Written and maintained by CASRAI Editorial Board
Last updated
Official Development Assistance (ODA) is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) internationally standardised definition of government aid that promotes and specifically targets the economic development and welfare of developing countries. For UK research administrators, ODA matters because a meaningful share of UKRI and Research England funding — and the money attached to it — carries ODA conditions that change what a project can spend on, who can lead it, and what it has to demonstrate.
The three-part eligibility test
UK Research and Innovation applies the OECD’s ODA framework through a three-part test that every ODA-funded application must satisfy:
- Beneficiary country status — the project must benefit a country or countries on the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) list, and that country must not be due to graduate off the list during the life of the project.
- Primary purpose — the project’s primary purpose must be promoting the economic development and welfare of a DAC-list country. A development benefit that is secondary or incidental to a UK-focused study does not qualify.
- Research focus — the research must investigate a specific problem or pursue a specific outcome whose primary impact falls on a DAC-list country, not simply involve DAC-country collaborators or data.
UKRI’s own guidance also recognises research capacity strengthening — building the skills and knowledge base of a low- or middle-income country’s own research system — as a legitimate ODA activity, distinct from delivering a specific scientific finding.
The DAC list
The Development Assistance Committee list specifies every country and territory eligible to receive ODA funding, and the OECD revises it roughly every three years. Because eligibility can change mid-project, UKRI places the burden on the applicant to confirm the DAC status of the target country or countries not just at application, but for the duration of the award. A country’s graduation off the list partway through a multi-year grant is a real compliance event, not a hypothetical one, and should be checked at each reporting point, not assumed static from the proposal stage.
What an ODA compliance statement has to cover
UKRI funding calls that carry ODA conditions require an explicit compliance statement addressing:
- Which DAC-list country or countries the project benefits, and how.
- The specific development challenge the research addresses.
- The expected outcomes and how they promote economic development and welfare in the beneficiary country.
- Why the proposed research approach is appropriate to that development challenge.
- How the delivery strategy — partnerships, capacity building, in-country activity — achieves the intended development impact.
This is reviewed alongside the science case, not as a separate box-ticking exercise: a proposal with a strong scientific rationale but a thin or generic ODA statement is a common reason for a funder to query or reject an otherwise fundable application.
Country-specific restrictions worth knowing
Two DAC-list countries carry additional UKRI restrictions that catch applicants off guard because both remain on the DAC list generally:
- China — UKRI does not support ODA activity where China is the direct beneficiary, though researchers based in China can participate as consortium partners, not as lead applicants.
- India — India cannot be the sole or primary beneficiary of an ODA-funded UKRI project, though it can be a secondary beneficiary, and Indian institutions can collaborate without leading the application.
Where ODA funding sits in the current UK landscape
ODA-eligible UK research funding has moved through several vehicles over the past decade, most visibly the Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) and the Newton Fund, both of which are now closed to new awards. The current primary vehicle is the International Science Partnerships Fund (ISPF), which includes an ISPF Institutional Support Grant administered through Research England. A research office assessing whether a historic funding stream is still live should check the specific scheme’s current status rather than assume GCRF- or Newton-era guidance still applies — ODA eligibility rules have stayed comparatively stable, but the funding programmes built on top of them have not.
Worked example
A UK university partners with institutions in Kenya and Tanzania (both on the DAC list) to develop a low-cost water-quality monitoring method, with the explicit aim of strengthening local water-testing capacity and improving public health outcomes in those countries. The primary purpose is development-focused, the beneficiary countries are DAC-listed, and the project investigates a specific, named problem with impact concentrated in the partner countries. This clears the three-part test and can be submitted as ODA-eligible.
Counter-example
A UK-based comparative study that happens to include a DAC-listed country as one of several international sites — for instance, a multi-country survey where the UK, Germany, and Kenya are simply three data points in a broader methodological comparison — is not automatically ODA-eligible. The DAC-list country’s involvement is incidental to a study whose primary purpose is answering a UK- or Europe-centred research question, not promoting Kenya’s own economic development and welfare. Labelling this ODA to access a specific funding pot without a genuine development-focused primary purpose is exactly the mismatch UKRI’s compliance review is designed to catch.
Related reading
For the wider international-funding landscape this sits inside, see CASRAI’s guides on the NIHR Research Delivery Network and NIHR Research Support Service for how UK-based clinical and applied health research is delivered once funded, and the grants management pillar for the broader funding-lifecycle picture this fits into.
