The Great Contraction: OECD DAC Preliminary ODA Data 2025

-23.1%

Largest ODA Fall in History

$174.3B

Total DAC ODA (2025)

0.26%

ODA / GNI (DAC Average)

4 of 33

Meet 0.7% GNI Target

Historic Decline Official Development Assistance fell 23.1% in real terms in 2025 — the largest annual contraction ever recorded. The United States alone drove three-quarters of the decline with a 56.9% reduction, the single largest cut by any provider in any year. For the first time, all five largest providers simultaneously reduced ODA.

Data source: OECD Development Co-operation Directorate, DCD(2026)8, preliminary ODA levels released 9 April 2026. All values in USD million, constant 2024 prices, grant equivalent basis unless stated otherwise.

The OECD's preliminary data for 2025 reveals an aid architecture in crisis. Total ODA from DAC members fell to $174.3 billion, erasing all gains made since the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The decline was concentrated but broad-based: 26 of 34 members reduced their ODA, with the five largest providers — France, Germany, Japan, the UK, and the US — accounting for 95.7% of the total fall.

Germany has become the world's largest donor for the first time in the 66-year history of DAC reporting, surpassing the United States by just $135 million. But this is a crown earned by default: Germany's own ODA fell 17.4%. Meanwhile, humanitarian assistance collapsed by 35.8%, core UN funding declined by a record 27.0%, and bilateral development programming experienced its largest-ever contraction.

DAC Donor Landscape

ODA Rise and Fall: All DAC Donors, 2024 → 2025

The bubble chart below maps every DAC member's ODA performance. The x-axis shows total 2025 ODA volume, the y-axis shows year-on-year change, and bubble size reflects each country's ODA as a share of GNI. Green bubbles indicate the four countries meeting the 0.7% GNI target — a number that has shrunk from seven in 2022.

Source: OECD DCD(2026)8. Bubble size = ODA as % of GNI. Green = meets 0.7% target.

Key Insight The United States sits as the extreme outlier at -56.9%, dragging the entire DAC average down. Hungary is the sole major positive outlier at +45.7%, though from a very low base ($303M). Only eight countries increased ODA: Denmark, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Spain, and Sweden.

Donor Rankings

The New Top Five — A Leadership by Default

The reshuffling of the top donor rankings reflects a structural shift in the aid landscape. The G7's share of total ODA has fallen below 70% for the first time since 2012, while DAC-EU countries now account for 49.6% of the total, up from 41.7% in 2024.

Top 10 DAC Donors: 2025 vs 2024

ODA in USD billions (grant equivalent basis), with year-on-year change

Source: OECD DCD(2026)8, Table 1

GNI Performance

The Vanishing 0.7% Commitment

Only four countries now meet the UN target of 0.7% ODA/GNI: Norway (1.03%), Luxembourg (0.99%), Sweden (0.85%), and Denmark (0.72%). The DAC average has collapsed to 0.26% — the lowest since 2019. The United States stands at just 0.08%, its lowest ratio in modern history.

ODA as Percentage of GNI (2025)

All 33 DAC members, with 0.7% UN target line

Source: OECD DCD(2026)8, Table 1

Humanitarian Aid & Ukraine

The Aid Geopolitics Paradox

Two interconnected trends define the 2025 data. First, humanitarian aid has fallen by 35.8% to $15.5 billion — a devastating contraction at a time when the UN estimates record numbers of people in need. Second, Ukraine has become the single largest recipient of ODA in history: $44.9 billion including EU Institutions, surpassing all 44 least developed countries combined ($28.1 billion) and all of Sub-Saharan Africa ($29.2 billion).

-35.8% Humanitarian Aid Decline

$44.9B Ukraine ODA (incl. EU)

-26.3% ODA to Sub-Saharan Africa

Top 10 Humanitarian Donors: 2023 → 2024 → 2025

Three-year trajectory of humanitarian aid for the ten largest DAC donors by 2024 volume. 2025 figures from the OECD April 2026 preliminary release (constant 2024 prices).

Country		2023 → 2024 → 2025	Δ 23–24	Δ 24–25

Source: OECD DCD(2026)8, OECD April 2026 preliminary release (constant 2024 prices)

ODA Allocation: Ukraine vs LDCs vs Sub-Saharan Africa

Bilateral ODA in 2025, USD billions (including EU Institutions for Ukraine)

Source: OECD DCD(2026)8

Geopolitical Shift While total DAC bilateral ODA to Ukraine fell 38.2%, 23 of 33 DAC countries actually increased their Ukraine aid. The overall decline was driven almost entirely by the US (-91.1%). EU Institutions increased Ukraine support by 65.2%, including $20.4 billion via the G7 ERA loans initiative.

Outlook

The Road Ahead: Further Cuts Expected

The OECD projects a further 5.8% decline in DAC ODA budgets in 2026, with ODA remaining 6.6% below 2025 levels as late as 2028. These projections do not account for the potential impact of the current Middle East crisis, which could exacerbate funding pressures further. Between 2019 and 2023, ODA had grown 32.7% in real terms. That entire decade of growth has now been erased in just two years.

Annual ODA Growth Rate (Real Terms)

Year-on-year percentage change in total DAC ODA, 2020–2025

Source: OECD DCD(2026)8

“The decline in ODA is unprecedented in scale and scope.”

— Carsten Staur, DAC Chair, April 2026

Policy Implications

What This Means for the International System

Protect Core Development Funding

The -26.3% fall in bilateral development programmes is the largest on record. Reversing this trend requires ring-fencing core development budgets from geopolitical and fiscal pressures.

Halt the Humanitarian Free-Fall

A 35.8% decline in humanitarian aid comes at a time of record global needs. Donors must restore humanitarian budgets as a minimum floor, not a discretionary allocation.

Diversify the Donor Base

Non-DAC providers grew 4.5% while DAC fell 23.1%. The UAE (+55.5%), Qatar (+23.4%), and Türkiye ($7.5B) are increasingly significant. Integrating these actors into the architecture is essential.

Address the Ukraine-LDC Imbalance

A single recipient now absorbs more ODA than all 44 LDCs combined. The international system needs mechanisms to prevent geopolitical priorities from crowding out the world's poorest.