directly identifying activities that are currently not eligible to obtain climate finance in any tier. There are six focus sectors including Transportation & Storage as shown below. Within these more detailed sector codes are derived from ISIC codes and further split into specific subgroups. Focus sectors of the Asean Taxonomy The transport sector categories are shown in APP C Table 4 . As we only discovered in retrospect, they are practically identical to the EU ones. APP C Table 4 Transport activities in the ASEAN Taxonomy. Source: ASEAN Taxonomy Board (2024). Transportation and Storage - ASEAN TAXONOMY Urban and suburban transport, road passenger transport Transport by motorbikes, passenger cars and light commercial vehicles Passenger interurban rail transport Freight rail transport Infrastructure for road and public transportation, including infrastructure to enable low - carbon land transport Infrastructure for personal mobility, cycle logistics Operation of personal mobility devices, cycle logistics Infrastructure for rail transport Freight transport services by road Sea and coastal freight water transport, vessels for port operations and auxiliary activities Sea and coastal passenger water transport Retrofitting of sea and coastal freight and passenger water transport Inland passenger water transport Retrofitting of inland water passenger and freight transport Infrastructure for water transportation, including infrastructure to enable low - carbon water transport Inland freight water transport Airport infrastructure, including low - carbon assets and facilities Electric vehicle charging stations (outside transport) 82 ODA Reporting for T ransport The following transport subsectors are classified as ‘red’ (not eligible), an element we are not aware should be so clearly specified in the EU Taxonomy. • New roads, road bridges, road upgrades, parking facilities, fossil fuel filling stations, etc.; • Oil tankers or other ships solely transporting coal or oil. This approach applied to ODA could suggest the exclu sion of at least some road investments that today c ould qualify. Some finance for ‘new roads’ m ight however fit under other eligible categories in the taxonomy such as ‘Infrastructure for road and public transportation, including infrastructure to enable low - carbon land transport’. Key takeaways on Sustainable Finance taxonomies, • The transport sector in the two Taxonom ies referenced here is divided into several more categories than the transport sector 210 in CRS ; f or example, t he Taxonomies split s transport services/operations and transport infrastructures, and highlight retrofitting activities ; • The categories include both ‘traditional’ transport subsectors corresponding to categories in CRS (road, rail, water, airport infrastructure) and more ‘novel’ ones of specific interest to sustainability such as, ‘Operation of personal mobility devices & cy cle logistics’; and’ Infrastructure enabling low - carbon road transport and public transport’ ; • Especially the former (traditional) ones are subject to more detailed criteria to filter out ‘unsustainable’ (or sustainability - unaware) activities within them ; If these assessment criteria were applied rigorously to ODA, it could prohibit or filter out large proportions of what today is counted in, such as expanding road networks, forc ing a reconsideration of everything from purpose to design of projects ; • Charging stations etc for EVs are included in both taxonomies but not placed in the transport sector (similar to what is the case for the CRS codes) ; • As the ASEAN example illustrates t he EU taxonomy seems to be a key reference and hence pertinent also in the context of LMICs ; • ASEAN taxonomy seems to more explicitly disallow certain types if transport investments from being eligible for sustainable finance, including new roads and bridges . It is not clear how exclusive the ‘red flags’ are in practice (or would be, if applied to ODA) . Climate Finance Several recent initiatives seek to measure and analyse Climate Finance flows. Notably ‘finance’ here is not considered in the same sense as the Sustainable Finance Taxonomies above target ing the financial sector, but rather targets climate - specific capital provided to real - economy sectors. The primary context for the frameworks on Climate Finance is the tracking of commitments to increase climate finance to developing countries as was agreed at the Paris Climate Summit in 2015 and in other subsequent events and settings. M ajor studies on Climate Finance are global in scope and cover typically both HICs as well as LMICS and private as well as public finance. The Climate Policy Initiative The Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) maps climate finance in its Global Landscape of Climate Finance reports. CPI is among the key sources for the Independent High - level Expert Group on Climate Finance (IHLEG) led by Vera Songwe, Nicholas Stern and Amar Bha ttacharya (Songwe et al 2023). CPI aims to provide the most comprehensive updates to fo r a consistent baseline of climate finance flows. The CPI Landscape reports draw on multiple data sources, while the methodology including data coverage is evolv ing from year to year. The 2023 analysis found that transport accounts for around 17% of all climate finance and as much 26% of all climate mitigation finance, second only to energy. Very little finance for adaptation in transport is uncovered (CPI 2023a) . The figure below from the 2023 landscape report clearly illustrates the role for 83 ODA Reporting for T ransport transport in the total picture of climate finance. More updated information in found in the 2024 Global Climate Landscape Report (CPI 2024). Clip of interactive figure at CPI website The CPI data are disaggregated to subsectors, with seven subsectors in the transport domain. The subsectors are shown below with the absolute and relative volumes of climate finance observed for each subsector over the four years of available data, for illustration. APP C Table 5 Climate Finance for transport subsectors, adapted from data at the CPI website. Transport Sub - sectors 2019 2020 2021 2022 Average Av % Aviation 1 0.2 0.1 0 0% Other/Unspecified 92 64 6 17 45 18% Policy & National Budget Support & Capacity Building 2 2 2 3 2 1% Private Road Transport 62 84 184 295 156 62% Rail & Public Transport 17 11 68 88 46 18% Transport - oriented Urban Development and Infra. 1 0 0 0 0% Waterway 1 2 6 2 1% Total 174 163 263 410 252 100% The subsectors are described in more detail in the methodology note for the report (CPI 2023b). The structure is shown in the table below. 84 ODA Reporting for T ransport APP C Table 6 Extract from the CPI 2023 methodology note. The report does not further explain the background for the chosen sector categorisation but mentions it is “inspired from†other classifications used in a range of international sources including reports by MDBs; taxonomies of the EU and CBI; IPCC WG3’s AR6; and OECD’s CRS purpose codes (OECD, 2021), “among othersâ€. It is however clear, that for example ‘road transport’ is a somewhat different concept in this framework compared with the CRS system. The large share of climate finance for private road transport (62% in the table above) is explained in the report by the exponential growth in the sale of electric vehicles led by China, Western Europe, and the US; the finance of which is obviously not applicable as ODA. According to the methodology note ( Error! Reference source not found. ) Electric vehicle charging is included in transport (as opposed to in the CRS); however is not totally clear from the material report if all EVs charging is included there ( under the ‘Other’ category in Error! Reference source not found. ) or if some is counted under the Energy sector . Road investments per se, is included only if targeted to climate adaptation and resilience , and then under ‘Transit - Oriented Infrastructure and Urban Development’ ( as seen in Error! Reference source not found. , constitute s only a minuscule part of climate finance for transport. ). If speculatively applied to ODA for transport this specification would thereby rule out much of today’s funding from being counted. The available data allows limited breakdown to certain types of finance flows or world regions, but further analysis of the figures is not our aim here. Takeaways are summarized at the end of the Climate Finance section. WRI study on Climate finance for Transport Where as the CPI Landscape provides a top - down perspective on climate finance the WRI study commissioned by the HVT program represents a more bottom - up approach (Zhang e t al.2024.) 25 . Moreover , it zooms directly to climate finance for transport. The study provides an assessment of which types of climate finance flows into the transport sector and looks at barriers for LMICS in accessing the available finance. 839 projects in Asia, Africa, and Latin America are reviewed with more detailed analysis of 14 indicidual projects. The study applies a framework with eight categories of transport typically found eligible for climate finance ( Error! Reference source not found. ), yet it is equally interesting for its discussion of issues in providing a clear and consistent typology to account for climate finance in transport. Overall findings include that road transport projects to construct, rehabilitate, and maintain roads, highways, and bridges and improve connectivity dominate the project pool, followed by projects on public transport, and electric vehicles. Around 20% of the projects are explicitly aim ed at improving resilience. These numbers look quite different from the ones found in the CPI Landscape report reviewed in the previous section. This is most likely due to two factors, a) the present study zooms in on LMICs while CPI 25 This section is based on a draft of the report reviewed in October 2024, Quotes and page numbers refer to that version. 85 ODA Reporting for T ransport has a global scope , and b) the present study counts the number of projects of each type, whereas CPI traces financial volumes. We do not explore the implications of those differences further here. The study has drawn projects from publicly available climate finance databases including 14 multilateral climate funds, MDBs, donor governments, and well as private finance databases. Projects were allocated to different transport modes according to information in the source databases and a typology established by the project as shown in APP C Table 7 APP C Table 7 Transport categories used in Zhang et al. ( 2024) Mode of transport Description Active mobility Walking & cycling infrastructure, bike - share, electric bikes and electric scooters Public transport Buses, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), mass rapid transit, light rail transit Informal transport Minibuses, two - and three - wheelers, motorcycles, mopeds and rickshaws Road infrastructure Improving access to all - weather roads and upgrading street network to enhance climate resilience Rail transport Passenger and freight, railway infrastructure, including fossil fueled locomotives (‘transition finance’) Inland water transport Passenger ships and ferries, freight barges Maritime transport Cargo ships, cruise ships Electric vehicles (EVs) Battery EVs, plug - in hybrid EVs, fuel cell EVs, and charging infrastructure EVs of all types — cars, vans, trucks, buses and two - and three - wheelers The se eight categories area broadly matching main transport modes as in the CRS while aviation has been excluded, and other categories are added. Differences from the CPI typology cited above include ; • Road infrastructure is a separate category (like in CRS) ; • S upport for EVs is more clearly labelled as such , and ; • Active mobility and Informal transport are introduced as separate categories. The authors report challenges with the application of the typology due to variations in the project specifications applied in the different project databases , thus, “Different sources of data use differing definitions for low - carbon transport. For instance, the World Bank’s “sustainable transport†projects might include cycling, walking, and electric mobility which reduce emissions by minimising fossil fuel use. However other projects in the same category, like logistics and airport developments, can involve environmental costs, such a s increased emissions from air travel and construction, and may not align with climate finance criteria. †(Zhang et al, 2024, p. 2). Another inter e sting observation is that some rail projects count as climate finance by donors regardsless if their main purpose is to transport fossil fuels, which might exclude them from receiving funding vis green bonds (Zhang et al, 2024, p. 13). As a final note here, 11% of projects were found not to match any transport modes but focused on ‘facilitating the conditions necessary fo r transitioning to low - carbon transport, such as providing technical assistance, formulating policies …’ (Zhang et al, 2024, p. 13). Such projects would fit well under sector code 21010 ‘ Transport policy and administrative management ’ and/or the more detailed voluntary codes below it. 86 ODA Reporting for T ransport Key takeaways on Climate Finance • Providing Climate finance for development in LMICs is an important global aspiration where frameworks and studies to trace and document trends and commitments are emerging ; • Transport is one of the sectors receiving the most climate finance and therefore a natural focus for attention (and methodology development) ; • Analysis of climate finance for transport appear to apply different and partly ‘custom built’ typologies referring to different (concepts/delimitations) of transport modes ; • Rigorous assessments of climate finance for transport appears to be challenged by both boundary issues and data limitations ; • The volume of global climate finance reported to the transport sector is dominated by investments in electric vehicles in high or medium - low - income countries, which is of limited relevance for the context of ODA for LMICs ; Finance for adaptation is addressed in the CPI framework but plays a very small role ; • The typologies are designed to ‘automatically’ rule out non - climate - oriented finance and hence would imply scoping out significant proportions of today’s ODA; this is not likely a feasible avenue for reforming transport ODA codes ; • Top - down approaches to measure climate finance by counting USD flows (such as the CPI) may ’overlook’ subsectors/modes with small finance flows but potentially of strategic importance for the sustainable development of transport (as indicated by Zhang et a l 2024) . Overall s ummary across frameworks • The international frameworks to classify and record financial flows in the context of climate, sustainability and development objectives employ different perspective s on and categori s ations of the ir targeted transport activities ; • The Frameworks differ in terms of how established and methodologically transparent they are ranging from the well - institutionalized Taxonomy of the World Bank, via the consolidating and expansive European Taxonomy for Sustainable Finance, to the emerging and more explorative frameworks to map global climate finance ; • Adopting elements from the World Bank Development Taxonomy to the CRS transport coding would be fairly straightforward ; In contrast , a f ull transposition of Sustainable Finance Taxonom ies would imply radical reconfiguration of CRS categories for transport ; and raise critical issues of eligibility for parts of today’s Transport ODA ( e.g. large - scale road, bridge, tunnel, p rojects) ; • All frameworks nevertheless contribute r elevant perspectives and categories if CRS coding was to be ad apted t o climate/sustainability/development ; Noteworthy observations include ; š Urban transport is a separate element in 4 o f the 5 frameworks reviewed ; š 4 of the 5 employ detailed distinctions highlighting individual ‘sustain a ble transport’ modes ; š Electrification in 3 of 5 frameworks : š Climate - adaptation appear indirectly in three frameworks , not as transport investment categories but as criteria to fulfil for being eligible as climate finance ; š No framework s include ‘Storage’ or ‘Education for transport ’ as part of transport sector . Overall comparisons across the three main types of frameworks and how they compare to the CRS is shown in the table below. 87 ODA Reporting for T ransport APP C Table 8 Cross - cutting comparison of frameworks Sustainable Finance Taxonomies Climate Finance A nalysis World Bank Se ctor T axonomy Target / Focus Private finance Finance flows Economic Development Sustainability lens Environmentally Sustainable Development; so far in practice mostly climate Climate only Poverty and economic growth Specific transport subsector definitions Yes Yes , but varies across frameworks Yes Status / Stability Young, but consolidat ing while expanding Emergent with some consolidation Consolidated Key Features / ‘Novelties’ compared to CRS code 210 Much wider set of subsectors with more focus on sustainability - oriented activities/investments Different sectoral distinctions with more focus on means of transport (EVs etc.) transport flows and emissions than on infrastructure Urban transport singled out Potential implications by ‘transposition ’ to ODA reporting Pointing ODA towards sustainable and resilient investments / transport modes; Potentially exclusive if eligibility criteria were adopted as ‘filter’ for ODA ; Increa sing complexit y over time; P otential key to enable blended finance Would imply a need for categories for low - carbon transport solutions (transport electrification in ; sustainable modes); more ‘blind’ with regard to positive implications of mobility Limited ; not providing impetus for a ‘sustainable transport’ reformulation of sector categories in transport (except urban) Potential applicability for ODA/CRS Limited Mixed High 88 ODA Reporting for T ransport APPENDIX D: LIST OF INTERVIEWS BMZ – Time and place: October 2. 2024, Online Daphne Groß - Jansen, Deputy Head of Division 423 Energy, Urban Development, Mobility , Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (BMZ) ; Supplementary material provided by: Lisa Plikat, GIZ FCDO - Time and place: October 3. 2024, Online Elizabeth Jones, Senior Transport Advisor – Research, FCDO ; Stephen Coyle, Deputy program management; supporting eight programs FCDO ; Alfie Alsop, Infrastructure advisor at FCDO . OECD - Time and place: October 24. 2024, online Ambassador Carsten Staur, Chair of OECD DAC Committee . JICA - Time and place: October 31. 2024, JICA Headquarters, Tokyo Takayoshi Tange, Director, Operations Management Division, Operations Strategy Department, JICA ; Yoshie Onodera; Operations Management Division, Operations Strategy Department, JICA ; Toru Yoshida; Global Environment Department, JICA ; Masako Tsuzuki; Office for Global Issues and Development Partnership, Operations Strategy Department, JICA . C ONCITO Læderstræde 20 DK1201 - Copenhagen Denmark Tel: 2467 833 3 Email: Info@concito.dk Web: www.concito.dk/en t