Euromapping

Transcription

1 Euromapping

2 Acknowledgements Deutsche Stiftung Weltbevölkerung (DSW) and the European Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development (EPF) would like to thank the following researchers, writers, editors and partners for their valuable contributions: Marina Cognée, Sandrine Remy, Stelios Stratinakis, Cécile Vernant, Eoghan Walsh for the review, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Countdown 23 Europe. Special thanks are also due to Neil Datta and Cécile Vernant for overseeing the project. Layout and Design: Deutsche Stiftung Weltbevölkerung (DSW) European Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development (EPF) Euromapping

3 Euromapping 218 Euromapping is an annual publication that analyses the latest updated data available (216), tracking Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) donors contributions to reproductive, maternal, newborn, child health () & family planning (), as part of their official development aid (). It thus highlights and ranks global efforts for sustainable development, and constitutes a transparency and accountability tool on donors development assistance in these crucial areas. Euromapping 218 looks at 3 OECD DAC donors data, including: Donors yearly commitments to, & Donors yearly disbursements to, & Four-year performance on commitments to & as a share of Four-year performance on disbursement to & as a share of Euromapping

4 About us About DSW About EPF Deutsche Stiftung Weltbevölkerung (DSW) is a global development organisation that focuses on the needs and potential of the largest youth generation in history. We are committed to creating demand for and access to health information, services and supplies, and to securing their right for a brighter future. We achieve this by engaging in advocacy, capacity development, and family planning initiatives, which make sure the youth of today are empowered to lead healthy and self-determined lives. With our headquarters in Hannover, Germany, DSW operates two liaison offices in Berlin and Brussels, as well as maintaining a strong presence in Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda. For more information please visit Bringing together Parliamentarians committed to protecting the sexual and reproductive health and rights of the world s most vulnerable. The European Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development (EPF) is a network of members of parliaments from across Europe who are committed to protecting the sexual and reproductive health of the world s most vulnerable people, both at home and overseas. We believe that women should always have the right to decide upon the number of children they wish to have, and should never be denied the education or other means to achieve this that they are entitled to by law. We believe that it makes sense personally, economically and environmentally for governments to devote development aid to initiatives protecting people s sexual and reproductive health and rights. EPF began as a project of the International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network (IPPFEN). It was legally registered in Belgium and recognised by Royal Decree in 2. In 24, EPF became a fully independent not-for-profit organisation. For more information please visit Euromapping

5 Executive Summary Main Findings On, And Commitments And Disbursements 1 In 216, five donors (the US, the UK, The Netherlands, Germany and the EU Institutions) accounted for over 75% of all reproductive, maternal, new-born and child health () and over 8% of family planning () commitments and disbursements. 2 The US is the leading global donor of official development assistance (), and. In 216, as in previous years, US commitments and disbursements in these areas were by far the largest among the 3 OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) donors. However, for the first time, the US has already lost their leading position on funding to and commitments as a percentage of. With the decision to re-enact and expand the Mexico City Policy ( Global Gag Rule ) and withdraw funding from the United Nations Population Fund (UNA), funding from the US to organisations not signing the Global Gag Rule and UNA will halt with consequent impact on reaching vulnerable population groups with //HIV services. To mitigate this, other donors will need to prioritise funding for and. 3 There are five donors (the UK, the EU Institutions, Germany, Japan and France) that rank highly in, and commitments and disbursements, but significantly lower when those amounts are assessed as a percentage of their. More effort is possible and needed for these donors to increase their share of and contributions as a percentage of and take on their fair share of the financial burden. 4 In 216, the EU (the EU Institutions & Member States) represented more than half of overall : 57% of commitments, and 6% of total DAC disbursements. However, the EU (EU Institutions & Member States) is a much smaller actor in only accounting for 3% of all donors and commitments, and less than of disbursements. 5 The EU Institutions and The Netherlands were responsible for the highest increase of commitments to both and compared to 215. In 216, The Netherlands are behind only the US in commitments to funding and first in relative terms. Canada also shows a strong positive trend in terms of commitments, while funding to and from Greece and Hungary experienced the biggest decrease, despite an increase in their spending. While Norway increased its commitments to (+27), its disbursements decreased (-7%). 6 There are 11 donors (Austria, Switzerland, Portugal, Italy, Spain, Slovak Republic, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Poland, Hungary, Greece), whose commitments represent less than of their overall commitments. With the exception of Switzerland (3%), those donors showcased the same trend in their disbursements. 7 Five donors (the US, The Netherlands, Sweden, the UK and Canada) score in the top-1 in almost all rankings, having committed and disbursed large amounts for and. The large proportion of and as a share of reflects the priority that the donors give to those issues in their development cooperation policy. 8 Luxembourg and Ireland have smaller economies relative to the other donors reviewed, and consequently smaller total, and commitments and disbursements. However, these countries spend a high proportion of their on (8.3% and 7.5% respectively) and (2.7% and.5% respectively), reflecting the importance of these issues in their development cooperation policies, and scoring high in the respective rankings. Euromapping

6 Total commitments by DAC donors have increased by 6.3% in 216 (to 184,442 billion United States Dollars - USD), compared to 215 (173,531 billion USD). Gross disbursements have increased by 11. in 216 (to 176,592 billion USD) compared to 215 (158,83 USD). In 216, Germany joined five other countries Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden and the UK in meeting the longpledged commitment to allocate.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) to. The Netherlands slipped below.7% to join 22 other donors under the threshold. Spending On Refugees As Part Of Increased In 216, the amount of allocated to cover refugee costs in donor countries rose to unprecedented levels, from just 6 in 214 and 12 in 215 to 16 billion USD. This represents almost 8.6% of spent in 216 and 15.3% if one only considers EU DAC donors (Member States and institutions). If in-donor refugee costs are excluded, the overall increase in commitments between 215 and 216 falls from 9.6% to 4.5%. While only three countries (Australia, Korea, and Luxembourg) and the EU Institutions do not count in-donor refugee costs as, another thirteen countries spent more than a tenth of their commitments for this purpose; Greece spent 39.8% of its total commitments on this, followed by Austria (34.), Italy (33%), Iceland (26.7%), Switzerland (26.1%), Germany (23%), Denmark (18.), Sweden (17.), Belgium (17.), Norway (16.8%), Finland (14.), The Netherlands (11.) and Slovenia (1.1%). FIGURE 1: 216 (In billion USD constant prices) US Germany Japan 23.8 EU Inst. France UK Italy 5.26 FIGURE 2: 216 (In billion USD constant prices) US Germany EU Inst UK Japan France Italy 5.16 Canada Netherlands 4.79 Netherlands 5.1 Sweden Spain 4.76 Norway Sweden 4.4 Norway Spain Canada Australia 3.66 Switzerland Korea Australia 2.65 Switzerland 2.52 Denmark 2.24 Denmark 2.35 Belgium Korea 2.18 Belgium 2.32 Austria Austria Finland Finland Ireland Ireland.8.8 Poland Poland New Zealand.45 New Zealand.39 Luxembourg.39 Portugal.39 Portugal.39 Luxembourg Greece Greece Czech Republic.26 Czech Republic.2 Hungary.2 Hungary.11 Slovak Republic.11 Slovak Republic.7 Slovenia.8 Slovenia Iceland Iceland Source: OECD DAC.6 Source: OECD DAC.6 Euromapping

7 Commitments The total volume of commitments from the 3 DAC donors for 216 was 12 billion USD, increased by 12. compared to 215. The US was by far the biggest donor in terms of commitments to, totalling 6.28 billion USD, having committed as much as all the other donors combined. The US commitments are over six times the UK s commitments, which was the second largest contributor of to in 216, and well above the combined commitments to of the 2 EU DAC donors (Member States and Institutions), which together committed 4 billion USD that year. When commitments are assessed as a share of, Norway tops the ranking, with over 17.6%, slightly ahead of the US with 17.3% and The Netherlands with 13. of their dedicated to. Moreover, some of the largest donors, like the EU Institutions, Germany and Japan which score 5 th, 6 th and 8 th respectively in absolute numbers fall to the bottom half of the ranking 16 th, 18 th, and 19 th respectively. NB: Disbursements for one given year can not always be linked with the commitments made during that year; considerable discrepancies for a few countries occur - see annex on methodology. For this reason, this report presents both data sets, although showing similar trends this year. FIGURE 3: 216 (In million USD constant prices) 7, 2, 1,5 1, 5 US UK Norway Netherlands EU Inst Germany Canada Japan FIGURE 4: 216 DONORS TO AS % OF THEIR (In %) , Sweden France Australia Korea Belgium Italy Denmark Ireland Switzerland Spain Luxembourg Austria X>1% 1%>X>5% 5%>X> >X 3.8 Finland New Zealand 5.88 Portugal 1.74 Czech Rep Iceland 1.66 Poland Slovak Republic.3 Hungary.18 Slovenia Greece Source: OECD DAC.4 Source: OECD DAC Norway overtakes the US in percentage of committed to, Luxembourg and Ireland score higher than Germany and France. 1 5 Norway US Netherlands Canada Sweden UK Luxembourg Ireland Australia Korea Belgium Iceland Denmark Finland France EU Inst. New Zealand Germany Japan Austria Switzerland Portugal Italy Spain Slovak Republic Czech Rep Slovenia Poland Hungary Greece Euromapping

8 Disbursements The total volume of disbursements from the 3 DAC donors for 216 was 12 billion USD. Once again, the US was by far the leading donor in, amounting to nearly half (6 billion USD) of the total disbursements for. This is more than three times the UK s disbursements (2 billion USD), which was the second largest donor, and well over the combined disbursements to of the 2 EU DAC donors (Member States and Institutions), which together spent a total of 4 billion USD in 216. While the absolute figures of to from donors like Germany, the EU Institutions, Japan and France are among the top, when compared to their figures, the picture changes dramatically; they move to the lower half of the ranking, 2 th, 17 th, 19 th, and 15 th respectively. On the contrary, the US, the UK, Canada, The Netherlands, Norway, as well as smaller donors such as Luxembourg, have the largest shares of their dedicated to. FIGURE 5: 216 GROSS (In million USD constant prices) 6, 2, 1,5 1, 5 2 US UK Germany EU Inst. Canada Japan Netherlands France Sweden FIGURE 6: 216 DONORS TO AS % OF THEIR (In %) 5, , Norway Australia Korea Switzerland Denmark Belgium Italy Ireland 6.22 Spain Finland Luxembourg Austria New Zealand 5.82 Portugal Iceland Czech Rep Poland Slovak Republic.36 Slovenia.3 Hungary Greece Source: OECD DAC.4 Source: OECD DAC X>1% 1%>X>5% 5%>X> >X The US contribution to is more than three times the UK s disbursements, the second donor, while Canada consolidates its champion position in percentage of US Canada UK Netherlands Luxembourg Norway Ireland Sweden Australia Korea New Zealand 3.43 Denmark Belgium Finland France Switzerland EU Inst. Iceland Japan Germany Portugal Italy Spain Austria Slovak Republic Czech Rep Slovenia Poland Hungary Greece Euromapping

9 Commitments In 216, the US ranked first for total commitments (2 billion USD), increasing by 1% compared to 215 and ranked second place for commitments to as part of its, right behind The Netherlands. Two other donors emerge as champions when we take into account their commitments as part of their : Luxembourg and Sweden. Several donors more than doubled their commitments to compared to the previous year: Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the EU Institutions. However, donors with large and volumes of commitments, such as Japan, Germany, France, and the EU Institutions, score significantly lower when their volumes of commitments are assessed relative to their. NB: Disbursements for one given year can not always be linked with the commitments made during that year; considerable discrepancies for a few countries occur - see annex on methodology. For this reason, this report presents both data sets, although showing similar trends this year. For the first time, the US is not the leading donor to as percentage of. Several European donors have more than doubled their commitments to compared to 215. FIGURE 7: 216 (In million USD constant prices) 1, US 1,34.4 Netherlands Germany EU Inst. Canada Sweden Japan 57.6 UK FIGURE 8: 216 DONORS TO AS % OF THEIR (In %) Netherlands US Luxembourg Sweden Canada New Zealand Ireland Denmark France UK Australia.48 Australia Finland Denmark.47 Korea Belgium 1.57 Luxembourg Korea.42 France 9.91 Belgium.32 EU Inst Norway.31 Italy Germany Spain Switzerland Ireland 4.37 Finland X>1% 1%>X>.5%.5%>X>..>X Japan.24 Austria.23 Iceland Switzerland Austria Portugal 3.47 New Zealand.2 Norway.76 Portugal Italy.16 Poland Spain Czech Republic.1 Slovak Republic Iceland.13.8 Czech Rep..11 Slovak Republic Poland.4.4 Hungary.3 Slovenia.2 Slovenia.2 Hungary Greece Greece Source: OECD DAC. Source: OECD DAC. Euromapping

10 Disbursements In 216, the disbursements to have decreased by 5% compared to 215. The US and the UK had the largest disbursements, well ahead of the other 28 donors. However, Luxembourg doubled its disbursements compared to 215 and is now the leading donor relative to (2.7%). Canada, Norway, New Zealand, Korea, Ireland and Finland also score significantly high in share of. Spain also doubled its disbursements to compared to the previous year but stays at the bottom of the ranking for as share of. The EU donors including Germany (18 th ) and the EU Institutions (19 th ) scored poorly when amount disbursed are compared to level. FIGURE 9: 216 GROSS (In million USD constant prices) US UK Netherlands Germany Japan EU Inst Sweden France FIGURE 1: 216 DONORS TO AS % OF THEIR (In %) Canada Norway Australia Switzerland Korea Denmark 1.57 Luxembourg 8.95 Belgium Italy 8.1 Spain 7.32 Finland 5.7 Ireland New Zealand Austria Portugal Poland.28.2 Czech Republic Iceland.13.8 Slovak Republic.6.4. Slovenia Hungary Greece Source: OECD DAC Source: OECD DAC In 216, Luxembourg ranks first in percentage of disbursed to, while other donors with large gross disbursements such as Germany and the EU Institutions fall in the ranking Luxembourg US Netherlands UK Canada.87 Sweden Norway New Zealand Korea Ireland Finland Denmark X>1% 1%>X>.5%.5%>X>..>X Australia Belgium Switzerland France Japan Germany EU Inst. Iceland Portugal Italy Spain Austria Czech Republic Slovenia Slovak Republic Poland Hungary Greece.2. Euromapping

11 Europe s Share In,, Commitments And Gross Disbursements In 216, EU DAC donors (Member- States and Institutions) represent more than half (57%) of the DAC donors commitments. If we add Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland, then the region s share surpasses 6%, while the US follows with 19.6%. The picture is radically different when we look at and commitments, where the US represents 5. and 6.6% of the total and commitments respectively. Compared to 215, in 216 the EU DAC donors slightly increased their commitments to and, representing 31.8% of commitments and 29.8% of commitments. The decision that the US administration has taken towards and sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) is expected to significantly change these conclusions in upcoming years, be it in terms of global contributions to these sectors or respective shares. FIGURE 11: 216 (In billion USD constant prices and in %) Other DAC donors % US Other European DAC donors % FIGURE 14: 216 (In billion USD constant prices and in %) Other DAC donors % TOTAL billion USD Source: OECD DAC EU DAC donors & EU Institutions % Source: OECD DAC EU DAC donors & EU Institutions FIGURE 12: 216 (In billion USD constant prices and in %) Other DAC donors % US % FIGURE 15: 216 (In billion USD constant prices and in %) Other DAC donors % TOTAL billion USD Source: OECD DAC EU DAC donors & EU Institutions % Other European DAC donors Other European DAC donors include: Iceland, Norway, Switzerland. Other DAC donors include: Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea, New Zealand Source: OECD DAC EU DAC donors & EU Institutions FIGURE 13: 216 (In billion USD constant prices and in %) Other DAC donors % US % FIGURE 16: 216 (In billion USD constant prices and in %) Other DAC donors TOTAL 1.71 billion USD Source: OECD DAC EU DAC donors & EU Institutions Other European DAC donors % Source: OECD DAC EU DAC donors & EU Institutions % US % US % US % TOTAL billion USD TOTAL billion USD TOTAL 1.64 billion USD Other European DAC donors % Other European DAC donors % Other European DAC donors Other European DAC donors include: Iceland, Norway, Switzerland. Other DAC donors include: Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea, New Zealand Euromapping

12 Donor Profiles How Do The Donor Profiles Work? EUROMAPPING RANK (216) Euromapping ranks according to the latest available annual data (216) as reported to the OECD: i) commitments to ; ii) commitments to ; iii) commitments to as a percentage of ; iii) commitments to ; iv) commitments to as a percentage of. These and figures result from applying the Muskoka and the revised Muskoka methodology to donor commitments and disbursements, even if donors do not report under the Muskoka and methodologies. & IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) The two pie charts show a donor s total volume of and commitments and disbursements, as if reported against the Muskoka and methodologies, and as part of their volume in 216 (commitments or disbursements respectively). There might be duplication as is part of. EUROMAPPING RANK (216) XX XX COUNTRY XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX Belgium stresses the importance of SRHR for sustainable development and prioritises reproductive health in its development law. SRHR is integrated in the most recent guiding documents on health (218) and gender (216). (2) Belgium s and funding experienced a deep decline in 215, as the development budget was cut, and recovered in 216, particularly in terms of commitments. One year after its launch in March 217, the SheDecides initiative, which Belgium co-launched, has set aside over 45 million EUR in an effort to counter the loss of US funding due to the Global Gag Rule. See Belgium s Development Law default/files/downloads/wet_belgische_ Ontwikkelingssamenwerking_19%2maart_213. pdf (2) See and Development Cooperation s guiding policy documents on health and gender downloads/le-genre-dans-la-cooperation-belgeau-developpement.pdf IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) Total?????? Total IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) Total?????? Total 1,5 1, ,5 1, ???? ????%????%??????%??%????%??%??%????%????%?? % ????%????????????%??????%????????????%??%??????% YEARLY,, & AND ( ) The two graphs provide an annual breakdown of total volume of donors commitments and disbursements to, and, the latter two as if reported against the Muskoka and methodologies. The graphs also provide a historical overview of donors commitments and disbursements as percentages of towards both and, as if reported against the Muskoka and methodologies. 5% 3% 1% 2.% 1.5% 1.%.5% COUNTRY S POLITICAL PROFILE: Brief description of a donor s policies that are relevant for and, and interesting funding trends that come out of our analysis. Euromapping 217 The currency: All development finance statistics are measured here in constant prices with reference year 216, as per OECD DAC. This allows for a closer idea of volume of flows over time, as adjustments have been made to cover inflation and exchange rates between the donor s currency and US dollars. Euromapping

13 EUROMAPPING RANK (216) AUSTRALIA Australia prioritises global health in its development aid and has released a strategy on health and development for (2) This strategy includes clear commitments on investment in MNCH and. However, a steadily declining trend in Australia s funding for has been ongoing since 212, both in commitments and in disbursements. The fall in has been intensified even further in 216, both in absolute terms, as well as a share of. See overview of Australia s commitments to health, Documents/aid-fact-sheet-health.pdf (2) See Australia s strategy on health and development for , about-us/publications/documents/health-fordevelopment-strategy pdf IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) Total 3, Total IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) Total 4, 3, 2, 1, 4, 3, 2, 3, % 3, , , % 8.16%.8.69% % 5.55% 6.15%.6.48% 6.1 1% 8% 6% 1% 8% 6% 3, ,.8.69%.6.48% Total 3, , , , Euromapping

14 EUROMAPPING RANK (216) AUSTRIA Austria lists access to health as one of its priorities for development aid but does not specifically refer to or in its policy statements. It considers gender equality a cross-cutting issue. (2) Over the previous 3 years a declining trend in Austria s and funding took place, which however resulted in a sharp increase in Austria s 216 commitments compared to 215, with a more moderate increase in disbursements. See Austria s development policy programme, at/fileadmin/user_upload/dokumente/ Publikationen/3_JP/Englisch/ _3-YP.pdf (2) See Austrian Development Agency, Gender Equality, gender-equality/ IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) Total 1, Total IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) Total 2, 1,5 1, 5 2, 1,5 1, % 1, , , % 2.17%.33%.28% 1.51% 1.58% 1.78%.2.23% 2.5% 2.% 1.5% 1.%.5% 2.% 1.5% 1, 1.% 1.% 1.% 5.5% 1, %.21%.1.13% Total 1, , , , Euromapping

15 EUROMAPPING RANK (216) BELGIUM IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) 2,5 2, 1,5 1, Total % 3.76% % 5 % 3% Belgium stresses the importance of SRHR for sustainable development and prioritises reproductive health in its development law. SRHR is integrated in the most recent guiding documents on health (218) and gender (216). (2) Belgium s and funding experienced a deep decline in 215, as the development budget was cut, and recovered in 216, particularly in terms of commitments. One year after its launch in March 217, the SheDecides initiative, which Belgium co-launched, has set aside over 45 million EUR in an effort to counter the loss of US funding due to the Global Gag Rule. See Belgium s Development Law default/files/downloads/wet_belgische_ Ontwikkelingssamenwerking_19%2maart_213. pdf (2) See Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation s guiding policy documents on health and gender downloads/le-genre-dans-la-cooperation-belgeau-developpement.pdf 2, Total IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) 2, YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) 2,5 2, 1,5 1, 5 2, , Total 2, , %.7%.5% 4.66%.46%.53% 4.8%.27%.46% 3.35%.45%.38% 1% 5% 3% 1% Total 1, , , , Euromapping

16 EUROMAPPING RANK (216) 8 12 CANADA In 217, Canada adopted a development policy with a specific focus on empowering women and girls and promoting gender equality. Its Feminist International Assistance Policy details actions on SRHR, MNCH and ; gender equality is listed as a core action area. Canada s global health policy (2) lists SRHR and health of women and children as key areas of action, with funding aimed at comprehensive sexuality education,, prevention and response to sexual and gender-based violence, safe and legal abortion, and post-abortion care. After an increase in contributions in 215 mainly due to the surge of multilateral commitments to GAVI and the Global Fund for instance, Canada s funding for both and decreases slightly in 216. IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) 5, Total IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Total YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) 5, 4, 3, 3, % 3, Total 5, , , % 9.7%.76%.41% 9.68% 19.25% 1.77% 1.63% 1.39% 1.17% 11.51% 15% 1% 5% 1 1% 8% 6% See Canada s feminist international assistance policy, issues_development-enjeux_developpement/ priorities-priorites/policy-politique.aspx?lang=eng (2) See Canada s Global Health policy: international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_ development-enjeux_developpement/global_ health-sante_mondiale/index.aspx?lang=eng 3, Total 2, 1, 4, %.76% 3, , %.9% 3, Euromapping

17 EUROMAPPING RANK (216) CZECH REPUBLIC IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) Total % % 1. 1.%.8%.6%. The priorities of the new Czech development aid policy for include social development, in particular on education, health care and support for social inclusion, but do not specifically refer to or. The geographical focus of the new Czech bilateral aid focuses Balkan and Eastern European countries, in addition to the Global South and the list includes Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Moldova, and Zambia. Czech and disbursements and commitments have increased slightly over the period , peaking in 215. See the Development Cooperation strategy of the Czech Republic : cz/file/271363/cz_development_cooperation_ Strategy_218_23.pdf Total IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) 5 YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) Total % %.98%.1.63%.8% %.8%.6% % % %. Total Euromapping

18 EUROMAPPING RANK (216) DENMARK IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) 2,5 2, 1,5 1, Total % 5.95% % 6% 5% 3% In its 217 Development Cooperation Strategy, The World 23, Denmark continues to stress the importance of SRHR and gender equality as main priorities for development cooperation. This focus builds on a long tradition of Denmark being an SRHR donor champion. (2) Denmark is a co-founder of AmplifyChange, (3) a fund launched in 215 to promote civil society advocacy for SRHR and has so far disbursed over 26 million EUR in grants. Denmark was one of the founders of the SheDecides movement. Denmark s commitments and disbursements to and declined in 216, apart from its multilateral funding to the World Bank s International Development Association (IDA) and the African Development Fund, which both increased significantly. 2, Total IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) 5 YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) 3, 2,5 2, 1,5 2, , Total 2, , %.63% % 3.79%.47% % 1% 6% 5% 3% See Denmark s strategy for development cooperation and humanitarian action, um.dk/en/policies-and-strategies/stategy-fordanish-development-cooperation/ (2) See the Strategy on the promotion of SRHR, bilag/15/24256.pdf (3) See Amplify Change, 2, Total 1, 5 2, % 2, % 2, %.53% 2, % Euromapping

19 EUROMAPPING RANK (216) 4 3 EU INSTITUTIONS IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) 25, 2, 15, 1, 2.26% Total % 1.77% 2.6% 3.% 2.5% 2.% 1.5% 1.% TThe EU is committed to improving SRHR and to gender equality and women s and girls empowerment as reflected in the new European Consensus on Development (June 217), the EU Gender Action Plan II (2), and various other policies. The EU Institutions support SRHR and through a range of EU instruments, notably through geographic programmes on gender, health and population, contributions to Global Health Initiatives and UN organisations, and grants to Civil Society Organisations. The EU- United Nations Spotlight Initiative (3) to eliminate violence against women and girls, backed by an initial envelope of EUR5 million, provides for a specific focus on SRHR in Sub-Saharan Africa with emphasis on reaching vulnerable population groups, including youth. While their commitments in and and their disbursements in increased in 216 compared to 215, EU disbursements to stagnated. 23, Total IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) 5, YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) 2, 15, 1, 21, %.33% 15, Total 2.48% 2, %.16% 23, %.31%.5% 3.% 2.5% 2.% 1.5% See the 217 EU Consensus on Development, (2) See the Council Conclusions on the Gender Action Plan , en/press/press-releases/215/1/26-fac-conclusionsgender-development/ (3) See the EU UN Spotlight initiative un.org/en/spotlight-initiative/ 18, Total 5, 14, %.2 15, , %.27% 18, %.5% Euromapping

20 EUROMAPPING RANK (216) FINLAND In 216, Finland launched a Government Report on Development Policy that prioritises the rights of girls and women and with a strong emphasis on SRHR. However, there is no specific mention of MNCH. Finland s commitments to and funding peaked in 214 due to a massive commitment to UNA, which was disbursed over the next few years. Therefore, the Finnish total commitments to and plummeted in 215 and remained at about the same level in 216. Finland s development cooperation budget was cut dramatically in 216. Consequently, the disbursements to and also dropped by almost half compared to 215, with most of the decline coming from cuts to funding for the World Bank, UNA and UNICEF. See Finnish Government Report on Development Policy 216, com.fi/public/default.aspx?contentid=341918&no deid=49313&contentlan=2&culture=en-us IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) Total IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) 1, YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) 2, 1,5 1, 5 Total YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) 1,5 1, , % 1, Total % 11.39% 5.81% 2.28% 1.6% % 4.75%.18% % 3..47%.5 1 1% 8% 6% 6% 5% 3% 1% Total 1, , , , Euromapping

21 EUROMAPPING RANK (216) 5 6 FRANCE IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) 15, 12, 9, 6, Total % 2.77% 2.6 5% 3% Since 217, France has made gender equality a priority of its foreign policy. In 216, a strategy on external action on population and SRHR for was published, followed by the strategy for global health for (2) France co-founded the Muskoka Initiative and has created the Fonds Français Muskoka, as a follow-up, which is now funding up to 1 million EUR per year. In 211, France co-founded the Ouagadougou Partnership, for services in west Africa. In 218, the French government pledged 1 million EUR for the SheDecides movement. In 216, France s commitments and disbursements in SRHR and dropped significantly, primarily reflecting the end of the Muskoka Initiative. See France s strategy on external action on population and SRHR for , diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/photos-publications-andgraphics/publications/article/france-s-external-actionon-issues-of-population-and-sexual-and-reproductive (2) See France global health strategy: diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/photos-videos-publicationsinfographies/publications/enjeux-planetairescooperation-internationale/fiches-reperes/article/ strategie-de-la-france-en-sante-mondiale , Total IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) 11, Total 3, YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) 12, 1, 8, 6, 4, 2, 1, , , , Total 12, %.8.43% 1, %.45%.56% 1, %.26%.3 11, %.4.3 1% 5% 3% 1% Euromapping

22 EUROMAPPING RANK (216) 2 2 GERMANY Germany s policy on SRHR in development is long-standing and it is mainly based on a policy document from 28. (2) In 211, it launched an Initiative on Rights-Based Family Planning and Maternal Health. (3) Initially, the BMZ initiative included financial commitments for the period of 211 to 215. In support of the SDGs, Germany later pledged to maintain its commitment until at least 219. A significant share of Germany s overall payments and commitments to and comes from core multilateral contributions, namely to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. After a small decline in 215, its contributions to and rebounded in 216. See BMZ page on SRHR and population dynamics: dynamics/german_development_cooperation/ index.html (2) See BMZ policy documents on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights, and Population Dynamics, reproduktive_gesundheit/dokumente/index.html (3) See BMZ Initiative on Rights-based Family Planning and Maternal Health, we_do/reproductive-maternal-and-child-health/ policies_and_concepts/bmz_initiative MH/ index.html 4 IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) 28, Total IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) 26, Total YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) 3, 25, 2, 15, 1, 5, Total YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) 3, 25, 2, 15, 1, 5, 17, , % 21, , Total 28, % 16, %.41%.4.39% 19, % 2.58%.27%.29% 26, %.3%.27% 3.5% 3.% 2.5% 2.% 1.5% 1.%.5% 3.5% 3.% 2.5% 2.% 1.5% 1.%.5% Euromapping

23 EUROMAPPING RANK (216) GREECE Education, health, and population represent a significant part of the Greece s. Investments in gender equality have also been increasing in the last decade especially following the financial crisis. (2) For and, Greece commits and has disbursed very little funding in recent years, and it declined further in 216. Greece s only multilateral contributions relevant to and are to the WHO, which have remained stable since 215. See 216 annual report on, hellenicaid.mfa.gr/media/images/stories/docs/ ydas3_ektheseis/annual_report_216.pdf (2) See 216 OECD profile report of Greece, development-co-operation-report-216_dcr- 216-en#page26 IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) Total IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) Total YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) % Total %.7%.28%.28%.6%.2.2.5%.1%.%.35%.3%.25%..15%.1%.5%.5%..3% % % % %.%.1% Total Euromapping

24 EUROMAPPING RANK (216) HUNGARY Hungary lists the key areas of focus for its development policy in Sub-Saharan Africa as improving the situation of women, education and health, and commits to providing towards human development, including health and education. is not specifically mentioned. (2) Hungary became the 3 th member of DAC in December 216. (3) Data prior to this date is only partially available. In 216, Hungarian funding toward and dropped significantly in comparison to 215, while its only multilateral funding goes to the World Bank s IDA. IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) Total IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) Total YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) 2 no data available no data available no data available no data available no data available no data available... Total % %. 1.5% 1..9%.6%.3 % 1.5% See International Development Cooperation Strategy and Strategic Concept for International Humanitarian Aid of Hungary , c/international%2development%2 Cooperation%2and%2Humanitarian%2Aid%2 Strategy%2of%2Hungary-v%C3%A9gleges.pdf (2) See Hungarian Policy for International Development Cooperation, gov.hu/nr/exeres/184e db-abc4-3ab8ae1d242.htm (3) See Press Release: hu/nr/rdonlyres/933c1461-8f65-43a-b841- BA37C755BF4//6126_newdonor.pdf Total no data available no data available % 1.23% X% %. 1..9%.6%.3% Euromapping

25 EUROMAPPING RANK (216) 3 3 ICELAND IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) Total % 4.83% % 6% 5% 3% The priorities of Icelandic development aid include gender equality as a crosscutting issue and health and education as a basis for building human capital, but do not specifically refer to or. Iceland targets most of it bilateral cooperation towards three partner countries, all in Sub-Saharan Africa: Malawi, Mozambique and Uganda. (2) Icelandic commitments and disbursements levels for and have remained stable during the period See Icelandic Development Cooperation, international-development-cooperation/icelandsinternational-development-cooperation/ (2) See Strategy for Iceland s Development Cooperation , government.is/media/utanrikisraduneyti-media/ media/throunarsamvinna/mfa-strategyforiceland sdevelopmentcooperation pdf Total IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) 1 YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) Total %.59% 4.83% % % 1% 6% 5% 3% %.4.31%.2 1% Total Euromapping

26 EUROMAPPING RANK (216) 2 2 IRELAND IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) 1, Total % 9.23% 8.87% 7.5% 1% 8% 6% Ireland s political and financial commitments to and are prominent in its development aid policy. One World One Future: Ireland s Policy for International Development 213 (currently under review) mainstreams gender equality. The priority area Essential Services includes commitments to reduce maternal and infant mortality and promote universal access to reproductive healthcare, including. Irish and disbursements and commitments declined slightly in 216, compared to the previous 3 years. Most multilateral funding was reduced by approximately 1% in 215, with the exception of funding towards the World Food Programme which has quadrupled since Total IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) 2 YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) 1, Total %.7.68% 9.23% 8.87%.77%.5 7.5% 1% 8% 6% One World One Future: Ireland s Policy for International Development: ie/media/irishaid/allwebsitemedia/2newsandpu blications/publicationpdfsenglish/one-world-onefuture-irelands-new-policy.pdf %.77%.5 Total Euromapping

27 EUROMAPPING RANK (216) 7 7 ITALY Italy refers to the importance of global health and and as essential components of its revised legal framework on development aid and for its triannual development programming. (2) Gender equality, women and girls empowerment is a cross-cutting theme, while is also mentioned. While Italy s disbursements to and have steadily increased over the last few years, its commitments decreased in 216, compared to the year before. Multilateral funding to the World Bank s IDA and to the African Development Fund have decreased drastically compared to See Italian General Guidelines for Development and Cooperation, cooperaz_sviluppo/la-riforma-della-cooperazione. html (2) See triannual development programming , doc/217/3/doc_triennale_ _-_finale_ approvato.pdf IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) 5, Total IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) 5, YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Total YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 3, % 3, Total 4, , % % 1.91% 2.1%.2.25% 1.77% % 1.48%.16%.21%.16% 2.% 1.5% 1.%.5% 2.5% 2.% 1.5% 1.%.5% Total 2, , , , Euromapping

28 EUROMAPPING RANK (216) 3 5 JAPAN IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) 25, 2, 15, 1, Total % 2.55% 1.96% 3% 2.5% 1.5% 1% Japan lists health, education, gender and women s empowerment, as priorities for its development aid policy. In 215, it approved a guideline on global health for its development policy which lists SRH and maternal and child health as areas of focus. (2) Japan remains one of the biggest international aid donors for and. Despite a small decline in commitments, its disbursements for both and continued increasing in 216 relative to the previous years. See Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan FY217 Priority Policy for Development Cooperation, page23e_434.html (2) See Japan s Basic Design for Peace and Health (Global Health Cooperation), go.jp/files/11234.pdf 23, Total IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) 5, YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) 2, 15, 1, 2, , , Total 23, %.25% 3.11%.35% 2.93%.31% % 3.5% 3.% 2.5% 2.% 1.5% 5, 1.% 16, %.3.33%.31%.5% Total 18, , , , Euromapping

29 EUROMAPPING RANK (216) KOREA The republic of Korea mentions as a strategic objective of its development aid health policy, and gender is listed as a cross-cutting issue. In 215, the Republic of Korea launched the Better Life for Girls (2) initiative, with a focus on improving girls right to health and education and a budget of 2 million USD for Although its 216 commitments for and fell sharply, Korea s disbursements continued to increase in line with previous years. Korea tends to report less directly on funding. See Korea International Cooperation Agency, Health Mid-Term Strategy , health/12891_3826.html (2) Republic of Korea Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Better Life for Girls, download/215/better_life_girls.pdf IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) 2, Total IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) 3, 2,5 2, 1,5 1, 5 Total YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) 2,5 2, 1,5 2, % 2, Total 2, , % 5.6%.77%.59% 5.83% 4.98% 5.9%.76% %.4 8% 6% 6% 5% 3% 1, 2, %.65%.6%.58% 1% Total 1, , , , Euromapping

30 EUROMAPPING RANK (216) LUXEMBOURG Luxembourg includes health and education in its development aid priorities, with a cross-cutting focus on gender. or are prioritised within its 214 strategy on health in development. (2) Luxembourg is a leading donor for and disbursements and commitments when measured as a percentage of. It is one of the few donors that spends over of its on and ranks first for donors disbursements to as part of their. Luxembourg also meets the target of allocating.7% of its GNI to. IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) Total IN CONSTANT PRICES (216) YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) Total YEARLY, & IN ABSOLUTE NUMBERS AND IN % OF TOTAL ( ) % % 1.1% Total % 1.8% % % 1% 8% 6% 1% See La Cooperation Luxembourgeoise, Stratégie Generale, content/dam/gouv_cooperation/publications/ brochures-livres/strategies-et-orientation/ strategie-generale/strategie-generale-212.pdf (2) See Santé: Stratégies et orientations 214, dam/gouv_cooperation/publications/brochureslivres/strategies-et-orientation/strategie-sante/ sante-214.pdf % 8.6% 1.6% 1.1% 7.63% 1.8% 8.31% 2.7% 8% 6% Total Euromapping