Acknowledgements. on Population and Development (EPF) Weltbevolkerung) Rue Montoyer 23 Place du Luxembourg 2/ Brussels 1050 Brussels

Transcription

1 1

2 Acknowledgements DSW and EPF would like to thank UNFPA for making this publication possible, and Erik Beekink and Paulien Hagedoorn for the data and the generous assistance provided by the UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project. We would also like to thank the following researchers, writers and editors for their substantial contributions: Anna Dahlman, Miguel Ongil, Dominika Jajkowicz and Eddie Wright. Special thanks are also due to Karen Hoehn and Neil Datta for overseeing the project and to Andrew Pavao and Cecile Vernant for their feedback on the first draft of Euromapping 212. Layout and Design: Printing: Drukkerij A. Beullens Printed in November DSW and EPF European Parliamentary Forum DSW (Deutsche Stiftung on Population and Development (EPF) Weltbevolkerung) Rue Montoyer 23 Place du Luxembourg 2/3 1 Brussels 15 Brussels Belgium Belgium secretariat@epfweb.org info-eu@dsw-brussels.org

3 Abbreviations ACP African, Caribbean, Pacific Countries APHRC African Population and Health Research Center BMGF Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation BMZ German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development CRS Creditor Reporting System (of the OECD/DAC) CSO Civil Society Organisation DAC Development Assistance Committee DCI Development Cooperation Instrument DFID Department for International Development DSW Deutsche Stiftung Weltbevoelkerung EC European Commission EDF European Development Fund EU European Union Institutions and Member States of the European Union EU MS European Union Member States EU-12 New Member States of the European Union since 24 EU-15 Member States of the European Union prior to 24 EU 27 All 27 European Union Member States EPF European Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development FP Family Planning ICPD International Conference on Population and Development ICPD PoA Programme of Action of ICPD IPCI International Parliamentarian Conference on the Implementation of ICPD GFATM The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria GIZ German Agency for International Cooperation GNI Gross National Income HIV/AIDS Human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome IIHMRH Indian Institute of Health Management Research MFF Multi-annual Financial Framework MDGs Millennium Development Goals MNCH Maternal, Newborn and Child Health NIDI Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute NGO Non-governmental Organisation ODA Official Development Assistance OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development PEPFAR President s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief RF Resource Flows Project (UNFPA/NIDI) RH Reproductive Health RMNCH Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn and Child Health SRH Sexual and Reproductive Health SRHR Sexual And Reproductive Health and Rights SSC South-South Cooperation STD Sexually Transmitted Disease UK United Kingdom UNAIDS United Nations Joint Programme on HIV/AIDS UNCPD UN Commission for Population and Development UNFPA United Nations Population Fund US United States USD United States Dollars 3

4 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 2 Abbreviations 3 Table of Contents 4 Preface 5 Introduction 7 Executive Summary 9 Findings and Recommendations 1 Spotlights 11 I: London Family Planning Summit 14 II: The Added Value of EU Population Assistance 16 III: Donors Agree on New Tracking of RMNCH 19 Official Development Assistance in 21 Population Assistance in 31 Donor Profiles 43 Annex 1: Footnotes on Donor Reporting 69 Annex 2: Methodology 7 Annex 3: Definitions 74 Annex 4: Donor Data Overview 76 Annex 5: Bibliography 78 4

5 Preface Since 1997 the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and the Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute (NIDI) have been cooperating in the monitoring of global financial flows for population activities. In 25 the Indian Institute of Health Management Research (IIHMR) and in the African Population and Health Research Center (APHRC) joined the project, which is generally known as the Resource Flows (RF) Project. The aim of the RF project is to monitor the implementation of the Programme of Action agreed upon at the International Conference on Population and Development, held in Cairo in 1994, and reinforced by the Declaration of Commitment developed at the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on HIV/AIDS in 21. Each year, the RF team collects primary data from public and private sources in donor countries, developing countries and countries in transition in order to document the global financial flows for population activities. The Secretary-General of the United Nations reports the findings to the Commission on Population and Development. The Report of the Secretary General and UNFPA s Financial Resource Flows for Population Activities Report represent the core output of the RF project. Over the years the RF team developed an impressive database. A number of organisations have used the data for advocacy, policy-making and scholarly research. The RF database was the main source to document the shift towards AIDS prevention and treatment relative to other population programmes including family planning, and to determine who carries the burden of sexual and reproductive health programmes in developing countries and countries in transition. Since January 212 a user friendly database, which contains the most important indicators of the RF project, has been available on the internet ( The Euromapping publication documents how European countries are living up to their international funding commitments to support developing countries population efforts. It combines data from two sources: the OECD/DAC Creditor Reporting System (CRS) and the RF project. The donor survey that is carried out by the RF project supplements the data in the CRS database with data from carefully 5

6 Preface selected foundations, UN agencies, international NGOs and development banks and with data on population activities in a much greater detail than is feasible in the CRS database. This approach, in which the RF team coordinates its data collection activities with other major actors, has proven to be successful and has been welcomed by providers and users of data. Like previous reports, Euromapping 212 again is a rich source of information on financial resource flows originating in Europe. The publication is uniquely informative because of its coverage and depth. This publication deserves to be well received and should stimulate debate on how well countries in Europe both individually and together are carrying a fair burden of global development and universal access to basic services, including services that improve sexual and reproductive health, especially in this period of economic austerity. When financial resources are limited, donors are increasingly concerned about getting value for money. Interest is shifting from levels of spending and spending commitments to outcome. To link spending to outcome, adequate resource tracking is essential. Tracking and monitoring of resource flows and the dissemination of that information also contribute to transparency and accountability. Euromapping is a great initiative and NIDI gladly assisted DSW (Deutsche Stiftung Weltbevoelkerung) and the European Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development in the preparation of Euromapping 212. Prof. dr. Leo van Wissen Director Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute (NIDI) 6

7 Introduction Brussels, November 212 The 212 edition of Euromapping comes at an exciting time for the population and development community. If rapid population growth were being fuelled by the conscious choices of women to have large families then human rights activists would have little reason to worry. But the simple fact remains that the world s population is rocketing because more than 2 million women cannot access the modern forms of family planning that they desire, and therefore cannot control when they have children or how many they have. A lack of funding, political will, supplies and services, and misogynistic forces at work within society are denying women in the developing world the right to be able to control when they have children and how many they have: an ability that is a central factor in any country s route to economic development. On the back of the monumental landmark of the world s 7 billionth inhabitant being born in, the international community at last woke up to the urgent nature of the issue and the simple neglect of women s rights at its root. On World Population Day (7th July) the UK Government with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the United Nations Population Fund brought together the international community and pledged their commitment to enabling 12 million women to gain access to family planning by 22. The funds raised by those present surpassed the expectations set by the Family Planning Summit s Organisers, as 4.6 billion USD of new funds were raised. A great deal of the gap in funding for family planning remains to be filled. This is coupled with growing opposition to SRHR at the EU level. Despite strong EU commitment to SRHR and the Cairo Agenda, population assistance from the EU institutions is falling. 7

8 A growing number of anti SRHR advocates are trying even harder than ever to deny women the ability to control their fertility, and the global network is growing across Europe and the Atlantic, and around the world. But let us remember that data from the 212 Eurobarometer shows that 85% of EU citizens support continued European ODA and health ODA despite the financial crisis, with a majority in favour also of increasing assistance. The message of this year s Euromapping is therefore one of hope for the future of women, humankind and the planet. But it is also one of warning, for we cannot and must not stand idly by and watch as the personal convictions of a small number of people are used to roll back the tremendous progress achieved for the sexual and reproductive health and rights of the world s most vulnerable people so far. This edition of Euromapping features the most recent data on general ODA for based on OECD/DAC data, and more detailed statistics on population assistance for based on the UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows research. And as ever, we hope that it can serve as a useful resource for the population and development community in advocating for our leaders to make population assistance a development priority. Karen Hoehn Vice Executive Director, Director of International Affairs DSW (Deutsche Stiftung Weltbevoelkerung) Neil Datta Secretary European Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development (EPF) 8

9 Executive Summary Findings and Recommendations 9

10 Executive Summary Main Findings on General ODA in Total ODA in absolute terms increased slightly in while ODA as % of GNI decreased to.45% across all donors -.42% for EU Member States. This is far from the.7% commitment. The US remains the biggest donor, while the EU together with other European donors constitute the largest bloc of donors, accounting for 64% of total ODA. The UK is on schedule to achieving the.7% of GNI to ODA commitment, being the third largest donor in absolute terms after Germany. Impressive increases in total ODA volumes are reported in Australia (+25%), Switzerland (+34%) and Sweden (+24%). The European countries hit hard by financial crisis, including Spain, Greece and Portugal, all saw large cuts in total ODA. Main Findings on Population Assistance in Between and, population assistance increased across all sectors to 11.7 billion USD. The US is by far the largest donor to population assistance in absolute terms and also in terms of share of total US ODA: 18% of total US ODA is directed towards population assistance the majority towards HIV/AIDS. This means the US contributes to 47% of global population assistance. Of total ODA from the EU institutions, population assistance accounts for less than 2% - meaning 1.7% of global population assistance. Apart from the US, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and the UK, few of the donors are within reach of the IPCI commitment to spend 1% of total ODA on population assistance. Several donors, including Ireland, Sweden, Norway and the EU institutions show a negative trend in population assistance as % of total ODA between and. This seems to imply that population assistance is losing priority compared with other sectors among these donors. 1

11 Executive Summary Swedish population assistance also decreased in absolute terms from 326 million USD in to 263 million USD in. In the same time period, Norwegian population assistance decreased from 27 million USD to 257 million USD - with a dip in down to 25 million USD. Spain also accounts for large decreases, mostly in funds towards HIV/AIDS and general contributions. The UK is the largest European donor in absolute terms, followed by the Netherlands, Germany and France. General contributions constitute a large share of most countries population assistance. HIV/AIDS and STD projects account for 66% of all population assistance, while funding for RH increased and now accounts for 24% of population assistance. Recommendations Donors and partner governments should ensure that commitments made at the London Family Planning Summit are additional to previous commitments, and that they are channelled and implemented in a transparent and efficient way. Donors must enable better tracking of Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (RMNCH) funds, for example by using the new policy marker. (1) The EU should honour previous commitments to population assistance and based on strong political commitments to the sector, as well as its wide outreach match political commitments with aid disbursements. All donors must ensure progress towards commitments to quantity and quality of aid and, in line with pursuing the MDGs on RMNCH, increase funding before the expiration of the MDGs in 215. (1) See Spotlight III. 11

12 12

13 Spotlights I: London Family Planning Summit II: The Added Value of EU Population Assistance III: Donors Agree on New Tracking of RMNCH 13

14 Spotlight I London Summit Brings Renewed Attention to Family Planning In 212, the EU Development Commissioner Andris Piebalgs stated that helping to provide family planning services is one of the best investments that a country can make into its future and announced that the EU committed to provide 23 million EUR to family planning services. While family planning was not included in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the Family Planning Summit - co-hosted by DFID and BMGF in July offered a renewed focus on the sector, also resulting in commitments from partner countries. Malawi stated for example that the country would raise the minimum age for marriage to 18 years by 214 to ensure that there is no parenthood before adulthood. Malawi will also create a budget line for contraceptives to enable better monitoring of funds. Uganda, Zambia and Pakistan all announced increased budgets for family planning supplies. While partner governments have a responsibility to realise their commitments and increase health budgets to the extent they can, donors cannot leave the sector to partner governments alone. Yet total donor support to family planning in was at more or less the same level as in 1999 while total population assistance had increased. In 1999, family planning accounted for around 3% of total population assistance, while the share in was down to 7%. One reason for this is that investments in family planning have not increased to the same extent as investments in HIV/AIDS in fact aid to family planning more or less stagnated in the last decade. Renewed focus on this sector is direly needed, and may help push total population assistance in the right direction. The summit aimed at raising commitments from global leaders to support the rights of an additional 12 million women and girls in the world s poorest countries to use contraceptive information, services and supplies, without coercion or discrimination, by 22. (3) In addition to this, partner governments committed to continue supporting the rights of the around 26 million women who currently have access to modern contraceptives in their countries. This would reduce maternal and new-born child mortality, unintended pregnancies and also reduce the number of abortions. The London Family Planning Summit (212). Available: (3) Ibid 14

15 Spotlight I While the Family Planning Summit brought attention and commitments from donors, country governments and civil society, (4) some of these may simply restate previous commitments such as the Muskoka initiative, the EU 1 billion EUR Millennium Development Goals Initiative, the Every Woman Every Child campaign, and commitments already made in long-term budgets. The European Commission (EC) pledge of 28.3 million USD or 23 million EUR included 15 million EUR for CSOs something that was already foreseen under the DCI Investing in People budget line for 213. In total, donors pledged an additional 2.6 billion USD by 22. This would mean raising annual average disbursements by million USD until 22, an increase of 39% when compared with, when the total donor support to family planning was million USD. It is still not clear how these additional funds will be channelled, and monitoring will be crucial. As data on population assistance at this moment is only available up until, it remains to be seen whether political commitments made at the Summit will indeed help close the unmet need for family planning services before 22, or whether they will remain empty promises. Commitments made by donors (5) Commitments Increased contribution Increase in (USD millions) to reach 12 million annual contribution more women by 22 by 215 Australia Denmark European Commission 28.3 n/a France Germany Netherlands Norway 2 25 Sweden 32 8 United Kingdom 8 1 TOTAL 1, (4) Ibid (5) The donors included in this table are the donors whose contributions to population assistance are reported on by Euromapping 212. For a full list of commitments and narratives from all donors and organisations, please see (ibid). 15

16 Spotlight II The Added Value of Increased EU Population Assistance As stated in the European Consensus on Development, the EU supports the full implementation of strategies to promote sexual and reproductive health and rights, but this is only one of several political commitments from the EU to population assistance, reproductive health and family planning. (6) The EU has always been supportive of SRHR at the international level, notably at moments when other actors have withdrawn. SRHR, family planning, the HIV/AIDS response and research and development for new treatments as means to achieve the health-related MDGs, are all stated priorities for the EU development policy. Not only are they stated priorities but they also underpin fulfilment of the right to health and gender equality which are among the core values of the union. The EU has also made substantial funding commitments notably in favour of education and health, which include population assistance. For the current DCI the EC has confirmed a 2% EU ODA benchmark to health and education. Indeed there is an added value of having the EU present in the health and population sector. With its 14 delegations worldwide, representing 27 Member States and with the EC managing one of the world s biggest development budgets, the EU can support larger projects and in countries where many other donors are not present. According to the Thematic Evaluation of the European Commission support to the Health sector, (7) the EU is best placed to support activities to the underserved and underprivileged populations, especially in remote areas. Given its history, the diversity of health systems in Europe and its regional nature, the EU could also share best practices. It could take the lead in global health debates on issues such as health systems strengthening and social protection systems, and it could do so both at the international level and in political dialogue with partner countries. Finally with its seven-year budget, the EU offers a higher degree of predictability than most other donors. (6) See e.g. the European Consensus on Development (25); the EC MDG Initiative for progress on the most off-track MDGs (); the EC Communication and Council conclusions on the EU role in global health (); the Council Conclusions on the Millennium Development Goals () (7) Thematic Evaluation of the European Commission support to the health sector (212) Available: 16

17 Spotlight II Despite this, EU aid to health and population has decreased in the last few years. Total EU institution funding for population assistance in was the lowest in absolute terms since 23 a decrease from 3.2% of total ODA in 23 to 1.6% in. Globally, the EU institution share of global population assistance went down from 5.9% in 23 to 1.7% in about the same level as in year 2 when the MDGs were launched. There are, however, other players which have increased their spending and commitment to population policies. Among the bigger donors, the UK directed 7.7% of total ODA to population assistance in. Others are stepping up their support to the issue. French population assistance as share of total ODA increased from.8% in 23 to 3.1% in. At the European Development Days in Brussels in October 212, French government officials repeatedly called for an increased focus on SRHR and gender equality as cross-cutting issues in the new development frameworks. In the same time period, 23-, German population assistance as a share of total ODA increased from 1.9% to 2.8%. Some of the smaller EU Member States have higher shares of total ODA devoted to population assistance, but given that their total ODA is smaller than donors such as France, Germany or the EU institutions, this bigger share does not translate into bigger absolute spending on population assistance. Some examples are Sweden, the Netherlands and Ireland, all countries contributing between 6-1% of total ODA to population assistance in 23-. However, these figures become dwarfed compared with US funding for population 18% of total US ODA was directed to population assistance in, the major part going towards HIV/AIDS and STD projects. Harmonisation and concentration of donor efforts reflect the aid and development effectiveness principles and are to be commended as long as the following necessary conditions are fulfilled. Firstly, the total funding commitments need to be achieved to ensure predictability but above all, outcomes for the poor. If one of the bigger donors changed policy direction and withdrew from population assistance, it would have a huge impact on total aid in the sector which already sees mixed progress on MDG5 and SRHR indicators. 17

18 Spotlight II Secondly, expertise must be retained. As pointed out by the external evaluation of the EC support to the health sector, lack of health expertise in the EU delegations limits the EU s ability to have a leading role in support for health sector in some countries. Thirdly, the donor coordination should be done at country s level based on the country needs and not in political headquarters of EU donors, to avoid the risk of creating a donor-driven development and aid agenda. The level of EU funding through the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and its associated external instruments are currently being negotiated and the programming of these instruments has started. The Global Public Goods and Challenges and the intra ACP funds the thematic programmes of the DCI and the European Development Fund (EDF) are among these new instruments. This process of negotiation and programming is a good opportunity for the EU to fulfil its commitment to SRHR and to reinforce the role of SRHR as a key sector of sustainable development. 18

19 Spotlight III Donors Agree on New Way of Tracking of Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn and Child Health The Euromapping report focused on the need to improve transparency of reporting population assistance to the OECD-DAC CRS database to enable better monitoring and stronger accountability in this sector. The reason that this publication uses and greatly values data from NIDI is that there is currently no way of obtaining data from the OECD for aid flows going towards the different ICPD categories. In the OECD Working Party on Statistics (OECD-STAT) invited donors and other stakeholders, including Euromapping partners Countdown 215 Europe, DSW, EPF and NIDI, to give their view on how to improve reporting on population assistance. After consultations between OECD members, the OECD-STAT made progress on introducing a new policy marker to track spending on maternal, newborn and child health in June 212. (8) The adoption of a new way of reporting RMNCH to the OECD-DAC CRS database is based on Recommendation 9 from the Commission on Information and Accountability for Women s and Children s Health, which asks for a way of capture all aid flows directed to RMNCH. The recommendation further says that while a comprehensive way of doing this may not be feasible to develop in the short run, a simple method should be implemented as a midterm solution. Introducing policy markers is only an interim solution, the idea being to in addition to the project description and purpose code of each entry in the CRS database include an RMNCH policy marker to indicate whether a project includes funds directed towards these sectors. The RMNCH share of a project can be determined in different ways; the OECD-STAT opted for adopting a policy marker with quartile markers for implementation in 213. Quartile markers can quantify resource flows on a -4 scale, something that a -1 marker with a simple yes/no option had not been able to do to the same extent. While the introduction of a policy marker is a step forwards for transparency of RMNCH funding, and it might be useful for qualitative analysis, it will still not be possible to estimate the precise amounts directed to different sectors of population assistance. This is because even the quartile markers will not be broken down by ICPD category, and the quartile markers will not reveal the exact amounts of funds directed to RMNCH. Furthermore, much will depend on to what extent donors will have the capacity and understanding to use the marker to show which projects include funds going to RMNCH. (8) OECD-DAC Report of Recent Meetings (212) Available: 19

20 2

21 Official Development Assistance in Global and Historical Disbursements 21

22 Official Development Assistance in (net disbursements in billion USD) ODA Volume from 2 to 16 Financial Crisis All Donors, Total 12 DAC Countries, Total DAC EU Countries Source: OECD/DAC CRS Database In total aid volumes from all donors increased to billion USD, which represents a small increase in absolute terms compared to. DAC EU members contributed 72.3 billion USD in, increasing their contributions by 2 billion USD over the last year. Similarly, the major economies of the G7 raised their contributions from 88.5 billion USD to 92.1 billion USD in when compared to. However, total ODA efforts represented as a percentage of GNI dropped for the first time since, breaking a persistent trend of annual increases. This decrease reflects fiscal and budgetary constraints in several donor countries, which presumably affected their ODA budgets. Traditionally, the DAC EU countries emerge as the most generous donors (in terms of ODA/GNI ratio) ahead of non-eu DAC members such as the US and Japan, and this is also the case in. ODA Efforts from 1994 to as % of GNI (% of GNI) DAC Members EU Member States EU 15 Financial Crisis Source: OECD DAC EC Communication: Financing for Development Graphics, April

23 Official Development Assistance in Reaching an ODA level of.7% of GNI is not a new target but was agreed on already in the 197s. In the 22 Monterrey Consensus on Financing for Development, it was again endorsed by global leaders and development agencies as a way of increasing funds for development. Since 22 donors have increased their ODA, but due to the large cuts they had seen in previous years they have only just managed to surpass the overall levels that the development sector saw in the mid-199s. EU leaders once again recommitted to the.7% in the May 212 Council Conclusions, (9) but the European Commission has admitted that it seems unlikely that the collective targets will be met by 215. (1) This year total aid flows from the EU Member States represents.42% of their GNI. In a majority of the EU Member States failed to meet their interim targets (.51% ODA/GNI for the EU15 and.17% ODA/GNI for the EU12). Moreover, in ODA from the EU Member States dropped from.44% of GNI to.42 % compared to, making it evident that the EU as a total is not progressing towards its commitment to provide.7% of its GNI by 215 or to the Monterrey consensus. It is worth noting that ODA as % of GNI continued to rise during the two first year of financial crisis this can most likely be explained by GNI dropping in these years, which made ODA account for a larger share of GNI although ODA levels themselves did not necessarily increase. The lack of progress in achieving the collective targets set for the EU 27 is the result of mixed performances by its Member States. Whilst some Member States are close to reaching their targets others are far away, and some of the EU s biggest economies are the most off-course. Low or negative economic growth in the EU due to the financial crisis, combined with austerity measures introduced by the Member States, led to restrictions on their development assistance spending. Furthermore, although some of the smaller economies perform well in terms of ODA/GNI, their GNI is simply not big enough to compare with the ODA volumes contributed by the bigger economies. In other words, the biggest economies are responsible for a large share of the global ODA funding gap. (9) Council Conclusions: Increasing the Impact of EU Development Policy: an Agenda for Change (212) Available: (1) EU Accountability Report on Financing for Development (212) Available: 23

24 Official Development Assistance in Among the non-eu DAC members, Australia shows an impressive 25% increase in its ODA flows, while Korea increased ODA by 12.6%. Looking at European countries, Switzerland increased ODA flows by 34.2% and Sweden, with a 23.7% increase in absolute terms, strengthened its position as one of the most generous donors in terms of share of ODA/GNI. Greece sharply reduced ODA by 35%, and in light of the financial crisis this is unlikely to be reversed in the next year. Likewise, Spanish ODA fell by 28.3% and is likely to receive further massive cuts both in 212 and in 213. Among the smaller donors, we see some mixed results; while Cypriot ODA fell by 31.5%, Lithuania and Romania saw increases of around 3%. Top Global ODA Donors (net disbursements in billion USD) EU Member States EU Institutions USA Japan Canada Norway Source: OECD DAC EC Communication: Financing for Development Graphics, April Top Global Donors 24

25 Official Development Assistance in National ODA as % of GNI () ODA/GNI >.7% ODA/GNI.69% -.42% ODA/GNI.41% -.17% ODA/GNI <.17% No data available Positive change No change Negative change Percentages of ODA/GNI correspond to international commitments..7% is the 215 goal of ODA/GNI established by the Monterrey consensus (21),.42% is the EU average in, and.17% refers to the EU intermediate target for EU-12. Source: OECD DAC EC Communication: Financing for Development Graphics, April The EU-15 contributes the major share of total EU ODA. In the ODA/GNI share amounted to.45%, a decrease by.1% over the year before. The 12 new EU Member States, which joined the union between 24 and, contributed collectively.1% of their GNI, thereby increasing their contributions by.1%. All EU-12 Members States have either increased or maintained their level of ODA volumes with the sole exception of Cyprus. 25

26 Official Development Assistance in These increases can be largely attributed to the fact that several states made their first contribution to the 1th EDF. (11) In the light of the on-going negotiations on the budget for the 11th EDF, this can serve as a reminder that increased budget for this development instrument can help EU Member States make progress towards their ODA commitments. In Denmark, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden again topped the list of the most generous donors in the world, measured as percentage of GNI, contributing more than.7% of their GNI to ODA, and thereby reaching the 215 target. Sweden is the most generous donor in terms of ODA as share of GNI and together with Norway is the only country that contributed over 1% of its GNI to ODA in. Sweden is also constantly committed to improving aid transparency. In the country launched its Open Aid data, an online toolkit to provide information on Swedish development assistance. Norway lowered its contributions by.1 % when compared to. However, the country remains one of few OECD members which has been continuously raising its ODA contributions. Although the volume of Dutch aid remained stable, the share of GNI decreased from.81% to.75%. Given that this share has been at least.8% since, the figure represents a worrying trend, reflecting the new government decision of reducing the ODA budget to.75% of GNI. It is also worth noting Italy, whose ODA commitments increased significantly in to.19% of its GNI. Until Italy remained the only EU-15 country spending less than.15% of its GNI on ODA. This increase, however, is largely due to significant debt relief operations. This is one of the ways of channeling aid, which has been criticised for inflating aid volumes by incorporating transfers that are not necessarily pro-poor. One positive sign is that the country appointed its first ever Development Minister, following the recommendations from OECD DAC peer reviews. Despite these new developments, Italy will need to significantly scale up its external assistance in order to be on track to reach its 215 targets. (11) EU Accountability Report on Financing for Development (212) Available: 26

27 Official Development Assistance in Europe s Share of Global ODA Net disbursements in billion USD () USA 3,745 21% (+1.29%) Japan 1,64 7% (-3.78%) Other Europeans** 9,367 6% (+18.95%) EU Institutions 12,627 9% (-.41%) Canada 5,291 4% (+1.57%) Australia 4,799 3% (%) Other Donors* 1,75 1% (+15.44%) European Union Institutions denotes funds and instruments administered by the European Commission. *Other Donors does not include data for Chinese Taipei, Thailand or Israel in **Other Europeans includes Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and Iceland. EU Instit. & Member States 86,16 58% (2.2%) EU-Member States 73,533 49% (+4.4%) Source: OECD DAC and Ministries of Foreign Affairs. COUNTRY AMOUNT SHARE OF TOTAL VARIANCE IN ABSOLUTE DISBURSEMENTS OVER PREVIOUS YEAR As in previous years, over 5% of global ODA comes from the EU Member States and the EU institutions. When other European donors are added to this, Europe provides 64% of all ODA. Europe as a whole thus remains the largest bloc of donors, and the EU institutions one of the overall biggest donors. EU Member States contribute to ODA channeled through the EU institutions in two ways: through the EU budget and its external relations instruments (most notably the DCI) and through the EDF, which is agreed on by Member States and ACP countries on a voluntarily basis. With the EU budget and the EDF being agreed on for 7 years at the time, these negotiations affect Member State ODA in the coming years and contribute to more long-term and predictable aid flows from the EU Member States and institutions. 27

28 Official Development Assistance in European and Global ODA Disbursements The US continues to top the list of the world s largest donors in absolute terms. This is followed by Germany, which after a 12% increase of its ODA volumes (from 13 billion USD in to 14.6 billion USD in, representing.4% of their GNI) became Europe s largest donor in absolute terms, pushing the UK down into second position. In addition to better ODA performance, was also the year of significant changes in German development assistance, marking the establishment of the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ), operating on behalf of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), and merging three different development cooperation agencies. The UK, the world s third largest donor, remains politically committed to meeting the.7% goal and met its mid-term target, but recently announcements have been made to cut its development budget by 1.86 billion USD for (12) In the EU institutions were the fifth largest donor in the world in absolute terms, stepping down from its third position in. The development co-operation budget managed by the EC amounted to billion USD, which includes aid coming from both the European Union budget and from the EDF..1 (+33.5%).1 (+11.3%).2 (+22.6%).3 (-31.5%).3 (-1.3%).3 (+7.7%).4 (+29.4%).6 (+6.8%).9 (+17.6%).12 (+3.8%).14 (+22.8%).26 (+12.3%).33 (-34.9%).41 (+2.7%).42 (+1.3%).43 (+25.4%).67 (+3.1%).9 (+1.%) Malta Latvia Estonia Cyprus Iceland Slovenia Lithuania Bulgaria Slovak Rep. Hungary Romania Czech Rep. Greece Luxembourg Poland New Zealand Portugal Ireland (12) Donor Tracker (212) Available: 28

29 US Official Development Assistance in 3 28 (-8.4%) (+12.6%) (+1.3%) (+36.5%) (-6.8%) (+3.8%) (+34.2%) (+5.7%) (+41.5%) 4.26 (-28.3%) 4.8 (+25.4%) (+7.8%) 4.94 (+1.6%) 5.29 (+23.7%) 5.61 (-.5%) 6.32 (-3.8%) 3.74 Summary: Total ODA in 29 donors increased their ODA volumes Total volume of increases: 8.3 billion USD 9 donors decreased their ODA volumes Total volume of decreases: 2.7 billion USD 1.6 (-.4%) (+.6%) (+5.3%) (+11.9%) (percentage and disbursements in billion USD) Italy Korea Spain Japan Finland UK Austria Turkey France Netherlands Switzerland Denmark Belgium Sweden Canada Norway Australia EU Instit. Germany Countries indicated in grey represent non-eu donors - Source: OECD DAC EC Communication: Financing for Development Graphics, April 29

30 Official Development Assistance 3

31 Population Assistance in 31

32 Population Assistance in Methodology Global level resource tracking of ODA relies to a large extent on the OECD/DAC s Creditor Reporting System (CRS). However, the accounting methods of the CRS make it difficult to discern funding for particular health concerns noted by the ICPD Programme of Action. Therefore a separate inquiry is needed to refine the CRS-based data, most notably the two-step approach adopted by the UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project. The charts and graphs of this section are based upon the Resource Flows database, with the most recent data available showing disbursements in. Summary of UNFPA/NIDI s Resource Flows Project Methodology Resource Flows Project data is based upon OECD datasets and extended/complemented by data collected through an annual donor survey. Calculation of ICPD activity code amounts is based upon a standard methodology agreed between NIDI and OECD in 1999/21. Data is provided by donors themselves, and cleared by them again after the calculations have been applied. A more detailed explanation of the process and methodology of the UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project can be found in Annex 1 and 2 of this publication. Total Funding for Population Assistance (Net disbursements in billion USD) ICPD Beijing Declaration Current Constant MDGs Financial Crisis Source: UNFPA & NIDI. Resource Flows for Population Activities This graph refers to total primary funds to population assistance For a definition of primary funds, see Annex Includes all donor institutions, including OECD/DAC donor governments, foundations/ngos and development banks (grants) 32

33 Population Assistance in Top Donors of Population Assistance 6, 5,531 (disbursements in million USD) 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 3,347 US EU Japan 256 Norway 197 European Institutions 156 Australia 151 Canada 53 Switzerland 17 New Zealand Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database Looking at total spending on population assistance, the US remains the largest donor, spending 65% more than the EU-15. Of the top donors to population assistance, the biggest increase in absolute numbers can likewise be found in the US, while the biggest percentage increase took place in Australia, where population assistance increased by 34% compared with. Funding from the EU institutions to population assistance continues to decrease, reflecting a steady downwards trend since. Recent policy developments seem to suggest that this trend will continue within the coming years. Canadian support to population assistance was cut by 23% in. Breakdown of Population Assistance Family Planning Services 55% 29% 7% 7% Basic Reproductive Health Services 18% 29% 17% 24% STDs & HIV/AIDS Activities 9% 32% 72% 66% Basic Research 18% 9% 4% 3% Total (Billion USD) Includes all donor institutions, including developed country governments, foundations/ngos and development banks. Source: UNFPA & NIDI - Resource Flows for Population Activities This table refers to the final expenditures directed to population assistance. For a definition of final expenditures, see Annex 3. 33

34 Population Assistance in Nearly two thirds of all population assistance is directed towards STD and HIV/AIDS projects, a slight decrease from when the share was 67%. Worth noting is that although overall population assistance increased by more than 1.5 times since 25, the growth rate was even faster in the preceding five-year period: the 25 level was almost four times the total amount spent by all donors on population assistance in 2. One reason for this, also explaining the large increase in STD and HIV/AIDS activities, might be the launch of the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM), as well as the launch of the President s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a US programme targeting HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment. At the same time the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were launched, drawing more attention to maternal and child health, reproductive health and HIV/AIDS. Breakdown of Population Assistance Funding (Net disbursements in billion USD) MDGs Basic Research Family planning services Basic RH services Financial Crisis Source: UNFPA & NIDI. Resource Flows for Population Activities This graph refers to the final expenditures directed to population assistance. For a definition of final expenditures, see Annex Includes all donor institutions, including OECD/DAC donor governments, foundations/ngos and development banks (grants) Between and there was an increase in total spending in all population sectors of 11.7 billion USD, including in HIV/AIDS projects, which saw a decrease in. The HIV/AIDS sector remains by far the largest recipient of population assistance, while investment in basic RH services continues to increase, albeit at a somewhat slower pace than in the year before. It is also worth noting that funding for neither basic RH services, nor for family planning services decreased during Basi c research the financial crisis. Family planning servi ces Basic RH services 34

35 Population Assistance in Several important initiatives on SRHR, family planning and MNCH took place in. The G8 committed to direct an additional 5 billion USD towards achieving MDGs 4 and 5 by 215 in the Muskoka initiative on MNCH. The UN Secretary General launched the Global Strategy on Women s and Children s Health, which raised commitments of another 4 billion USD over a five-year period. As part of this the EU also launched its 1 billion EUR MDG initiative to help progress on the MDGs lagging most behind including the goals on maternal and child health. However, it remains to be seen whether these commitments are reflected in disbursements for -215, and also whether the funds committed were truly additional to existing commitments or included in these. European Population Assistance Efforts as % of ODA () >7% of ODA 4-7% of ODA 2-4% of ODA <2% of ODA No data available Positive change No change Negative change 35

36 US Population Assistance in Global Efforts on Population Assistance 2% 18% 16% 14% 18.22% The US not only provides the most population assistance in absolute terms, but also as share of total ODA; in close to 18% of total ODA. This is almost twice as much as the second most generous donor, the Netherlands, which in accounted for 9.2% of total ODA to population assistance. The highest share from any other donor was the UK peak of 1% in. A positive trend for all three years in the period - can only be found in the Netherlands and Italy. On the other hand, Negative trends can be found all three years in Ireland, Sweden, Norway, Spain, Japan, EU institutions and Portugal. Most donors are far off-track from commitments made at IPCI conferences to direct at least 1% of total ODA to population assistance. (as percentage of ODA) 12% 1% 8% 9.22% 7.87% 7.73% 6.9% 6% 5.97% 5.81% 5.59% 5.21% 4.92% 4.68% 4% 2% Netherlands Luxembourg UK Ireland Denmark Sweden Norway Finland New Zealand Spain 36

37 Population Assistance in Summary: Population Assistance in 7 donors increased their contributions as % of ODA 16 donors decreased their contributions as % of ODA 1% Commitment from IPCI Conferences (13) average percentage of ODA = 6.75% 3.8% 3.% 2.91% 2.83% 4.7% 2.41% 2.29% 1.56%.87%.6%.38%.38% Australia Canada Germany Belgium Switzerland EU Institutions Portugal France Greece Japan Italy Austria Source: UNFPA & NIDI. Resource Flows for Population Activities (13) International Parliamentarians agreed at the IPCI (International Parliamentarians Conference on the Implementation of the ICPD) conferences in 22 that their countries should provide at least 1% of their ODA towards population assistance. This was reaffirmed at subsequent IPCI conferences in 26 and. 37

38 Population Assistance in Top European Donors to Population Assistance from to (in million USD) 1,2 1, , Netherlands Germany Sweden Belgium Denmark EU Instit. France Spain Norway Finland UK Source: UNFPA & NIDI. Resource Flows for Population Activities When looking at top European donors to population assistance, the UK remains number one, which furthermore increased population assistance by million USD, most of which was reported as general contributions. Parts of this variance may be explained with DFID revising its tracking method for ODA in. The Netherlands, with no significant change since, stays as second biggest donor, while France takes over third place ahead of Germany, which along with Spain and Sweden account for the biggest decreases. All three countries saw decreases especially in general contributions and HIV/ AIDS spending. Much of the increase in French population assistance was based on a 5 million USD increase in funds for reproductive health, at the same time as the country also reported support to family planning for the first time since 22. French commitment to these sectors was confirmed in October 212, as highlighted in Spotlight II. Remaining European Donors to Population Assistance from to (in million USD) Ireland Austria Switzerland Luxembourg Portugal Greece Italy Source: UNFPA & NIDI. Resource Flows for Population Activities 38

39 Population Assistance in Among the smaller European donors, Luxembourg and Switzerland were the only ones to increase population assistance in. For Switzerland, most of the increased funds went in general contributions to multilateral organisations. Greece, being hit hard by the financial crisis, cut its aid to a minimum while Ireland has almost halved its population assistance since. Most of the Irish decrease occurred in the HIV/AIDS sector. Portugal further halved its total population assistance across all sectors. The Funding Gap As this graph shows, substantial increases in funding for population assistance are needed if the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are to be met by 215. The calculation of the funding gap is based on the costed population package agreed in the ICPD (para ), which was revised by the UN Commission on Population and Development in. While the actual funding gap only in amounted to 9.9 billion USD, the projected gaps in funding from -215 show that additional 56 billion are needed before 215, 35.8 billion USD for FP/RH alone. FP & RH HIV/AIDS Basic Research Annual Totals FUNDING GAP ESTIMATIONS (BILLIONS USD, BASED ON EXPENDITURES) ( * ) Total 5, , ,5.37 7, , , , , ,4.37 3, ,942,7 4, , , , , , ,8.2 11, , ,44. ( * ) The figures refer to the actual funding gap in, while figures for -215 refer to estimated funding gaps. (in billion USD) actual expenditures FP and Basic reproductive health services STDs-HIV/AIDS activities Basic research, data and population (donor share of) future funding needs FP & RH - Estimated funding needs STDs-HIV/AIDS - Estimated funding needs Basic Research - Estimated funding needs To meet the MDGs by 215, there should have been mobilised (baseline ): $19.6 additional billions for HIV/AIDS in 5 years $35.8 additional billions for FP/RH in 5 years $.9 additional billions for basic research in 5 years Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, UN CPD report The Flow of Financial - Resource for Assisting in the Implementation of the PoA ICPD. 39