Copyright: DSW (Deutsche Stiftung Weltbevolkerung) & European Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development (EPF)

Transcription

1 1

2 Acknowledgements We are grateful for the generous support of Countdown 215 Europe. We thank our colleagues at NIDI Erik Beekink and Paulien Hagedoorn for their guidance and feedback throughout the project, as well as our colleagues Anna Dahlman and Eddie Wright. We are thankful to UNFPA for providing the data. Special thanks are also due to Karen Hoehn and Neil Datta. Authors: Andrew Pavao & Miguel Ongil Layout and Design: Printing: Drukkerij A. Beullens Copyright: DSW (Deutsche Stiftung Weltbevolkerung) & European Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development (EPF) Printed in October 211 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 APHRC African Population and Health Research Center CRS Creditor Reporting System (of the OECD/DAC) DAC Development Assistance Committee DCI Development Cooperation Instrument DSW Deutsche Stiftung Weltbevoelkerung EC European Commission EDF European Development Fund EU European Union Institutions 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 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 GNI Gross National Income HIV/AIDS Human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome IIHMR Indian Institute of Health Management Research MDGs Millennium Development Goals NIDI Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute NGO Non-governmental Organisation ODA Official Development Assistance OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development 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 UK United Kingdom UNAIDS United Nations Joint Programme on HIV/AIDS UNCPD UN Commission for Population and Development UNFPA United Nations Population Fund UNIFEM United Nations Development Fund for Women US United States USD United States Dollars 3

4 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 2 Abbreviations 3 Table of Contents 4 Foreword 5 Introduction 6 Executive Summary 9 Spotlight: Donor Transparency & Accountability 13 Global Official Development Assistance 17 Population Assistance 25 Donor Profiles 37 Annex 1: Methodology 63 Annex 2: Definitions 67 Annex 3: Bibliography 69 Annex 4: Donor Data Overview 7 4

5 Foreword Since 1997 the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and the Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute (NIDI) have been cooperating in monitoring the global financial flows for population activities. In 25 the Indian Institute of Health Management Research (IIHMR) and in 211 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 that was 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. Each year 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 has developed an impressive database. A number of organizations 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. This year UNFPA decided to make the collected data, where necessary under protection of privacy rules, available for public use. In January 212 a userfriendly database will be made available online. > > 5

6 Foreword 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 selected foundations, UN agencies, international NGOs and development banks and with data on population activities in 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 211 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 either individually or together are carrying a fair burden of global development and universal access to basic services, including services that improve sexual and reproductive health. In times when financial resouces 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 the German Foundation for World Population and the European Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development in the preparation of Euromapping 21. Prof. dr. Leo van Wissen Director Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute (NIDI) 6

7 Introduction Brussels, 1 October 211 At the end of October 211 the world s population will reach 7 billion. At this landmark moment in human history the global population is growing faster than ever before. Ninety-five per cent of this record population growth is happening in the developing world, where only 58 percent of women giving birth are attended to by a skilled birth attendant, 215 million women still lack access to contraception and the single greatest threat to any young woman s health is childbirth. Meanwhile the global economic slowdown has ushered in an era of austerity, with donor countries moving to cut their national expenditures, and development budgets being threatened more than ever before. For these two reasons Population Assistance (funds made available for combating HIV / AIDS, family planning, maternal healthcare and general reproductive health) has never been either more urgently required or more under threat than now. No other development sector does more to ensure that future generations in partner countries will be created healthily and by choice, born to families that are able to determine their family sizes according to their wishes and the resources they have available to them. In doing so it also serves to prevent many of the greatest problems that are facing the developing world at present, which range from chronic shortages of water, food or natural resources to intolerable pressure placed on health and education systems. 21 marked a crucial moment for the international development and population assistance communities. We have less than five years remaining to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, and it is becoming clear that Millennium Development Goal 5 (reducing the maternal mortality ratio by three-quarters and achieving universal access to reproductive healthcare) is the most off-track. Secondly, for population assistance advocates the future of our mission statement from the UN has recently been assured, as the Programme of Action agreed at the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in 1994 has been prolonged indefinitely. The international community has therefore reaffirmed its belief in the importance of enabling women to have the means to decide freely on the number of children they have. > > 7

8 Introduction In compiling this year s edition of Euromapping we have been worried to note that the European share of Official Development Assistance relating to population assistance has decreased over the past year. Whilst European donors (EU institutions, Member States and non-eu members) provide 63% of global ODA, they only provide 37% of all the funds that are devoted to health and 39% of all population assistance disbursements. Meanwhile, although only accounting for a fifth of global ODA, the US share of global health and population spending is more than 5%. This reversal of global leadership, due in part to consistent increases in US health and population assistance spending and budget cuts throughout the whole of Europe, illustrates a dichotomy between Europe s ambition and action in the sector. It is therefore time for the actions of Europe s donors to match their words. We are pleased that Euromapping 211 can add to the wealth of information that is available, adding both perspective and knowledge about the proportion of ODA being dedicated to population assistance, reproductive health and family planning by bilateral donors from the international community. We hope that the attention generated by this publication within the international development community will empower advocates and decision makers alike to identify shortfalls in national and international pledges, fill the gaps that exist in the assistance that partner countries receive, and ensure that our governments are held accountable for the commitments they have made both individually and collectively. Most importantly, we hope that Euromapping 211 can contribute to improving the health conditions, services and information for those most in need. Karen Hoehn Vice Executive Director, Director of International Affairs DSW (Deutsche Stiftung Weltbevoelkerung) Neil Datta Secretary, EPF European Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development 8

9 Introduction Executive Summary Findings and Recommendations 9

10 Executive Summary Main Findings on General ODA General ODA refers to the overall official development assistance, which includes population assistance, as well as aid directed to other sectors. The data used covers 21 and was collected from the OECD/ DAC database. Overall ODA reached a new all time high with reported contributions from all donors amounting to billion USD. Of this, billion USD came from the DAC members. Europe was the largest donor region, accounting for 63% of the global ODA; a share that is decreasing. Despite providing 63% of the global ODA, European donors only provided 39% of all population assistance and less than 5% of all family planning spending. This is in contrast to the US, which provided 2% of global ODA, over 5% of population assistance and more than 9% of family planning expenditures. The EU Institutions were the only large donor to decrease total funds directed to general ODA (-3.41%) in 21. However, total EU contributions increased due to contributions from the EU Member States. Norway and Luxembourg were the only countries with an ODA exceeding 1% of GNI. They increased ODA disbursements in 21. Sweden, while remaining one of the largest donors, reduced its ODA from 1.12% of GNI to.97%. Other countries that saw large drops in ODA funding include Greece, Iceland, Switzerland, Slovenia and Spain. Some donors performing remarkably well were Portugal, Turkey, Belgium and the UK, which all increased their ODA as a percentage of GNI by between 19% and 31%. Nine countries - Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the UK - met the EU15 interim target of directing.51% of GNI to ODA, with France narrowly missing it and the remaining countries failing completely to meet it. Among the EU12 only Cyprus met the interim target of.17%. Bulgaria, while still only spending.4% of GNI on ODA nonetheless managed to double its disbursements in 21. Malta on the other hand reduced its spending by one third. 1

11 Executive Summary Population Assistance The Population assistance accounts for 7% of total health ODA. It includes the efforts made to combat HIV/AIDS and support basic research, family planning and reproductive health projects. The Euromapping data on population assistance builds on a combination of OECD/DAC data and unique data calculated by the UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project. It covers the efforts DAC members in combating HIV/AIDS, supporting basic research, family planning and reproductive health projects in 29. Total funding for RH projects increased by 42%, while funds directed towards basic research and FP remain small and funds for HIV/AIDS fell for the first time. Although most countries reduced total population assistance, the remaining aid was directed towards RH: several countries, including the US, the Netherlands, Japan and the UK saw some remarkable increases in this sector (US +75%, NL, Japan and the UK +5%). French RH assistance on other hand dropped by more than 4%. HIV/AIDS continued to receive the largest share of population assistance; 68%. The US remained the largest donor in all four population categories and further increased its population assistance by 1%. Europe is not living up to its commitments or expectations regarding population assistance, and the European Institutions rank last of all donors when considering total population assistance as a percentage of total ODA. EU Institutions total efforts decreased by more than 2% in 29. Funds for basic research were cut by more than 7%, funds for HIV/AIDS by 3% and support for FP projects was practically eradicated. The only category where EU Institutions increased their aid (13%) was RH. The biggest increases in European disbursements in population assistance were seen in Belgium, Finland, Greece and Germany. Per capita spending on population assistance continues to vary greatly between some smaller northern European countries and other donors. Portugal and Italy, for example, have a per capita spending close to zero. All donors, with the exception of the US, lag behind in meeting the IPCI commitment of directing 1% of ODA towards population assistance. This is despite the fact that this commitment is supported by parliaments in all donor countries. All donors are still far behind the minimum spending needed to reach the ICPD targets. With the world population set to reach and exceed 7 billion people in 211 the funding needed to meet everyone s needs continues to increase, but donors are not keeping up with this. 11

12 Spotlight Transparency and Accountability for RH/FP 21 was a year rich in pledges to improve reproductive health and family planning. First, the members of the G-8 announced the Muskoka Initiative on Maternal Health and later, the Secretary General of the UN presented the Global Strategy on Women and Child Health. They pledged 5 billion and 4 billion USD in 5 years respectively. Along with these agreements respective working groups were established to propose new methodologies to track commitments and funding for these initiatives, and increase overall accountability. In addition, the OECD s Working Party on Statistics (WP-STAT) is currently reviewing the methodology followed in the OECD/ DAC s Creditor Reporting System (CRS) in order to improve its ability to capture expenditures towards Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (RMNCH). Each of these groups have issued their own reports, reflecting the difficulty in improving existing reporting mechanisms and systems to more accurately capture aid resources allocated towards health and population. Without improved and detailed data, it will remain difficult to assess whether donors are fulfilling their promises. The difficulties lay mainly in the following points: Technical limitations and constraints: the smallest unit with which to measure a donor s contributions in an aid database is by single projects. It is important that the reported information accompanying each project captures both its purpose and the full scope of the intervention so that, when aggregate figures of a donor s development aid are used, they can accurately reflect a donor s efforts in a particular sector. (1) However, due to several technical limitations of the current CRS, a donor s reported aid can be misleading. For instance, in the OECD DAC database donors cannot use more than one purpose code: thus, while a project may have components of reproductive health, family planning, HIV/AIDS or even education, only one of these categories can be assigned to a given project. To mitigate this, donors could commit to provide greater detail of a project in its accompanying description: the use of standardized keywords can overcome other distortions, including a lack of information on the project s beneficiary or target population. (2) 12

13 Spotlight There are different data databases maintained by the OECD, the World Bank, EuroStat and the UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project. While each database has its own strengths and weaknesses in collection and methodology, it is difficult for a wider audience to cross-check the results. Additionally, these databases do not capture information from some emerging or non-traditional donors, nor do they capture the domestic resources of several recipient countries of development aid. Most importantly, donors report differently. Donors don t use standardized descriptions and keywords when they report their projects; sometimes, these fields are also left in the original language of the donor or are missing. Some donors don t consistently use the full range of purpose codes available to them; and particularly for political reasons, some donors might be tempted to favour certain codes to reach their pledges to a particular sector. Finally, some donors simply don t share the same interpretation or view of family planning as a separate component of reproductive health (as established in ICPD), while other donors favour sector-wide approaches and general budget support to channel their aid contributions. Although the latter factors may be inspired through holistic approaches and the principles of ownership and effectiveness, they all contribute to less detailed reporting and underused purpose codes. Ultimately, this undermines the accountability and transparency of donor contributions to development assistance, and distorts our understanding of the current state of resource flows. (1) Currently, each DAC donor is obliged to report their project spending in a given year to the OECD DAC s Creditor Reporting System. This is done on an annual basis by a donor s data reporting officer. In doing so, the data officer considers all projects funded by their government or implementing agencies in a given year, and assigns a purpose code to describe the primary activity of that project. For projects that are explicitly health-related, a project will be assigned one of 16 purpose codes (in series between 12 for Health and 13 for population). These codes allow data users to either represent or track how much is being spent on any specific purpose or aid activity within a given (2) Currently, if one wished to track funding for specifically Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn or Child Health, (RMNCH) the current OECD DAC CRS would not allow this: RMNCH is cross-cutting several factors both within and outside the health sector can contribute towards it thus, the CRS remains insufficient for an investigation into how much money may be going specifically towards RMNCH, either in part or as a whole. 13

14 Spotlight Recommendations for Improved Reporting As Countdown 215 Europe partners, DSW and EPF are engaged in discussions with representatives of donor countries, research institutes, academics and the OECD s Working Party on Statistics to seek improved solutions to financial reporting and tracking in the area of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights. The following recommendations are the result of discussions with a diverse group of nonstate actors, government officials and intergovernmental institutions within the framework of the Countdown 215 Europe project. These recommendations are targeted to Parliamentarians and decision-makers who can help mobilise changes to current reporting mechanisms, promote improved reporting, result in technical solutions and mobilise the political will to report more transparently development aid: Exploit the full potential of available reporting mechanisms, including the OECD/DAC CRS, using the full range of existing purpose codes, extending the use of standardized keywords, definitions and project descriptions; and finally, including additional information on individual projects for improved public scrutiny. Develop technical solutions to improve and extend the data available, allowing encoding of projects under multiple purpose codes, attaching the original project documentation, and including gender- and age-sensitive indicators for the targeted beneficiary population of each project. Mobilise political support for more transparent and accountable data on aid, facilitating parliamentarian and civil society budget screening and demanding better reporting practices. Donor accountability would improve if all public pledges were collected in an accessible and credible database. 14

15 Spotlight Next year the data for 211 will give our first impression of donors determination to deliver results after their pledges at the G-8 Muskoka Conference and the UN Global Strategy for Women and Child Health. Following the international momentum in support of RMNCH, improved and more reliable aid data reporting is of paramount importance. (1) Improved scrutiny and monitoring of aid are critical if promises to reduce maternal mortality are to be turned into quantifiable action to reduce maternal mortality the most off-track MDG so that contributions to women s health are appropriately accounted for and prioritized in both donors and recipient countries budgets and programmes. (1) In 211, the final report of the Working Group on Accountability for Resources of the Commission on Information and Accountability for Women s and Children s Health provided a set of recommendations on how to improve global monitoring of financial resources for RMNCH: among these recommendations, they stated that while all major donors should provide timely, concise and consistent reporting to the OECD/DAC CRS, they should also discuss ways in which the analysis and tracking of aid giving can be demonstrably improved. The full final report of the Working Group on Accountability for Resources can be accessed here: on_resources_final_paper.pdf 15

16 16

17 Official Development Assistance Global and Historical Disbursements Total ODA Other ODA Sectors 92% Basic Research Population 2% Family Assistance Planning 7% Reproductive Health 23% Health 8% Health Sectors HIV/AIDS 68% Population 57% Other Health Sectors 43% 17

18 Official Development Assistance (net disbursements in billion USD) ODA Disbursements from 199 to 21 MDGs 16 Financial Crisis 14 All Donors DAC Members DAC EU Members Source: OECD/DAC CRS Database All donors includes developed country governments, development banks, development funds, UN agencies and other Development Institutions. DAC members refer to the 24 states who are currently members of the OECD s Development Assistance Committee According to the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD, the total amount of Official Development Assistance (ODA) pledged by the international community in 21 marked a new record, beating the ODA levels of the previous year. The modern industrialized economies of the OECD make up billion USD of the ODA worldwide. Bilateral aid for core development programmes and projects excluding humanitarian aid and debt relief increased by 5.9% from its level in 29, while new lending rose by 13.2% and grants rose by 6.8%. The countries that were already members of the EU before its enlargements in 24 and, usually referred to as the EU- 15,comprise the EU s members of the OECD DAC, and they are the most longstanding - and biggest - European donors. Their contributions amount to 71.2 billion USD, representing the biggest bloc of donors. Other important European donors which are also members of the DAC are Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Turkey even though they are not currently members of the EU. The rest of the European donors are the countries that joined the EU in 24 and (now sometimes referred to as EU-12). It is remarkable how emerging donors are gaining ground, although the resources that they make available for international development are difficult to track and are not well reflected in the OECD DAC database. (1) Most significantly in Asia, fast growing countries such as China, India, Thailand and Korea are starting to play an important role in cooperation for development, and in the area of population assistance. Brazil has also started to play a noteworthy role. This year China released its first public report on official development assistance, which calculated that China had provided billion yuan (2) (4.2 billion USD) by the end of 29 of which 4% was delivered in the (1) Several emerging countries, including China and India, are beginning to play an important role in international development but do not report their contributions to the OECD DAC. (2) 18

19 Official Development Assistance form of grants, 3% in loans and the remaining 3% in interest-free loans. South-South Cooperation is also expanding significantly, but its volume and impact are difficult to measure by traditional development indicators. (1) Top Global ODA Donors (net disbursements in billion USD) USA Canada Japan 7. 9 Other Europeans* 13. EU Institutions EU Member States 71.3 *Other Europeans includes Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Turkey. European Union denotes funds and instruments administered by the European Commission. Source: OECD/DAC CRS Database, European Commission (211) EU Accountability Report 211 on Financing for Development: Review of progress of the EU and its Member States Europe s Share of Global ODA Net disbursements in billion USD (21) USA 3,154 2% (4.59%) Japan 11,45 8% (16.79%) Canada 5,132 3% (28.29%) Other Europeans** 7,873 5% (1.3%) EU Institutions 12,986 9% (-3.41%) Australia 3,849 3% (39.37%) Other Donors* 4,878 3% (-17.43%) 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 21 **Other Europeans includes Turkey, Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland. Source: OECD/DAC CRS Database, European Commission (211) EU Accountability Report 211 on Financing for Development: Review of progress of the EU and its Member States EU & Member States 84,267 58% (3.1%) EU-Member States 71,282 49% (4.28%) COUNTRY AMOUNT SHARE OF TOTAL VARIANCE IN ABSOLUTE DISBURSEMENTS OVER PREVIOUS YEAR (1) SSC is an exchange of resources, technology, and knowledge between developing countries. It is an essential cross-cutting mechanism to deliver capacity building and technology support in developing countries, and it plays an invaluable role in complementing North-South cooperation. SSC is difficult to track because such cooperation is not usually reported to the OECD DAC. 19

20 Official Development Assistance Over the past year the European Union has collectively lost 3% of its share of global ODA, adding to the 3% drop it saw in 29. This amounts to a fall of $1 billion in the funds it pledged in ODA. However, the combined ODA of the EU institutions and EU Member States still represents 59% of global ODA. The ground lost by the EU therefore has only slightly changed the relative weight of the rest of donors, as they have all modestly increased their share as global donors. ODA Efforts from 1994 to 21 as % of GNI (% of GNI) DAC Members EU & Member States Financial Crisis Source: OECD/DAC CRS Database, Eurostat, European Commission (211) EU Accountability Report 211 on Financing for Development: Review of progress of the EU and its Member States.32 As was the case last year, the relative weight of ODA in comparison to the Gross National Income (GNI) of donor countries has increased. Part of this effect can be explained by the slow (or negative) economic growth that most Western economies are enduring. For when faced with a shrinking economy, a country that maintains its ODA level will have made a bigger relative effort (measured by ODA as a percentage of GNI) than the previous year. The combined aid pledged by EU Institutions and its Member States in 21 represented.43% of its combined GNI. While an increase from the previous year, it is still far from the interim collective target of reaching.56% by 21. (1) In addition to this collective target the EU had set individual targets for 21:.51% for EU-15 countries and.17% for EU-12 countries. Regrettably, only eight EU-15 countries and one EU-12 country have fulfilled their commitments. (1) Percentages of ODA/GNI correspond to international commitments..7% is the 215 goal established by the Monterrey Consensus (21), while.51% and.17% refer to the EU s intermediate 21 targets for the EU-15 and EU-12 Member States, respectively. 2

21 Official Development Assistance National ODA as % of GNI (21) ODA/GNI > 1% ODA/GNI >,7% ODA/GNI >,51% ODA/GNI >,17% ODA/GNI below all targets No data available Positive change No change Negative change Percentages of ODA/GNI correspond to international commitments..7% is the 215 goal established by the Monterrey Consensus (21), while.51% and.7% refer to the EU s intermediate 21 targets for the EU-15 and EU-12 Member States, respectively. Source: OECD/DAC database, European Commission (211) EU Accountability Report 211 on Financing for Development: Review of progress of the EU and its Member States This year Denmark, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden are once again the most generous donors, not only in Europe but also around the world, as they have already surpassed the.7% threshold. After them only Belgium, Finland, Ireland, and the UK contribute with more than.51% of their GNI, thus meeting the EU s interim target for 21. The failure of the rest of the EU-15 to reach the target they agreed is estimated to have caused a loss of 14.5 billion of life-saving aid. This year more countries have cut their ODA contributions than in any of the previous editions of Euromapping, as up to 16 European countries have reduced ODA in relative terms. In 211 the reductions are likely to continue, especially in the countries most affected by the financial and debt crisis. 21

22 Official Development Assistance European ODA Disbursements Following a spectacular increase of 19.4%, the UK has become the largest European donor, moving three positions up the ranking of European donors compared to last year. Despite the severe budgetary cuts it made elsewhere, the decision of the British government to ring-fence its ODA and to commit by law to reaching the.7% target (1) by 215 sets a powerful example of how development aid can still be prioritized in times of crisis. The EU Institutions follow in second position after decreasing their spending in 21 (a decrease which may be due to its MDG initiative). France and Germany increased their contributions in 21 mainly due to increased bilateral lending. Meanwhile Spain lost the position it gained ahead of the Netherlands in 29 due to budgetary constraints in 21, which will be also reflected in further reductions in its 211 budget. Norway overtook Sweden owing to some cuts made by the Swedish government and its own continued increasing contributions to clean energy and to stopping deforestation. The next European donor is Italy, which has regrettably continued its trend from the previous year of cutting ODA, being the only EU-15 country that is contributing less than.17% of its GNI. Belgium has overtaken Denmark, in part thanks to new debt cancellation programmes and also because of its increased bilateral grants. With.64% of its GNI as ODA, Belgium looks likely to reach its own target of.7% by 212. Switzerland s ODA decreased slightly in 21 due to it cancelling less debt than the previous year, although it has now a firm target of reaching.5% by 215. Finland has continued increasing its bilateral grants and Austria has increased its ODA significantly, mainly due to its cancellation of large amounts of debt. Turkey is also in the process of scaling up its external action and development cooperation significantly, and it has increased its bilateral grants by 36.71% in one year. Ireland, Portugal and Greece are very likely to cut their ODA further in 211, due to current economic conditions, despite Portugal increasing its bilateral lending in 21. Luxembourg cut its aid slightly in 21, but still gives 1.9% of its GNI in ODA. From the remaining countries, none has shown a determined effort to scale up its contributions and few seem to have a long-term strategy to do so. From the EU-12 countries, only Malta has met its EU target of.17%. (-33.3%) (-23.7%) (+2.7%) (-17.2%) (-11%) (+146.3%) (-1.8%) (-11.5%) (-2.2%) (-3.7%) (-17.2%) (+4.1%) (+.9%) (-3.7%).4 (-17.7%).5 Malta Latvia Estonia Iceland Lithuania Bulgaria Cyprus Slovenia Hungary Romania Poland Greece Luxembourg Slovak Rep. Czech Republic (1) Percentages of ODA/GNI correspond to international commitments..7% is the 215 goal established by the Monterrey Consensus (21), while.51% and.17% refer to the EU s intermediate 21 targets for the EU-15 and EU-12 Member States, respectively. 22

23 Official Development Assistance Summary: European ODA in donors increased their ODA Total volume of ODA increases: USD million 17 donors decreased their ODA Total volume of ODA decreases: USD million (+5.3%) (+2.5%) (-3.4%) (+22%) (-5.7%) (-.5%) (+12.1%) (-1.1%) 5.92 (-1.2%) (percentage and disbursements in billion USD) (+26.4%).65 (-11%).9 (+36.17%) (+5%) 1.34 (+4%) 2.3 (-.6%) 2.87 (+2%) 3. (+15%) Portugal Ireland Turkey Austria Finland Denmark Switzerland Belgium Italy Sweden Norway Spain Germany Netherlands France UK EU Institutions Source: OECD/DAC CRS Database, European Commission (211) EU Accountability Report 211 on Financing for Development: Review of progress of the EU and its Member States 23

24 Official Development Assistance National ODA per Capita - Most Generous Donors (USD per Capita) 1, Luxembourg Norway Sweden Denmark Switzerland Netherlands Germany Australia Ireland France UK Finland Belgium Austria Canada US Spain Iceland (USD per Capita) National ODA per Capita - Least Generous Donors Italy Portugal New Zealand Japan Slovenia Cyprus Greece Korea Czech Rep. Malta Slovak Rep. Estonia Hungary Turkey 11 1 Latvia Poland Lithuania Romania Bulgaria Source: OECD/DAC CRS Database, European Commission (211) EU Accountability Report 211 on Financing for Development: Review of progress of the EU and its Member States, United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (211). World Population Prospects: The 21 Revision, CD-ROM Edition. Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden and Netherlands are not only the most generous donors relative to the size of their economies, with all contributing over.7% of GNI. They are also high income countries and are by far the largest per capita contributors of ODA. Other wealthy countries such as Switzerland and Finland score particularly well for the same reason. This is noteworthy, as the 11 most generous countries are all European. The first non-european country is Australia, in 12th position. The US is in 17th position, followed by Iceland (despite its severe budgetary cuts). The last positions are for EU-12 countries (with the sole exception of Slovenia), which are not only giving small contributions but also have relatively poorer economies. 24

25 Population Assistance Total ODA Other ODA Sectors 92% Basic Research Population 2% Family Assistance Planning 7% Reproductive Health 23% Health 8% Health Sectors HIV/AIDS 68% Population 57% Other Health Sectors 43% 25

26 Population Assistance Introduction and Methodology Tracking ODA at the global level 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. (1) 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 finally cleared by them once 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 the Annex: Methodology section of this publication. (1) The following section relies upon data received from the UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Database. This database presents data only for the OECD DAC members. As a result, there is no data in the following section on population assistance controbutions of all EU Member States; therefore, the EU-15 represents EU MS contributions from this point forward. 26

27 Population Assistance Top Donors of Population Assistance 6, 5, (disbursements in million USD) 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, US 196 Canada 116 Australia Japan Other Europeans* 21 EU Institutions,175 3, EU-15** *Other Europeans includes Norway and Switzerland **There is no data on the population assistance contributions of all EU Member States; therefore, the EU-15 represents EU MS contributions from this point forward. Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database The US has reaffirmed its leading position as main population donor thanks to record spending once again of 4.2 billion USD on HIV/AIDS and increased contributions to reproductive health. Australia and Norway stabilized while Canada and Japan are still below the highest levels they achieved in 25. Meanwhile, the EU has recorded its second consecutive decrease since it reached 318 million USD in. The EU-15 also reduced its contributions, mainly owing to less HIV/AIDS bilateral grants. ICPD Categories as % of Total Population Assistance Family Planning Services 55% 29% 7% 5% 5% 6% 7% (Millions of current USD) Reproductive Health Services 18% 29% 17% 2% 17% 17% 23% (Millions of current USD) ,156 1,464 1,49 1,766 2,491 STDs & HIV/AIDS Activities 9% 32% 72% 7% 75% 74% 68% (Millions of current USD) ,896 5,123 6,575 7,689 7,364 Basic Research 18% 9% 4% 5% 3% 4% 2% (Millions of current USD) Total (Million USD) 1,314 1,781 6,8 7,318 8,767 1,391 1,83 27

28 Population Assistance Total Funding for Population Assistance (Disbursements in billion USD) Current USD Constant USD 1993 estimated donor share Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, UN CPD 21 report The Flow of Financial Resource for Assisting in the Implementation of the PoA ICPD, Millennium Declaration 21, The revised ICPD Costed Package from the UN CPD 29 report, estimates that the donor share in 21 should have been at this level The ICPD Costed Package is the 1993 estimated total costs for achieving the ICPD Programme of Action In 29, for the first time since 1999, population assistance decreased from previous levels, mainly due to the decrease in spending on HIV/AIDS projects. HIV/AIDS currently receives around 68% of total population assistance. Meanwhile reproductive health has recorded an important advance of over 7 million USD, increasing its share in population assistance from 17% to 24% (the biggest increases in reproductive health came from the Netherlands, the UK and the US) and family planning reached a new record with an increase of 175 million USD, mostly as a result of the increase in US family planning projects. Breakdown of Population Assistance Funding (Net disbursements in million USD) 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, MDGs Adopted Basic Research Family planning services Basic RH services STD & HIV/AIDS Financial Crisis Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, Millennium Declaration 7,39 2, Includes all donor institutions, including developed country governments, foundations/ngos and development banks (1) The following section relies upon data received from the UNFPA./NIDI Resource Flows Database. This database presents data only for the OECD DAC members. As a result, there is no data in the following section on population assistance controbutions of all EU Member States; therefore, the EU-15 represents EU MS contributions from this point forward. 28

29 Population Assistance Top European Donors to Population Assistance from to 29 1,2 1, (in million USD) UK Netherlands 421 Germany 345 France 33 Spain Denmark EU Institutions Norway Sweden Ireland Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database For the third year in a row the UK is Europe s greatest donor of population assistance. This year, NIDI used OECD DAC-based data instead of data reported directly from the UK government, as was the case in previous years. Netherlands retained the second position, flowed by Germany thanks to a significant increase in 29. France, Spain, Sweden and Normay remain important actors. The EU reduced its contribution for the second year. Belgium and Finland performed well in 29. Remaining European Donors to Population Assistance from to 29 (in million USD) Belgium 71 Finland 47 Switzerland 29 Luxembourg Greece Italy Austria 5 Portugal Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database. 29

30 Population Assistance OEC DAC Efforts on Population Assistance from to 29 2% 17.83% 18% 16% 14% (as percentage of ODA) 12% 1% 9.16% 7.91% 6.94% 6.7% 6.35% 8% 6% 6.12% 5.78% 5.51% 5.47% 5.2% 4% 2% US Netherlands Ireland Luxembourg Sweden UK Norway Denmark Finland New Zealand Spain 3

31 Population Assistance Summary: Population Assistance in donors increased their contributions as % of ODA 11 donors decreased their contributions as % of ODA 1% Commitment from IPCI Conferences (1) 4.91% 4.2% 3.49% 3.28% 2.89% 2.74% 2.5% 1.85% average percentage of ODA = 4,88% 1.56%.99%.82%.73% Canada Australia Germany Japan Belgium France Switzerland Greece EU Institutions Portugal Italy Austria Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, IPCI/ICPD Outcome Declarations in 22, 26 and 29 (1) 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

32 Population Assistance National ODA Per Capita for Population Assistance from to 29 (in million USD) Sweden Netherlands Norway Luxembourg Ireland Denmark UK Finland US Canada Switzerland Belgium Spain France Japan New Zealand Germany Australia Italy Portugal Greece Austria Source: OECD/DAC CRS Database, Eurostat, UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, IPCI/ICPD Outcome Declarations in 22, 26 and 29. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (211). World Population Prospects: The 21 Revision, CD-ROM Edition. The Northern European countries are the most generous donors to population assistance in per capita terms. All of the 5 that surpass the.7% landmark in global ODA are also the most generous donors to population programmes, from the 61 USD of Luxemburg to the 29 USD of Denmark. Ireland has been performing well in the last few years and keeps the 6th position but is set to suffer budgetary pressures. On the right of the graph it is clear that other important donors at the global level achieve lower levels of per capita spending in population. Meanwhile, Austria, Greece and Portugal invest the least ODA for population assistance per capita, with Italy in last place with 44 cents per capita. 32

33 Population Assistance Population Assistance Funding Gap The UN Commission on Population and Development revised the ICPD Costed Package in 29, which outlined the estimated funds needed to achieve the ICPD Programme of Action. Two-thirds of these expenditures, as was stipulated in ICPD, should be spent by developing countries while one-third should come from developed countries through official development assistance. Analysis of the donor share of the ICPD Costed Package - and assuming that expenditures will not decrease from 28 levels - indicates that additional funding must be mobilised by 215. Roughly an additional $12 billion should be mobilized each year. Considering the level of funding currently dedicated to Maternal Health, it is not surprising that MDG5 is the MDG furthest from being met. Indeed, this fact prompted the launch of the 4 billion USD rescue plan for Maternal and Child Health announced by the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, the Global Strategy on Women and Children Health in September 21. It aims to save the lives of 16 million women, children and newborns. It is worth noting the the 4 billion USD figure is very close to the funding gap estimations for the period FP & RH HIV/AIDS Basic Research Annual Total s FUNDING GAP ESTIMATIONS (BILLIONS USD, BASED ON 29 EXPENDITURES) Total 4, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,756.6 Source: UN CPD 29 report The Flow of Financial Resource for Assisting in the Implementation of the PoA ICPD INVESTING IN FAMILY PLANNING, MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH PAYS OFF Meeting the need for both family planning and maternal and newborn health services will: (1) Avert 7% of maternal deaths Avert 44% of newborn deaths (saving 2.6 million lives) Decrease unsafe abortions by 73% from 2 million to 5.5 million (1) Singh, Shusheela, et al. (21) Adding It Up: The Benefits of Investing in Sexual and Reproductive Health Care. New York &Washington DC: The Alan Guttmacher Institute & UNFPA. 33

34 Population Assistance The Funding Gap In 29, the UN s Commission on Population and Development updated and increased the costed population package included in the ICPD (para ). The revision was necessary as the costs and needs to ensure the achievement of the ICPD had changed in the past 15 years of implementation. (1) While Maternal Mortality dropped by a third between 199 and 28, this is insufficient tomeet MDG 5, which calls for a decline of 75% in the Maternal Mortality Ratio. 215 million women still have unmet need for family planning and of the 123 million women that give birth every year, only half of them are attended by skilled health workers. (2) The Funding Gap actual expenditures FP and Basic reproductive health services STDs-HIV/AIDS activities Basic research, data and population (donor share of) future funding needs FP and RH - Estimated funding needs STDs-HIV/AIDS - Estimated funding needs Basic Research - Estimated funding needs (in billion USD) To meet the MDGs by 215, there should have been mobilised (baseline 29): $24.3 additional billions for HIV/AIDS in 6 years $43.9 additional billions for FP/RH in 6 years $3.1 additional billions for basic research in 6 years Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, UN CPD 21 report The Flow of Financial Resource for Assisting in the Implementation of the PoA ICPD. (1) UNFPA reviewed the existing estimates for the four categories of the ICPD costed population package in the Report of the Secretary General The Flow of Financial Resources for Assisting in the Implementation of the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development that was presented to the 42nd session of the Commission on Population and Development. (2) Singh, Shusheela, et al. (21) Adding It Up: The Benefits of Investing in Sexual and Reproductive Health Care. New York &Washington DC: The Alan Guttmacher Institute & UNFPA. 34

35 Population Assistance The following two graphs compare project expenditures towards Family Planning and Reproductive Health, as reported by donor countries on the OECD/DAC CRS and to the UNFPA/NIDI donor survey. Countries that are not listed did not report any expenditure under these two sectors in the three years listed. Top Donors to Family Planning (net disbursements in million USD) New Zealand Switzerland Finland Belgium France Sweden Japan UK Italy Ireland Austria Luxembourg Norway EU Institutions Denmark Australia Canada Netherlands Spain Germany US Portugal Greece Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database Definition of Family Planning according to the ICPD Programme of Action: FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES - contraceptive commodities and service delivery; capacity-building for information, education and communication regarding family planning and population and development issues; national capacity-building through support for training; infrastructure development and upgrading of facilities; policy development and programme evaluation; management information systems; basic service statistics; and focused efforts to ensure good quality care. 35

36 Population Assistance Top Donors to Reproductive Health (disbursements in million USD) US UK* Netherlands Spain Japan Canada EU Institutions Norway France Germany Australia Sweden Switzerland Belgium Ireland Denmark Finland Luxembourg Italy Portugal Austria Greece New Zealand 2.24 *Data for 29 is derived from the OECD DAC, while previous years data was received directly from the UK. Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database Definition of Reproductive Health according to the ICPD Programme of Action: BASIC REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES - information and routine services for prenatal, normal and safe delivery and post-natal care; abortion (as specified in paragraph 8.25 of the ICPD Programme of Action); information, education and communication about reproductive health, including sexually transmitted diseases, human sexuality and responsible parenthood, and against harmful practices; adequate counselling; diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and other reproductive tract infections, as feasible; prevention of infertility and appropriate treatment, where feasible; and referrals, education and counselling services for sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS, and for pregnancy and delivery complications. 36

37 Donor Profiles 37

38 Donor Profiles Ranking of Population Assistance as % of Total ODA, 29 Rank Country Population Assistance HIV/AIDS/STDSs RH FP as % of ODA as % of ODA as % of ODA as % of ODA 1 US 17.83% 14.6% 1.36% 1.66% 2 Netherlands 9.16% 1.42% 3.56%.8% 3 Ireland 7.91% 5.35% 1.95% 2% 4 Luxembourg 6.94% 1.94% 2.46%.2% 5 Sweden 6.7% 1.84% 1.23% % 6 UK 6.35% 3.8% 1.93% % 7 Norway 6.12% 1.44% 1.39% 2% 8 Denmark 5.78% 1.41%.81%.1% 9 Finland 5.51%.33%.71% % 1 New Zealand 5.47%.31% 2.31% % 11 Spain 5.2%.34% 1.66%.11% 12 Canada 4.91% 1.18% 3.1%.11% 13 Australia 4.2% 2.53% 1.33%.2% 14 Germany 3.49%.86%.78%.9% 15 Japan 3.28%.16% 1.21% % 16 Belgium 2.89%.65%.73% % 17 France 2.74%.16%.49% % 18 Switzerland 2.5%.11%.61% % 19 Greece 1.85% 1.29%.55% % 2 Portugal.99%.14%.44% % 21 Italy.82%.38%.37% % 22 Austria.73%.22%.28% 4% 23 EU.26%.4%.19% 1% In previous editions of Euromapping donors have been ranked according to absolute expenditures towards the ICPD categories. This year they are instead ranked according to disbursements as a percentage of total ODA and all four categories are shown in one table. The idea behind this is to allow an easier comparison of donors and disbursements and ranking donors by their percentage of total ODA also simplifies a comparison between donors with relatively smaller or bigger economies. The fact that some countries disbursements to FP are shown as % does not necessarily mean that these countries direct no aid at all to this sector. Due to the difficulties in tracking aid discussed in the introduction, aid that is actually targeting FP might have been assigned with a purpose code other than 133 for FP and is therefore not included in our data. We have given all donors with zero expenditure for family planning 13th position in the family planning ranking. 38

39 Quick Reference to Donor Profiles Euromapping Rank Population Assistance Trends ( ) Family Planning 1 23 RH FP Gen. Contributions Contribution 8 (in million USD) Donors are ranked according to their disbursements as a % of ODA towards each of the ICPD categories in 29. STD/HIV/AIDS Ba Research Basic T tall Pop Tot Popula ulati l tio tionn Annual and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category in Million USD Familyy Planning g Project Expenditures Reproductive Health STD/ TD TD/ HIV/ IV/AID IV/ /AIDS Basic Research General (1) Contributions Total Primary Funds % of ODA Total ODA Spending Notes Million USD (1) General Contributions denotes amounts allocated towards multilateral organisations. (2) Global/Interregional denotes programmes that are implemented in multiple regions as well as general contributions towards multilateral organisations. (3) Destination region percentages are rounded up to the nearest whole number; totals may not equal 1% > 8% 8-5% 5-3% 3-1% < 1% % of GNI T Total ODA Spending is listed here to provide comparable figures to a donor s Population Assistance. Australia's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 29 (2) (3) s Projeect Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database 39

40 AUSTRALIA Population Assistance Trends ( ) Euromapping Rank Family Planning 6 Reprod. Health 1 STD/HIV/AIDS 4 (in million USD) STD/HIV/AIDS Basic Research FP RH Gen. Contributions Total Population in Million USD Family Planning Annual and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category Project Expenditures Reproductive Health STD/ HIV/AIDS Basic Research General Contributions (1) Total Primary Funds % of ODA % 3.7% 4.3% 4.2% Notes (1) General Contributions denotes amounts allocated towards multilateral organisations. (2) Global/Interregional denotes programmes that are implemented in multiple regions as well as general contributions towards multilateral organisations. (3) Destination region percentages are rounded up to the nearest whole number; totals may not equal 1% Total ODA Spending Million USD % of GNI 2, % 2, % 2, % 2, % 3, % > 8% 8-5% 5-3% 3-1% < 1% Australia's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 29 Eastern and Southern Europe (2) (3) Global/Interregional cific Lat America Sa aharan Africa Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database 4

41 AUSTRIA Euromapping Rank STD/HIV/AIDS FP RH Basic Research Gen. Contributions Family Planning Reprod. Health 3 22 STD/HIV/AIDS Total Population (in million USD) Population Assistance Trends ( ) in Million USD Family Planning Annual and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category Project Expenditures Reproductive Health STD/ HIV/AIDS Basic Research General Contributions (1) Total Primary Funds % of ODA %.4%.5%.7% Notes (1) General Contributions denotes amounts allocated towards multilateral organisations. (2) Global/Interregional denotes programmes that are implemented in multiple regions as well as general contributions towards multilateral organisations. (3) Destination region percentages are rounded up to the nearest whole number; totals may not equal 1% Total ODA Spending Million USD % of GNI 1, % 1, % 1, % 1, % 1, % > 8% 8-5% 5-3% 3-1% < 1% Austria's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 29 (2) (3) 21% 41 Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

42 Population Assistance Trends ( ) STD/HIV/AIDS FP RH Basic Research Gen. Contributions (in million USD) (1) % 2.9% 1.6% 2.9% (1) General Contributions denotes amounts allocated towards multilateral organisations. (2) Global/Interregional denotes programmes that are implemented in multiple regions as well as general contributions towards multilateral organisations. (3) Destination region percentages are rounded up to the nearest whole number; totals may not equal 1% , % 1, % 2, % 2, % 3,.23.64% Belgium's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 29 (2) (3) Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database 42

43 CANADA Euromapping Rank STD/HIV/AIDS FP RH Basic Research Gen. Contributions Family Planning 3 3 Reprod. Health 2 STD/HIV/AIDS Total Population (in million USD) Population Assistance Trends ( ) in Million USD Family Planning Annual and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category Project Expenditures Reproductive Health STD/ HIV/AIDS Basic Research General Contributions (1) Total Primary Funds % of ODA % 5.7% 3.9% 4.9% Notes (1) General Contributions denotes amounts allocated towards multilateral organisations. (2) Global/Interregional denotes programmes that are implemented in multiple regions as well as general contributions towards multilateral organisations. (3) Destination region percentages are rounded up to the nearest whole number; totals may not equal 1% Total ODA Spending Million USD % of GNI 3, % 4, % 4, % 4,12.5.3% 5, % > 8% 8-5% 5-3% 3-1% < 1% Canada's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 29 Eastern and Southern Europe (2) (3) Global/Interregional cific Latin America Sa aharan Africa 43 Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

44 DENMARK Euromapping Rank STD/HIV/AIDS FP RH Basic Research Gen. Contributions Family Planning 14 8 Reprod. Health STD/HIV/AIDS Total Population (in million USD) 1 8 Population Assistance Trends ( ) in Million USD Family Planning Annual and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category Project Expenditures Reproductive Health STD/ HIV/AIDS Basic Research General Contributions (1) Total Primary Funds % of ODA % 5.4% 5.7% 5.8% Notes (1) General Contributions denotes amounts allocated towards multilateral organisations. (2) Global/Interregional denotes programmes that are implemented in multiple regions as well as general contributions towards multilateral organisations. (3) Destination region percentages are rounded up to the nearest whole number; totals may not equal 1% Total ODA Spending Million USD % of GNI 2, % 2, % 2, % 2, % 2, % > 8% 8-5% 5-3% 3-1% < 1% Denmark's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 29 Eastern and Southern Europe (2)(3) Global/Interregional cific Lat America Sa aharan Africa Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database 44

45 EU INSTITUTIONS 12 Reprod. Health 23 STD/HIV/AIDS (in million USD) Total Population Population Assistance Trends ( ) Euromapping Rank STD/HIV/AIDS FP RH Basic Research Gen. Contributions Family Planning in Million USD Family Planning Annual and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category Project Expenditures Reproductive Health STD/ HIV/AIDS Basic Research General Contributions ( * ) 2.84 ( * ).16 ( * ).16 ( * ) ( * ) The contributions to the Global Fund are not accounted by in the NIDI figures but the contribution has been 1 million annually. 56% is attributable to population according to NIDI methodology, that is 56 million or nearly 8 million USD a year. (1) Total Primary Funds % of ODA 2.8% 2.7% 2.% 1.6% Notes (1) General Contributions denotes amounts allocated towards multilateral organisations. (2) Global/Interregional denotes programmes that are implemented in multiple regions as well as general contributions towards multilateral organisations. (3) Destination region percentages are rounded up to the nearest whole number; totals may not equal 1% Total ODA Spending Million USD 1, , , , , % of GNI.41%.37%.4%.42%.43% > 8% 8-5% 5-3% 3-1% < 1% European Union's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 29 Eastern and Southern Europe (2) (3) Global/Interregional cific 21% Latin America Sa aharan Africa 45 Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

46 FINLAND Population Assistance Trends ( ) Euromapping Rank Family Planning 13 Reprod. Health 16 STD/HIV/AIDS 16 (in million USD) STD/HIV/AIDS Basic Research FP RH Gen. Contributions Total Population in Million USD Family Planning Annual and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category Project Expenditures Reproductive Health STD/ HIV/AIDS Basic Research General Contributions (1) Total Primary Funds % of ODA % 4.% 5.2% 5.5% Notes (1) General Contributions denotes amounts allocated towards multilateral organisations. (2) Global/Interregional denotes programmes that are implemented in multiple regions as well as general contributions towards multilateral organisations. (3) Destination region percentages are rounded up to the nearest whole number; totals may not equal 1% Total ODA Spending Million USD % of GNI % % 1, % 1, % 1, % > 8% 8-5% 5-3% 3-1% < 1% Finland's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 29 Eastern and Southern Europe (2) (3) Global/Interregional cific Lat America Sa aharan Africa Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database 46

47 FRANCE Euromapping Rank STD/HIV/AIDS Basic Research FP RH Gen. Contributions Family Planning Reprod. Health STD/HIV/AIDS Total Population (in million USD) Population Assistance Trends ( ) in Million USD Family Planning Annual and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category Project Expenditures Reproductive Health STD/ HIV/AIDS Basic Research General Contributions (1) Total Primary Funds % of ODA % 3.1% 3.5% 2.7% Notes (1) General Contributions denotes amounts allocated towards multilateral organisations. (2) Global/Interregional denotes programmes that are implemented in multiple regions as well as general contributions towards multilateral organisations. (3) Destination region percentages are rounded up to the nearest whole number; totals may not equal 1% Total ODA Spending Million USD % of GNI 1, % 9, % 1, % 12, % 12, % > 8% 8-5% 5-3% 3-1% < 1% France's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 29 Eastern and Southern Europe (2) (3) Global/Interregional cific Latin America Sa aharan Africa 47 Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

48 GERMANY Euromapping Rank STD/HIV/AIDS Basic Research FP RH Gen. Contributions Family Planning Reprod. Health STD/HIV/AIDS Total Population (in million USD) Population Assistance Trends ( ) in Million USD Family Planning Annual and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category Project Expenditures Reproductive Health STD/ HIV/AIDS Basic Research General Contributions (1) Total Primary Funds % of ODA % 1.6% 1.4% 3.5% Notes (1) General Contributions denotes amounts allocated towards multilateral organisations. (2) Global/Interregional denotes programmes that are implemented in multiple regions as well as general contributions towards multilateral organisations. (3) Destination region percentages are rounded up to the nearest whole number; totals may not equal 1% Total ODA Spending Million USD % of GNI 1, % 12, % 13, % 12, % 12, % > 8% 8-5% 5-3% 3-1% < 1% Germany's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 29 Eastern and Southern Europe (2) (3) Global/Interregional cific Lat America Sa aharan Africa Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database 48

49 GREECE Euromapping Rank Family Planning 13 Reprod. Health 18 STD/HIV/AIDS Total Population (in million USD) Population Assistance Trends ( ) STD/HIV/AIDS FP RH Basic Research Gen. Contributions in Million USD Family Planning Annual and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category Project Expenditures Reproductive Health STD/ HIV/AIDS Basic Research General Contributions (1) Total Primary Funds % of ODA % 2.4%.9% 1.9% Notes (1) General Contributions denotes amounts allocated towards multilateral organisations. (2) Global/Interregional denotes programmes that are implemented in multiple regions as well as general contributions towards multilateral organisations. (3) Destination region percentages are rounded up to the nearest whole number; totals may not equal 1% Total ODA Spending Million USD % of GNI % % % % % > 8% 8-5% 5-3% 3-1% < 1% Greece's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 29 Eastern and Southern Europe (2) (3) Global/Interregional cific Latin America Sa aharan Africa 49 Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

50 IRELAND Euromapping Rank Family Planning 11 Reprod. Health 5 STD/HIV/AIDS Total Population (in million USD) Population Assistance Trends ( ) STD/HIV/AIDS FP RH Basic Research Gen. Contributions in Million USD Family Planning Annual and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category Project Expenditures Reproductive Health STD/ HIV/AIDS Basic Research General Contributions (1) Total Primary Funds % of ODA % 1.2% 8.5% 7.9% Notes (1) General Contributions denotes amounts allocated towards multilateral organisations. (2) Global/Interregional denotes programmes that are implemented in multiple regions as well as general contributions towards multilateral organisations. (3) Destination region percentages are rounded up to the nearest whole number; totals may not equal 1% Total ODA Spending Million USD % of GNI 1, % 1, % 1, % 1, % % > 8% 8-5% 5-3% 3-1% < 1% Ireland's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 29 (2) (3) Eastern and Southern Europe Global/Interregional cific Lat America Sa aharan Africa Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database 5

51 ITALY Euromapping Rank Family Planning 13 Reprod. Health 21 STD/HIV/AIDS Total Population (in million USD) Population Assistance Trends ( ) STD/HIV/AIDS Basic Research FP RH Gen. Contributions in Million USD Family Planning Annual and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category Project Expenditures Reproductive Health STD/ HIV/AIDS Basic Research General Contributions (1) Total Primary Funds % of ODA , % 1.%.6%.8% Notes (1) General Contributions denotes amounts allocated towards multilateral organisations. (2) Global/Interregional denotes programmes that are implemented in multiple regions as well as general contributions towards multilateral organisations. (3) Destination region percentages are rounded up to the nearest whole number; totals may not equal 1% Total ODA Spending Million USD % of GNI 3, % 3, % 4, % 3, % 3, % > 8% 8-5% 5-3% 3-1% < 1% Italy's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 29 (2)(3) Eastern and Southern Europe Global/Interregional cific Latin America Sa aharan Africa 51 Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

52 JAPAN Euromapping Rank STD/HIV/AIDS Basic Research FP RH Gen. Contributions Family Planning Reprod. Health STD/HIV/AIDS Total Population (in million USD) Population Assistance Trends ( ) in Million USD Family Planning Annual and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category Project Expenditures Reproductive Health STD/ HIV/AIDS Basic Research General Contributions (1) Total Primary Funds % of ODA % 4.1% 1.3% 3.3% Notes (1) General Contributions denotes amounts allocated towards multilateral organisations. (2) Global/Interregional denotes programmes that are implemented in multiple regions as well as general contributions towards multilateral organisations. (3) Destination region percentages are rounded up to the nearest whole number; totals may not equal 1% Total ODA Spending Million USD % of GNI 11, % 7, % 9, % 9, % 11.45,22.2% > 8% 8-5% 5-3% 3-1% < 1% Japan's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 29 (2) (3) Eastern and Southern Europe Global/Interregional Asia and the Pacific Lat America Sa aharan Africa Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database 52

53 LUXEMBOURG Euromapping Rank Family Planning 7 Reprod. Health 3 STD/HIV/AIDS Total Population (in million USD) Population Assistance Trends ( ) STD/HIV/AIDS FP RH Basic Research Gen. Contributions in Million USD Family Planning Annual and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category Project Expenditures Reproductive Health STD/ HIV/AIDS Basic Research General Contributions (1) Total Primary Funds % of ODA % 7.7% 8.6% 6.9% Notes (1) General Contributions denotes amounts allocated towards multilateral organisations. (2) Global/Interregional denotes programmes that are implemented in multiple regions as well as general contributions towards multilateral organisations. (3) Destination region percentages are rounded up to the nearest whole number; totals may not equal 1% Total ODA Spending Million USD % of GNI % % % % % > 8% 8-5% 5-3% 3-1% < 1% Luxembourg's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 29 Eastern and Southern Europe (2) (3) Global/Interregional cific Latin America Sa aharan Africa 53 Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

54 THE NETHERLANDS Euromapping Rank STD/HIV/AIDS FP RH Basic Research Gen. Contributions Family Planning 35 5 Reprod. Health 1 3 STD/HIV/AIDS Total Population (in million USD) 25 2 Population Assistance Trends ( ) in Million USD Family Planning Annual and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category Project Expenditures Reproductive Health STD/ HIV/AIDS Basic Research General Contributions (1) Total Primary Funds % of ODA , % 8.9% 7.1% 9.2% Notes (1) General Contributions denotes amounts allocated towards multilateral organisations. (2) Global/Interregional denotes programmes that are implemented in multiple regions as well as general contributions towards multilateral organisations. (3) Destination region percentages are rounded up to the nearest whole number; totals may not equal 1% Total ODA Spending Million USD % of GNI 5, % 6, % 6, % 6, % 6, % > 8% 8-5% 5-3% 3-1% < 1% The Netherland's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 29 Eastern and Southern Europe (2) (3) Global/Interregional cific Lat America Sa aharan Africa Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database 54

55 NEW ZEALAND Euromapping Rank Family Planning 13 Reprod. Health 5 12 STD/HIV/AIDS Total Population (in million USD) Population Assistance Trends ( ) STD/HIV/AIDS FP RH Basic Research Gen. Contributions in Million USD Family Planning Annual and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category Project Expenditures Reproductive Health STD/ HIV/AIDS Basic Research General Contributions (1) Total Primary Funds % of ODA % 4.3% 4.9% 5.5% Notes (1) General Contributions denotes amounts allocated towards multilateral organisations. (2) Global/Interregional denotes programmes that are implemented in multiple regions as well as general contributions towards multilateral organisations. (3) Destination region percentages are rounded up to the nearest whole number; totals may not equal 1% Total ODA Spending Million USD % of GNI % % % % % > 8% 8-5% 5-3% 3-1% < 1% New Zealand's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 29 Eastern and Southern Europe (2) (3) Global/Interregional cific Latin America Sa aharan Africa 55 Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

56 NORWAY Euromapping Rank Family Planning 1 Reprod. Health 8 STD/HIV/AIDS 7 25 Total Population 7 (in million USD) Population Assistance Trends ( ) STD/HIV/AIDS FP RH Basic Research Gen. Contributions in Million USD Family Planning Annual and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category Project Expenditures Reproductive Health STD/ HIV/AIDS Basic Research General Contributions (1) Total Primary Funds % of ODA % 7.1% 6.8% 6.1% Notes (1) General Contributions denotes amounts allocated towards multilateral organisations. (2) Global/Interregional denotes programmes that are implemented in multiple regions as well as general contributions towards multilateral organisations. (3) Destination region percentages are rounded up to the nearest whole number; totals may not equal 1% Total ODA Spending Million USD % of GNI 2, % 3, % 3, % 4, % 4, % > 8% 8-5% 5-3% 3-1% < 1% Norway's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 29 Eastern and Southern Europe (2) (3) Global/Interregional cific Lat America Sa aharan Africa Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database 56

57 PORTUGAL Euromapping Rank STD/HIV/AIDS Basic Research FP RH Gen. Contributions Family Planning Reprod. Health STD/HIV/AIDS Total Population (in million USD) Population Assistance Trends ( ) in Million USD Family Planning Annual and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category Project Expenditures Reproductive Health STD/ HIV/AIDS Basic Research General Contributions (1) Total Primary Funds % of ODA % 1.2% 1.2% 1.% Notes (1) General Contributions denotes amounts allocated towards multilateral organisations. (2) Global/Interregional denotes programmes that are implemented in multiple regions as well as general contributions towards multilateral organisations. (3) Destination region percentages are rounded up to the nearest whole number; totals may not equal 1% Total ODA Spending Million USD % of GNI % % % % % > 8% 8-5% 5-3% 3-1% < 1% Portugal's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 29 Eastern and Southern Europe (2) (3) Global/Interregional cific <1% Latin America Sa aharan Africa 57 Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

58 SPAIN Euromapping Rank STD/HIV/AIDS Basic Research FP RH Gen. Contributions Family Planning Reprod. Health STD/HIV/AIDS Total Population (in million USD) Population Assistance Trends ( ) in Million USD Family Planning Annual and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category Project Expenditures Reproductive Health STD/ HIV/AIDS Basic Research General Contributions (1) Total Primary Funds % of ODA % 2.7% 5.1% 5.% Notes (1) General Contributions denotes amounts allocated towards multilateral organisations. (2) Global/Interregional denotes programmes that are implemented in multiple regions as well as general contributions towards multilateral organisations. (3) Destination region percentages are rounded up to the nearest whole number; totals may not equal 1% Total ODA Spending Million USD % of GNI 3, % 5, % 6, % 6, % 5, % > 8% 8-5% 5-3% 3-1% < 1% Spain's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 29 (2) (3) Eastern and Southern Europe Global/Interregional cific 26% Lat America Sa aharan Africa Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database 58

59 SWEDEN Euromapping Rank Family Planning 13 Reprod. Health 11 STD/HIV/AIDS Total Population (in million USD) Population Assistance Trends ( ) STD/HIV/AIDS FP RH Basic Research Gen. Contributions in Million USD Family Planning Annual and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category Project Expenditures Reproductive Health STD/ HIV/AIDS Basic Research General Contributions (1) Total Primary Funds % of ODA ( * ) ( * ) ( * ) ( * ) , ,76 9.3% 8.4% 7.4% 6.7% ( * ) Sweden does not report on Family Planning. Notes (1) General Contributions denotes amounts allocated towards multilateral organisations. (2) Global/Interregional denotes programmes that are implemented in multiple regions as well as general contributions towards multilateral organisations. (3) Destination region percentages are rounded up to the nearest whole number; totals may not equal 1% Total ODA Spending Million USD % of GNI 3, % 4, % 4, % 4, % 4, % > 8% 8-5% 5-3% 3-1% < 1% Sweden's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 29 Eastern and Southern Europe (2) (3) Global/Interregional cific Latin America Sa aharan Africa 59 Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

60 SWITZERLAND Euromapping Rank Family Planning 13 Reprod. Health 17 STD/HIV/AIDS Total Population (in million USD) Population Assistance Trends ( ) STD/HIV/AIDS FP RH Basic Research Gen. Contributions in Million USD Family Planning Annual and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category Project Expenditures Reproductive Health STD/ HIV/AIDS Basic Research General Contributions (1) Total Primary Funds % of ODA % 2.2% 2.2% 2.% Notes (1) General Contributions denotes amounts allocated towards multilateral organisations. (2) Global/Interregional denotes programmes that are implemented in multiple regions as well as general contributions towards multilateral organisations. (3) Destination region percentages are rounded up to the nearest whole number; totals may not equal 1% Total ODA Spending Million USD % of GNI 1, % 1, % 2, % 2, % 2, % > 8% 8-5% 5-3% 3-1% < 1% Switzerland's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 29 Eastern and Southern Europe (2) (3) Global/Interregional cific Lat America Sa aharan Africa Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database 6

61 UK Euromapping Rank Family Planning 13 Reprod. Health 6 1,2 STD/HIV/AIDS Total Population (in million USD) Population Assistance Trends ( ) STD/HIV/AIDS FP RH Basic Research Gen. Contributions 1,4 1, 8 in Million USD Family Planning Annual and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category Project Expenditures Reproductive Health STD/ HIV/AIDS Basic Research General Contributions (1) Total Primary Funds % of ODA ( ** ) ( ** ) ( ** ) ( * )( ** ) ( * ) ( * ).37 ( * ) ( * ) , , ( * ).%.%.%.% ( * ) Unlike data from previous years submitted by the UK government, 29 data is based on OECD/DAC data, thus changing the trend. ** The UK does not report on Family Planning. Notes (1) General Contributions denotes amounts allocated towards multilateral organisations. (2) Global/Interregional denotes programmes that are implemented in multiple regions as well as general contributions towards multilateral organisations. (3) Destination region percentages are rounded up to the nearest whole number; totals may not equal 1% Total ODA Spending Million USD % of GNI 12, % 9, % 11, % 11, % 13, % > 8% 8-5% 5-3% 3-1% < 1% United Kingdom's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 29 Eastern and Southern Europe (2) (3) Global/Interregional cific Latin America Sa aharan Africa 61 Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

62 US Euromapping Rank Family Planning 1 Reprod. Health 9 STD/HIV/AIDS 1 3,5 1, 5 Total Population (in million USD) Population Assistance Trends ( ) STD/HIV/AIDS FP RH Basic Research Gen. Contributions 4, 3, 2,5 2, 1,5 in Million USD Family Planning Annual and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category Project Expenditures Reproductive Health STD/ HIV/AIDS Basic Research General Contributions (1) Total Primary Funds % of ODA , , ,63.3 4, , , , , % 14.1% 17.7% 17.8% Notes (1) General Contributions denotes amounts allocated towards multilateral organisations. (2) Global/Interregional denotes programmes that are implemented in multiple regions as well as general contributions towards multilateral organisations. (3) Destination region percentages are rounded up to the nearest whole number; totals may not equal 1% Total ODA Spending Million USD % of GNI 23, % 21, % 26, % 28, % 3, % > 8% 8-5% 5-3% 3-1% < 1% United States Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 29 Eastern and Southern Europe (2) (3) Global/Interregional Asia and the Pacific Lat America Sa aharan Africa Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database 62