REPORT 2020 DONORS DELIVERING - European Parliamentary ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
DONORS REPORT
DELIVERING 2020
FOR SRHR Tracking OECD Donor Funding
for Sexual and Reproductive
Health and Rights
INTRODUCTION DONORS DELIVERING REPORT 2020 3
ABOUT DSW ABOUT EPF
Deutsche Stiftung Weltbevölkerung (DSW) With our headquarters in Hannover, The European Parliamentary Forum for EPF's Secretariat is based in Brussels,
is a global development organisation that Germany, DSW operates two liaison Sexual and Reproductive Rights (EPF) is Belgium.
focuses on the needs and potential of the offices in Berlin and Brussels, as well as a network of members of parliament from
largest youth generation in history. We are maintaining a strong presence in Ethiopia, across Europe who are committed to For more information please visit
committed to creating demand for and Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda. protecting the sexual and reproductive www.epfweb.org
access to health information, services, health of the world’s most vulnerable
supplies, and economic empowerment For more information please visit people, both at home and overseas.
for youth. We achieve this by engaging www.dsw.org/en/eu/
in advocacy, capacity development, and We believe that women should always
reproductive health initiatives, so that have the right to decide upon the number
young people are empowered to lead of children they wish to have, and should
healthy and self-determined lives. never be denied the education or other
means to achieve this that they are ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
entitled to by law.
Deutsche Stiftung Weltbevölkerung
We believe that it makes sense personally, (DSW) and the European Parliamentary
economically and environmentally for Forum for Sexual and Reproductive Rights
governments to devote development aid to (EPF) would like to thank the following
initiatives protecting people’s sexual and researchers, writers, editors and partners
reproductive health and rights. for their valuable contributions: Andreia
Oliveira, Catherine Pitt and Miriam Sabin,
Jonathan Rucks, the members of the
Donors Delivering advisory committee,
Countdown 2030 Europe, the Organisation
for Economic Cooperation and Develop-
ment (OECD), EPF and DSW teams.
Layout & design: Johannes Stoll / JHNSTL
INTRODUCTION DONORS DELIVERING REPORT 2020 5
TABLE OF CONTENT
INTRO EXECUTIVE METHODOLOGY ANNEXES
SUMMARY
06 About the Advisory Committee
12
Comparison of OECD DAC Donor‘s
SRHR disbursements in 2018 (graphic)
28 Methodology
68 Annex 1
Abbreviations
07 Preface
14 Ranking of SRHR donors in Europe
SRHR disbursements (graphic) 70 Annex 2
Definition of terms
08 Introduction
16 Comparison of EU contributions
to SRHR, FP and RMNCH (graphic)
DONOR 72 Annex 3
Donor data overview
18 SRHR spending in 2018
Who‘s increased/decreased?
PROFILES 76 Annex 4
List of national policies
20 Impact of the
global gag rule 34 How do the
donor profiles work? 78 Annex 5
OECD DAC CRS codes
22 ODA/SRHR
Disbursements 36 Donor profiles
alphabetically
24 FP/RMNCH
Disbursements
INTRODUCTION DONORS DELIVERING REPORT 2020 7
ABOUT THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE PREFACE
by Chrysoula Zacharopoulou, MEP
Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights On top of this sad reality lie uncertainties
(SRHR) are fundamental rights. Beyond regarding the impact of the COVID-19 health
acronyms, these rights affect each of us, and economic crisis on future ODA budgets.
in our intimacy, our health, our choices The existence of tools such as the Donors
and our lives. SRHR are key to ensuring Delivering for SRHR report are therefore
that all women are equal and free to make essential, not only to demonstrate current
empowered decisions in all aspects of trends in ODA, but also to continue the
their lives, without discrimination, with commitment and momentum to support
out violence or coercion. The recent 25th access to SRHR for the world’s most
anniversary of the International Conference vulnerable.
on Population and Development (ICPD) and
the upcoming anniversary of the adoption It was encouraging to see that European
of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for governments were quick off the mark to
Jason Bremner Kia Guarino Howard Friedman Action, remind us of a political commitment recognise the risks and commit to prioritise
FP2020 Bill & Melinda Gates UNFPA to SRHR. However, we still have a long way SRHR and universal health coverage in
Foundation to go. With conservatism on the rise and so their COVID-19 response, with many com
many women and girls still being denied plementing these promises with financial
their most fundamental rights around the commitments as part of their ODA. Indeed,
world, SRHR must be a priority for nations’ Europe has a key role to play here: with the
and donors’ worldwide. Political will is reinstatement of the Mexico City Policy
crucial, as is funding. Official Development (better known as the Global Gag Rule) in
Assistance (ODA) is one of the critical tools 2017, the US’ intention to withdraw from the
we need to allocate global financial and WHO and attempts to compromise efforts
Joke Lannoye Alanna Galati Marco Schäferhoff human resources for family planning and gained by anti-gender groups, it is our
Countdown 2030 Europe, Guttmacher Institute Open Consultants maternal health in every country. responsibility to step up and make sure that
Intl.. Planned Parenthood life-saving funding for SRHR services and
Federation - European Network This report therefore comes at a pivotal supplies do not disappear.
moment as the health crisis and the
consequences of the lockdown have already As policy-makers and SRHR allies, it is
restricted access to sexual and repro more important than ever to ensure that
ductive health and rights (SRHR) services SRHR are high on the political agenda and
and supplies. It is indeed estimated that to monitor ODA over the coming years.
the COVID-19 pandemic could result in an It is our role to continue to advocate for
Dr Veloshnee Govender Charlotte Soulary Chrysoula Zacharopoulou additional 49 million women with unmet sustained international development
Department of Sexual Reproductive Health Member of the European need for modern contraceptives, and support and women and girls’ rights, to
and Reproductive Health Supplies Coalition Parliament (France) an additional 15 million unintended ensure that we truly leave no-one behind.
and Research, WHO pregnancies over the course of a year.
INTRODUCTION DONORS DELIVERING REPORT 2020 9
INTRODUCTION
1. Reproductive, maternal, newborn This year‘s edition reveals some
and child health (RMNCH) as SRHR unexpected rankings where larger
is increasingly integrated in broader countries and donors are not necessarily
approaches, for which tracking is based spending in relative terms thus showing
Neil Datta Jan Kreutzberg on the revised Muskoka 2 methodology a lack of political prioritisation, a
EPF Secretary DSW Executive Director approved by donors and experts; stabilisation of the funding on our
issues and a potential stagnation.
2. Family Planning (FP), a subset of
SRHR with a specific tracking based on We look forward to seeing how this
We are pleased to present our new 2020 is also a key milestone to assess the percentages agreed at the 2012 FP 2020 methodology can shed light on some
accountability report, Donors Delivering translation of political commitments into Summit; and finally, trends in the future: are European donors
for SRHR, which is the fruit of extensive actional funding: with the anniversaries allocating more funding for the full SRHR
reflections, analyses and consultations of Beijing+25 and ICPD, the end of the 3. A tracking of sexual and reproductive agenda? Which donors prioritise other
with experts including our strategic Family Planning (FP) 2020 framework and rights (SRR) to highlight the importance connected concepts like FP and RMNCH?
advisory committee. In these critical times, the start of the last decade to achieve the of the support in particular from European How will Brexit impact SRHR funding?
we are confident Donors Delivering for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), donors, who politically support the whole
SRHR will provide both European policy- in particular SDG 3 on health and SDG 5 SRHR agenda and do not report on specific We thank the advisory committee for
makers and advocates in the field with a on gender equality so linked to SRHR. elements of the full agenda. their support in exploring this new
new tool to track the full SRHR agenda, methodology and hope that this report
based on the SRHR definition published by While several excellent expert reports Similarly to our previous Euromapping will prove useful to European SRHR
the landmark report from the Guttmacher exist to track funding for reproductive, reports, all data are based on the advocates and champions, in renewing
– Lancet Commission and on the updated maternal and newborn health, family Organisation of Economic Co-operation political commitments and, more
Muskoka 2 Methodology developed by the planning and gender, no methodology and Development (OECD) Development importantly, translating them into actions.
London School of Hygiene and Tropical has thus far captured the full breadth Assistance Committee (DAC) database,
Medicine (LSHTM). of SRHR, especially the ‘rights’ aspect. reported by donors, publicly available, In 2020, it is simply unacceptable that
Donors Delivering for SRHR brings a allowing for any interested party to cross- millions of women die in childbirth, are
We have witnessed increased contestation complementary approach with changes check and use this methodology. It is a not able to make decisions over their
of SRHR, gender equality and women‘s made to our previous Euromapping theoretical exercise whereby the same own bodies, or cannot access essential
rights in Europe and throughout the world. methodology. methodology is applied to all OECD donors health services related to sexuality.
In parallel, numerous reports highlight in order to enable comparisons between The current health and economic crisis
the increased prevalence of harmful First of all, the current report tracks three them and rank European funders against linked to COVID-19 intensifies the urgency
practices, especially on girls, as well as elements relevant to SRHR - connected other donors. to address this for millions of women
an increase in teenage pregnancy rates. and not independent from each other: and girls around the globe.
The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated We analysed the data in total amounts
these challenges, shining a spotlight on but also relative to the donor‘s total
the need to focus on SRHR. ODA allowing for comparisons between
different economies and their
‘prioritisation‘ in relative terms.EXECUTIVE
© Nairobi Summit
SUMMARYEXECUTIVE SUMMARY DONORS DELIVERING REPORT 2020 13
A COMPARISON OF OECD DAC DONORS’ Box below: enlarged view of lower left part
SRHR DISBURSEMENTS IN 2018 1.20 %
COMPARISON OF ALL OECD DAC DONORS’ TOTAL SRHR DISBURSEMENTS 13.00 % 1.00 %
VS SRHR AS A PERCENTAGE OF ODA IN 2018
12.00 % 0.80 %
While certain countries (the US, the UK, the Netherlands, Canada and Sweden) disburse
a high amount of funding to SRHR and prioritise it in their ODA, there are also donors like
Germany, France and Japan that disburse a substantial amount to SRHR, albeit a small 11.00 % 0.60 %
percentage of their total ODA. In this regard, smaller donors such as Luxembourg, Ireland,
Denmark and Norway outperform the larger donors. This tendency of some smaller donors
prioritising SRHR becomes even clearer when looking at the SRHR disbursements as a 10.00 % 0.40 %
percentage of Gross National Income (GNI), which is reflected by the size of the flag.
For example, in 2018 Luxembourg disbursed a larger percentage of its GNI to SRHR than the
9.00 % 0.20 %
US, which was the top donor both for total SRHR disbursements and SRHR disbursements
as a percentage of ODA.
8.00 % 0.00 %
SRHR AS A % OF ODA 1,000 2,000 3,000
7.00 %
6.00 %
5.00 %
4.00 %
3.00 %
2.00 %
1.00 %
0.00 %
0,00 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 800,000 4,300,000
Note: The upper end of the x-axis is divided for a more compact visualisation. TOTAL SRHR IN MILLION USDEXECUTIVE SUMMARY DONORS DELIVERING REPORT 2020 15
RANKING OF SRHR DONORS IN EUROPE (2018)
SRHR GROSS DISBURSEMENTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF ODA
Within Europe, there is a big difference between the larger and smaller countries when it comes ICELAND
to SRHR disbursments as a percentage of ODA. For some countries SRHR is clearly a greater
priority in their ODA spending than for others. The top five SRHR donors in relative terms as a per-
centage of total ODA are the Netherlands, Luxembourg, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Ireland.
They outperform larger countries such as France and Germany, who do not seem to prioritise SRHR
at all in their ODA spending. The 2018 top ODA donors who meet the long-standing UN target for
SWEDEN FINLAND
developed countries to give 0.7% of their GNI in ODA are also the countries that prioritise SRHR
(more than 3% of their ODA). The only exceptions are the Netherlands and Ireland, who prioritise
SRHR, and though they are among the top ODA donors, they are not reaching the 0.7% GNI target. NORWAY
Netherlands 5.45%
Luxembourg
United Kingdom
4.68%
4.11% > 4%
Sweden 3.97%
3 – 4%
DENMARK
Ireland 3.80% IRELAND
Denmark 3.74%
Norway 3.71% UNITED
KINGDOM
POLAND
Finland 2.63% NETHERLANDS
Iceland
Switzerland
2.21%
2.00% 2 – 3% BELGIUM
LUXEMBURG
GERMANY
CZECH
REPUBLIC
Belgium 1.85% SLOVAK
1 – 2%
REPUBLIC
Spain 1.46%
FRANCE AUSTRIA
France 1.28% SWITZERLAND
HUNGARY
Italy 1.20%
SLOVENIA
Germany 1.09%
Hungary 0.90%
Austria
Portugal
Slovak Rep.
0.72%
0.66%
0.41%
0 – 1% PORTUGAL
SPAIN
ITALY
Czech Rep. 0.32%
GREECE
Slovenia 0.25%
Poland 0.22%
Greece 0.12%EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DONORS DELIVERING REPORT 2020 17
COMPARISON OF 2018 EU CONTRIBUTIONS
TO SRHR, FP AND RMNCH
The EU Institutions and Member States much smaller actor when it comes to
Total European Union (EU) Institutions and Member State
represented more than half of overall ODA in supporting SRHR, FP and RMNCH. Jointly
disbursements to SRHR, FP and RMNCH compared to total 2018. Of their total ODA spending, 2.15% went they account for only 32% of all donors‘
ODA spending. to SRHR, 0.65% to FP and 4.11% to RMNCH. SRHR disbursements and 38% of all donor‘s
While jointly being the largest ODA donor, FP and RMNCH disbursements. The EU must
the EU Institutions and Member States are a do more to become an SRHR champion.
ODA $ 114.625 M
Official Development Assistance
SRHR Sexual and Reproductive $ 2.474 M
Health and Rights 2.15 %
FP $ 753 M
Family Planning 0.65 %
RMNCH Reproductive, $ 4.712 M
Maternal, Newborn and Child Health 4.11 %EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DONORS DELIVERING REPORT 2020 19 SRHR SPENDING IN 2018 SRHR total disbursements in 2018 compared to 2017 (in 2018 constant prices) Between 2017 and 2018 some countries have increased their SRHR disbursements, while others have decreased the amount spent on SRHR. The Netherlands, Canada, Italy, Norway and the UK show the biggest increase in 2018, compared to their 2017 SRHR disbursements. The US, the EU Institutions, Japan, Korea and Belgium on the other hand show the largest decrease of SRHR disbursements between 2017 and 2018. WHO‘S INCREASED THE MOST? WHO‘S DECREASED THE MOST? 1 THE NETHERLANDS + 48.71 M 1 US - 152.35 M 2 CANADA + 45.48 M 2 EU INSTITUTIONS - 69.35 M 3 ITALY + 25.89 M 3 JAPAN - 7.39 M 4 NORWAY + 16.75 M 4 KOREA - 4.99 M 5 UK + 13.47 M 5 BELGIUM - 3.30 M
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DONORS DELIVERING REPORT 2020 21
IMPACT OF THE GLOBAL GAG RULE
In January 2017, the US re-introduced and expanded the Mexico City Policy, also
known as the Global Gag Rule, renaming the policy Protecting Life in Global
Health Assistance. Under this policy, NGOs outside the US are not eligible for
US family planning assistance if they use funding – from any source – to perform
abortions in cases other than rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the woman;
provide counselling and referral for abortion; or lobby to make abortion legal
or more available in countries in which they operate.
While under previous Republican This means that when an organisation methodology tracks total funding for SRHR, Meanwhile, it seems that as a reaction
administrations, this policy applied complies, all its partners receiving any FP and RMNCH by applying set percentages to the Global Gag Rule, a number of other
specifically to international US FP/RH funding from them, no matter the source to specific OECD DAC CRS codes, it does donors have stepped up their support to
assistance, it was now extended to all of that funding, must refrain from not look into the specific projects and SRHR, FP and RMNCH. The US’ share of the
US global health assistance including abortion-related activities. programmes listed under these CRS codes. total SRHR, FP and RMNCH disbursements
funding support for FP/RH, MNH, nutrition, For example, the US is a champion when it has dropped from 58.5% in 2016 to 56% in
HIV & AIDS, prevention and treatment of The US continued providing funding under comes to funding for Sexually Transmitted 2018, while the share of EU (Institutions and
tuberculosis, malaria, infectious diseases, the Creditor Reporting System (CRS) codes Diseases (STD) control, including HIV & AIDS Member States) and non-European donors
neglected tropical diseases, and even to that contribute to SRHR, FP and RMNCH (CRS code 13040) and funding under this has increased in the same period from
water, sanitation, and hygiene programmes. and as a result, its funding to SRHR, FP and CRS code remained consistent during the 41.5% to 44%. Countries such as Norway,
This marks a significant expansion of its RMNCH, both in total disbursements and as three years. Nonetheless, it is clear that Canada and the UK have significantly
scope and results in hundreds of additional a % of ODA, has remained stable between the Global Gag Rule has an impact on the increased their disbursements to SRHR,
organisations having to choose between 2016 – 2018. This is the result of funding bills, quality and availability of HIV services, FP and RMNCH. In addition, as a response
either complying with the Global Gag Rule advanced by the US Congress and signed including treatment, testing, and prevention, to the Global Gag Rule, the Netherlands,
or losing all their US global health funding, into law that keep funding at the same which are already suffering dramatically. Belgium, Denmark and Sweden launched
even if that funding is used for activities levels as during the Obama administration. The policy under President Trump is undoing the SheDecides initiative as a movement
such as water, sanitation and hygiene However, this does not mean that the decades of work to integrate sexual and to support the rights of girls and women to
programmes which are not related to Global Gag Rule has no impact. While it reproductive health services with HIV decide freely and autonomously about their
abortion. The policy was further expanded did not limit funding as such, it does limit services. To understand the difference sexual lives, including whether, when, with
in 2019 with application to the activities of the number of organisations eligible for in the nature of projects and programmes whom and how many children they have.
sub-recipients of complying organisations. that funding. While the Donors Delivering from the US since the Global Gag Rule, it
is key to look into more detailed research.1, 2
1 | Zara Ahmed, Guttmacher Institute (2020). The Unprecedented Expansion of the Global Gag Rule: Trampling Rights, Health and Free Speech.
2 | PAI (2020). It Is What It Is — Long-delayed Global Gag Rule Implementation Review Downplays Health Impacts.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DONORS DELIVERING REPORT 2020 23
ODA SRHR DISBURSEMENTS
The total ODA disbursements by DAC In 2018, the collective ODA from the The overall amount of funding disbursed to When it comes to SRHR disbursements
donors have slightly decreased in 2018 European Union (EU) and its Member States SRHR for all OECD DAC donors has slightly as a percentage of ODA, smaller donors
compared to 2017 (from 188.3 billion USD (the UK still included) amounted to more increased between 2016 and 2018 (from such as Ireland, Finland and Luxembourg
to 184.8 billion USD). Similar to 2017, five than 74.4 billion EUR. As a result, European 7.02 billion USD to 7.68 billion USD). The US outrank Germany, the EU Institutions, Japan
countries - Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway, ODA represents almost 57% of the total is clearly the lead donor, followed by the and France. The latter countries are in the
Sweden and the UK - have reached the global development assistance by all UK, Germany, the Netherlands and Canada. upper half when taking into account 2018
long-pledged commitment to allocate OECD DAC donors. If we add Norway, When looking at the SRHR disbursements gross disbursements to SRHR (respectively
0.7% of their Gross National Income (GNI) Switzerland and Iceland then the region’s relative to total ODA, a different conclusion 3rd, 6th, 8th and 9th place), however they
to ODA. After reaching the threshold in 2016, share surpasses 60%. As the UK left the EU should be drawn. While the US is still the score poorly when amounts disbursed are
Germany remained below the 0.7% line in in January 2020, the EU’s share in ODA lead donor, Canada, the Netherlands and compared to ODA (respectively 22nd, 20th,
2017 and 2018 jointly with 22 other donors. is expected to drop in the coming years. Luxembourg, also score highly. 18th and 19th place).
2018 ODA Disbursements in million USD constant prices
2018 SRHR Disbursements in million USD constant prices
40000
5000
30000
4000
20000 3000
2000
10000
1000
0
0
Ge tes
y
Ki EU
m
Fr n
Ne we e
er n
s
Ca ly
No da
Au way
itz alia
nd
De ain
k
Be rea
Au m
Fi ria
Ire d
Ne Po d
Lu eal d
m d
Po urg
ec al
Gr p.
Hu ece
ak y
Sl ep.
Ic ia
d
an
ov ar
nd
ar
S c
an
n
w lan
xe an
an
pa
th de
Re
Ita
en
Cz rtug
do
iu
an
na
la
la
st
R
Sp
Sl ng
a
Ki tes
Ge om
er y
Ca ds
da
Sw U
en
Fr n
No ce
De way
Au ark
itz lia
nd
ly
Be rea
m
Ire in
nd
Ne b d
Ze g
Au d
Po ria
Hu gal
Po ry
Ic d
ec nd
ak .
Gr p.
Sl ce
ia
nm
Ko
bo
rm
la
Sw str
e
ov ep
Ja
nl
el
lg
r
th an
ov
St
er
xe an
w our
an
n
pa
ng
E
Re
h
Ita
en
a
a
iu
n
na
an
ee
Sw stra
ed
la
la
la
Cz ela
st
Sl h R
Sp
ng
rtu
a
d
nm
Ko
Ne rm
Z
la
Ja
Lu Finl
al
lg
d
r
ov
ite St
er
ng
ite
m
d
Un ited
ite
Un
d
Un
Un
2018 ODA Disbursements as a percentage of GNI 2018 Disbursements to SRHR as a percentage of ODA
1.25 12.50%
1.00 10.00%
0.75 7.50%
0.50 5.00%
0.25 2.50%
0.00 0.00%
m n
No rg
ite enm y
Ki ark
th om
Ge nds
itz any
Be nd
Fr m
Fi ce
Ire d
Ca nd
Ic da
Ne Ja d
Ze n
Au d
ria
Au taly
Hu lia
y
Po ain
Un Slo al
St a
es
P a
ec nd
G p.
ak e
p.
Ca es
a
ite mb s
Ki rg
Sw m
Ire n
De and
No rk
Au way
Fi ia
Ic d
itz nd
nd
Be rea
w ium
d
n
Fr n
ce
EU
Ge taly
Hu ny
Au ry
Po tria
ak l
ec p.
Sl ep.
Po ia
Gr d
ce
ov ga
Un D wa
ar
Un xe nd
th ad
i
re
ov c
an
an
n
an
an
an
e
ai
pa
xe de
w pa
Cz Re
Re
Re
l
en
ite ven
a
g
do
iu
a
d ou
u
a
at
at
an
ee
ra
an
na
Sl ree
ra
ed
Sw ela
la
la
la
la
Cz ola
st
R
Sp
ng
Sp
Sl rtu
ng
rtu
nm
Ko
Ne ngd
Ko
bo
s
rm
Sw rm
Lu rla
n
la
l
nl
al
Ja
I
nl
el
al
Lu e
Ne lg
I
lg
r
r
ov
St
er
ng
er
st
st
h
h
Sw
Ze
er
e
d
d
ite
Ne
d
UnEXECUTIVE SUMMARY DONORS DELIVERING REPORT 2020 25
FP DISBURSEMENTS RMNCH DISBURSEMENTS
In 2018, the total volume of FP it moved to 4th place in 2018. Similar to The total volume of RMNCH disbursements While the absolute figures of ODA
disbursements from the 30 OECD DAC Luxembourg, some other small donors from the 30 DAC donors for 2018 was 12.2 disbursements to RMNCH from donors
donors was close to 2 billion USD – such as Ireland and Finland score well billion USD, which is slightly lower than the like Germany, the EU Institutions, Japan
an increase of 7% compared to 2017. when looking at FP disbursements as a 12.6 billion USD in 2017. The US remained by and France are among the top six, they
The US and the UK have the largest FP share of ODA. For both Norway and Italy, far the biggest donor, amounting to around move to the lower half of the ranking
disbursements. However when looking at a significant increase of FP funding can 46% of the total disbursements for RMNCH. when looking at RMNCH disbursements
the FP disbursements relative to total ODA, be seen. The EU Institutions, Germany and When looking at the disbursements to as a percentage of their ODA. Other donors,
the UK is around the same level as Canada, France rank relatively high when looking RMNCH as a percentage of ODA, while the including Canada and the Netherlands,
swiftly followed by Luxembourg and the at total gross disbursements, but score US remains the biggest donor, the gap Luxembourg, Ireland and Denmark, move
Netherlands which also score highly. While poorly when amounts disbursed are between the US and Canada, the UK, the up in the ranking and have a much larger
in 2016, Luxembourg still had the largest compared to ODA contributions. Netherlands, Luxembourg and Norway is share of their ODA dedicated to RMNCH.
share of its ODA dedicated to FP (2.65%), smaller.
2018 FP Disbursements in million USD constant prices
2018 RMNCH Disbursements in million USD constant prices
1000
6000
750
4000
500
250 2000
0
0
Ki tes
C m
er a
Ge nds
y
Fr n
Sw ce
No en
ay
De EU
Au ark
lia
ly
itz rea
Be nd
m
m d
g
Ne Ire n
Ze d
Au d
Po tria
Hu gal
Po ry
Ic d
ec nd
ak .
Gr p.
Sl ce
ia
ov ep
an
th ad
xe an
ur
w lan
an
n
pa
ai
Re
Ita
en
a
do
iu
rw
an
ee
ra
ed
la
la
Cz ela
Sl h R
Sp
ng
rtu
a
nm
Sw Ko
bo
Ki tes
Ge om
C ny
er a
s
EU
Fr n
No ce
Sw ay
Au en
lia
De taly
itz ark
nd
Be rea
Ire m
nd
m n
Ne Fin g
Ze d
Au d
Po ria
Hu gal
Po ry
Ic d
ec nd
ak .
Gr p.
Sl ce
ia
s
rm
la
Ne an
Ja
Lu Finl
al
ov ep
lg
ov
ite St
er
ng
nd
st
th ad
ur
w lan
an
n
pa
xe ai
Re
en
a
iu
rw
a
an
ee
ra
ed
la
la
la
Cz ela
st
Sl h R
Lu Sp
ng
rtu
a
d
Sw nm
Ko
bo
rm
la
Ne an
Ja
al
Un ited
I
lg
ov
ite St
er
ng
st
d
Un ited
Un
d
Un
2018 FP Disbursements as a percentage of ODA 2018 RMNCH Disbursements as a percentage of ODA
3.00% 20.00%
15.00%
2.00%
10.00%
1.00%
5.00%
0.00% 0.00%
Ki tes
C m
m a
er g
No ds
De way
Sw rk
Fi n
Au and
Ire ia
Ne K d
Ze a
Be nd
itz um
Fr d
ce
Ic n
Ge and
y
ly
n
Hu EU
Po ary
A al
a a
ec p.
Sl ep.
Po ia
Gr d
ce
Ca es
er a
ite No s
Ki ay
xe om
Ire rg
Sw nd
De den
Au ark
lia
itz rea
Be nd
Ic m
Ne Fin d
Ze d
d
ly
Ge pan
Fr y
ce
EU
Hu ain
Po ary
A al
a a
ec p.
Po p.
Sl nd
Gr ia
ce
an
an
nd
xe ad
w ore
ov ri
th ad
ov ri
th ur
n
n
n
an
w lan
an
e
pa
ai
Cz k Re
Cz k Re
Re
Ita
Ita
l
en
en
g
g
do
iu
a
u
d rw
at
n
an
ee
an
ee
ra
ra
ed
la
a
la
la
la
la
la
Sl ust
Sl ust
R
Sp
Sp
ng
ng
rtu
rtu
a
Lu ngd
nm
nm
Sw Ko
Sw lgi
Ne bo
bo
rm
rm
la
la
Lu an
n
nl
al
Ja
el
el
al
Ja
e
lg
r
ov
ov
ite St
er
St
er
ng
st
st
h
h
m
Un ited
d
ite
d
Ne
Un
Un
UnMETHODOLOGY
©UNFPA Nepal
Officiis et que providi gendam incimolor tur, sandendant fugita volorro dolupta
si solore cumquibus apidem explit quo tempore ndignimenia vene num, omnis
beatio. Apiscia quia voluptam eicidem- remquati dolorem ilit escieni hillant auda
porum que sum sin enecto volore landa pe in plis estium excessusam, nus eria
dersper emporep eriatur aut moluptatet volupta voluptior si dolorrum idem quid
essitae. Ipsapel ipsanim usanditatem. molor aspeliquibus quis veribus cidunt
Itatium resed quiae reiciam nonsedi facearundion earum harum, aliciatur aut
ut ut aciam exerfer sperciis restiae. is explam vellabo rporrum quamusantius
Eleniet lias provitaquia etur, nusandit, ut nectatet que omnit volupta erepeleseque
velistias dus as molest as re pelento blat sum quia vel eost, eost alibus rae dolo-
excepeliquo estorem sed molores quos ruptae. Tis dem. Nullaboritas aut rentur,
plaborios sum voloreium fuga. Seditibea nullestior rectis voleniscimo commolu
solor sim que percienihil inci alicient, ptaquae ceatur? Quidelia volorro dolore
auditio estium, te corerumque core ped lanti doluptassim voluptatiam sequidi
ut ommosse quassimendit et ut ut etus, a ne quunt quatur aut eos pliquas et ut
sinvelicias at untes untusan tiatur mosa et hilluptate volupti cus et lab inctatem
simus et accus etur min nonsequis pro fugit fugitia voloruptiunt di rectur ant
voluptate consed quis et et occus incta- es pro mos aliciist, aut faccupt atioreiur
tecto voluptatibus non pos re con comni rehendit ullia esto berit laceatius dolore
am, ilignis aut ilita pernatus, eaturehent intur sitas arum facerro consequae pa
essimiliti sam faccum faces veriandit sum deribusae nistiur.
quia sitiati oremqua erovite moluption
pla eate voluptae nosa es ea delec-METHODOLOGY DONORS DELIVERING REPORT 2020 29
METHODOLOGY
Muskoka 2 Tracking method for
RH + MNH ODA allocation to SRR
The basis for this new SRHR tracking Lancet report and ICPD. In a next step,
methodology is the Muskoka 2 metho all projects in the period 2013 – 2017 under
dology2, developed by LSHTM. Via the these codes were analysed. Whenever the
Muskoka 2 methodology, it is possible to project was considered SRR-related, the Under this methodology, the percentages HIV & AIDS 13040) and general budget
track funds specifically to RMNCH as well full or partial amount was counted. The for core contributions to multilaterals are support (51010) vary depending on the
as towards its subcomponents, individually. weight of SRR projects for a specific CRS not fixed and can vary every year. The disease burden, demography, and
In this disaggregation, RH refers to code was calculated based on the total proportion of core contributions to each government health expenditure in each
reproductive health of non-pregnant amount spent on SRR under this code multilateral that benefit SRHR, FP and recipient country and year.
women, MNH to health of pregnant and versus the total ODA under this code. To RMNCH are calculated as the proportion
postpartum women and of babies under avoid double counting, only CRS codes of all disbursements from the multilateral Donor’s disbursements to FP were analysed
one month old, and CH to health of children that are not considered in Muskoka 2 that benefit SRHR, FP and RMNCH each using the official methodology developed
aged one month to five years. were taken into account. year. For example, 22.1% of the value of by the FP 2020 Summit. This methodology
disbursements from the Global Fund in uses part of the Muskoka OECD CRS codes
The Muskoka 2 methodology estimates This new methodology thus tracks ODA 2018 were considered to support SRHR, and multilateral organisations and assigns
the value of RMNCH, RH, MNH and CH to SRHR by combining a donor’s ODA for according to the updated SRHR tracking different percentages to them
by applying imputed percentages for 25 RH and MNH (according to Muskoka 2) methodology; thus 22.1% of each bilateral (See below table).
OECD - DAC purpose codes (Health and and SRR (new methodology). donor‘s core contributions to the Global
population sectors (120/130); water and Fund in 2018 were counted towards that In this Donors Delivering report,
sanitation sector (140); Humanitarian sector In order to ensure that both pregnant bilateral donor‘s SRHR contribution. only disbursements are assessed.
(720, 730, 740) and general budget support and non-pregnant women were taken into The only exceptions are the RMNCH Disbursements represent the actual
(51010)). A percentage of the value of each account in the tracking of SRHR funding, contributions for GAVI, UNFPA and UNICEF payments of the committed funds, or
disbursement in the CRS data is allocated it was decided to include both the RH and for which the Muskoka 2 methodology the provision of goods or services, to
towards RMNCH and additionally also MNH percentages under the Muskoka 2 foresees fixed percentages. Furthermore, a recipient. Disbursements cannot be
to RH, MNH and CH (See annex 1). The methodology. As a result, the tracking it was decided to only include the construed as representing the payments
sum of all this provides an estimate of will also include funding going to neonatal multilateral organisations in our of funds fully committed by donors at
a donor‘s ODA benefitting RMNCH and health. However, a 2017 article from the calculation that contribute more than a specific point in time.
its three components. LSHTM analysing donor funding specifically 5% of their disbursements to RMNCH
for prenatal and neonatal health (PNH) according to the calculations of the LSHTM.
The Muskoka 2 methodology is applied clearly found that funding exclusively Under the Muskoka 2 methodology,
to all OECD DAC donors as if they were benefitting PNH remained extremely low.3 the percentages for disease-specific
following this method to allow for interventions (Malaria 12262, Tuberculosis
comparison. Additional data are needed to 12263 and controlling STDs including
estimate the ODA going to SRR. The CRS
codes that could include SRR projects were
2 | Antonia Dingle, Marco Schäferhoff, Josephine Borghi, Miriam Lewis Sabin, Leonardo Arregoces, Melisa Martinez-Alvarez, Catherine Pitt (2020).
identified in line with the Guttmacher- Estimates of aid for reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health: findings from application of the Muskoka2 method, 2002–17. Lancet Global Health
3 | Catherine Pitt, Christopher Grollman, Melisa Martínez-Álvarez, Leonardo Arregoces, Joy E Lawn, Josephine Borghi (2017).
Countdown to 2015: an analysis of donor funding for prenatal and neonatal health, 2003–2013. BMJ Global Health.METHODOLOGY DONORS DELIVERING REPORT 2020 31
SELECTED PERCENTAGES PER OECD
DAC CRS CODE UNDER THE MUSKOKA 2
METHODOLOGY AND FP METHODOLOGY
2016 2017 2018
Bilateral DAC purpose codes RMNCH RH MNH SRR SRHR FP Multilateral Agency/Initiative RMNCH SRHR FP RMNCH SRHR FP RMNCH SRHR FP
11230 Basic life skills for youth and adults 0% 0% 0% 2% 2.00 % 0,00% GAVI 91.00% 2.00% 0.00% 91.00% 2.00% 0.00% 91.00% 2.00% 0.00%
15150 Democratic participation and civil society 0% 0% 0% 1% 1.00 % 0,00% Global Fund to Fight Aids, 41.40% 25.97% 5.00% 39.90% 23.46% 5.00% 39.90% 22.10% 5.00%
TB and Malaria
15160 Human Rights 0% 0% 0% 7% 7.00 % 0,00%
IDA 5.20% 2.37% 1.00% 5.90% 2.49% 1.00% 5.90% 2.70% 1.00%
15170 Women‘s equality organisations and institutions 0% 0% 0% 17 % 17.00 % 0,00%
UNFPA 49.00% 51.75% 20.00% 49.00% 51.59% 20.00% 49.00% 52.57% 20.00%
15180 Ending violence against women and girls 0% 0% 0% 41 % 41.00 % 0,00%
UNICEF 15.00% 4.32% 0.00% 15.00% 4.24% 0.00% 15.00% 4.52% 0.00%
16064 Social mitigation of HIV & AIDS 0% 0% 0% 9% 9.00 % 0,00%
UNAIDS 34.10% 36.57% 0.00% 34.10% 36.50% 0.00% 34.10% 40.49% 0.00%
12110 Health policy & administrative management 40 % 1.90 % 13,50 % 0% 15.40 % 5,00%
UNRWA 7.00% 1.74% 0.00% 7.00% 1.74% 0.00% 7.00% 1.58% 0.00%
12181 Medical education/training 40 % 1.00 % 15,10 % 0% 16.10 % 5,00%
World Food Programme 5.90% 2.93% 0.00% 5.90% 2.35% 0.00% 5.90% 1.36% 0.00%
12182 Medical Research 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.00 % 0,00%
World Health Organisation 37.90% 16.21% 5.00% 37.90% 16.63% 5.00% 37.90% 16.26% 5.00%
12191 Medical services 40 % 1.80 % 15.70 % 0% 17.50 % 5,00%
Asian Development Bank 1.60% 0.24% 0.00% 1.60% 0.23% 0.00% 1.60% 0.64% 0.00%
12220 Basic health care 40 % 0.60 % 9.40 % 0% 10.00 % 5,00%
African Development Fund 0.90% 0.29% 0.00% 0.30% 0.17% 0.00% 0.30% 0.23% 0.00%
12230 Basic health infrastructure 40 % 0.70 % 12.90 % 0% 13.60 % 5,00%
12240 Basic nutrition 100 % 0.50 % 37.90 % 0% 38.40 % 0,00%
12250 Infectious disease control 40% 0.50 % 1.50 % 0% 2.00 % 0.00 %
12261 Health education 40% 6.20 % 11.00 % 0% 17.20% 5,00%
12262 Malaria control varies* 0,00% 15,00% 0% 15,00% 0,00%
12263 Tuberculosis control varies* 0,00% 0,00% 0% 0,00% 0,00%
12281 Health personnel development 40% 0,60% 16,40% 0% 17,00% 5,00%
13010 Population policy and administrative management 40% 23,40% 12,00% 0% 35,40% 5,00%
13020 Reproductive health care 100% 15.80 % 58.90% 0% 74.70% 20.00%
13030 Family planning 100% 97.30% 2.00% 0% 99.30% 100.00%
13040 Std control including HIV & AIDS varies* varies* 0.00% 0% 0.00% 3.00%
13081 Personnel development for population & reproductive health 100% 14.50 % 70.10% 0% 84.60% 5.00%
14030 Basic drinking water supply and basic sanitation 15% 0.00 % 0.00 % 0% 0.00 % 0.00 %
14031 Basic drinking water supply 15% 0.00 % 0.00 % 0% 0.00 % 0.00 %
14032 Basic sanitation 15% 0.00 % 0.00 % 0% 0.00 % 0.00 %
51010 General budget support-related aid varies* varies* 0.00% 0% 0.00% 0.50%
72010 Material Relief assistance and services 4.40% 0.10 % 0.90 % 0% 1.00 % 0.00 %
72040 Emergency Food Aid 1.90% 0.00 % 0.60 % 0% 0.60 % 0.00 %
72050 Relief coordination; protection and support services 2.10% 0.10 % 0.50 % 0% 0.60 % 0.00 %
73010 Reconstruction relief and rehabilitation 1.40% 0.00 % 0.40 % 0% 0.40 % 0.00 %
74010 Disaster prevention and preparedness 1.50% 0.00 % 0.40 % 0% 0.40 % 0.00 %
© Prashant Gurjar | UNFPADONOR
© Ken Simama
PROFILES
Officiis et que providi gendam incimolor tur, sandendant fugita volorro dolupta
si solore cumquibus apidem explit quo tempore ndignimenia vene num, omnis
beatio. Apiscia quia voluptam eicidem- remquati dolorem ilit escieni hillant auda
porum que sum sin enecto volore landa pe in plis estium excessusam, nus eria
dersper emporep eriatur aut moluptatet volupta voluptior si dolorrum idem quid
essitae. Ipsapel ipsanim usanditatem. molor aspeliquibus quis veribus cidunt
Itatium resed quiae reiciam nonsedi facearundion earum harum, aliciatur aut
ut ut aciam exerfer sperciis restiae. is explam vellabo rporrum quamusantius
Eleniet lias provitaquia etur, nusandit, ut nectatet que omnit volupta erepeleseque
velistias dus as molest as re pelento blat sum quia vel eost, eost alibus rae dolo-
excepeliquo estorem sed molores quos ruptae. Tis dem. Nullaboritas aut rentur,
plaborios sum voloreium fuga. Seditibea nullestior rectis voleniscimo commolu
solor sim que percienihil inci alicient, ptaquae ceatur? Quidelia volorro dolore
auditio estium, te corerumque core ped lanti doluptassim voluptatiam sequidi
ut ommosse quassimendit et ut ut etus, a ne quunt quatur aut eos pliquas et ut
sinvelicias at untes untusan tiatur mosa et hilluptate volupti cus et lab inctatem
simus et accus etur min nonsequis pro fugit fugitia voloruptiunt di rectur ant
voluptate consed quis et et occus incta- es pro mos aliciist, aut faccupt atioreiur
tecto voluptatibus non pos re con comni rehendit ullia esto berit laceatius dolore
am, ilignis aut ilita pernatus, eaturehent intur sitas arum facerro consequae pa
essimiliti sam faccum faces veriandit sum deribusae nistiur.
quia sitiati oremqua erovite moluption
pla eate voluptae nosa es ea delec-DONOR PROFILES DONORS DELIVERING REPORT 2020 35
HOW DO THE DONOR
PROFILES WORK? AUSTRALIA
Australia prioritises global health in its development aid and has released a Health for
Development Strategy 2015-2020. This strategy includes clear commitments on investment in
RMNCH and FP. Australia’s latest development policy, ‘Partnerships for Recovery: Australia’s
DONOR’S POLITICAL PROFILE COVID-19 Development Response’, launched in May 2020, is oriented towards COVID-19 response
Brief description of a donor’s policies that are relevant for RMNCH, SRHR and recovery efforts, and includes health, sexual and reproductive health (and FP), as a key pillar.
and FP, and interesting funding trends that come out of our analysis.
Despite political commitments, a steadily declining trend in Australia’s funding for SRHR has
been ongoing since 2016, both in absolute terms, as well as a share of ODA. Since a significant cut
to funding between 2016 and 2017, Australia’s funding and prioritising of RMNCH picked up slightly
HOW MUCH MONEY DID THE DONOR DISBURSE FOR in 2018.The funding for FP remained fairly stable over this period.
DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE (ODA), SRHR, FP AND RMNCH IN 2018?
The graph shows the total volume of the donor’s disbursements to ODA, SRHR, FP and
RMNCH in 2018. RMNCH and SRHR are collected based on the Muskoka 2 methodology 2018 ODA, SRHR, FP and RMNCH disbursements in million USD, 2018 constant prices
and the additional SRHR tracking method. For FP, the FP2020 methodology is used.
4,000
3,152.20
HOW MUCH DID THE DONOR PRIORITISE SRHR, FP AND RMNCH IN THEIR 3,000
DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE (ODA) FROM 2016-2018?
The graph provides a historical overview of the donor’s disbursements as percentages
2,000
of ODA towards SRHR, FP and RMNCH, as if reported against the Muskoka 2 metho
dology, the updated SRHR methodology and the FP2020 methodology.
1,000
88.10 164.36
19,38
THE CURRENCY 0
Total ODA SRHR FP RMNCH
All development finance statistics are measured here in constant prices
with reference to the year 2018, as per OECD DAC. This allows for a closer
idea of volume of flows over time, as adjustments have been made to cover
Yearly SRHR, FP and RMNCH disbursements as a percentage of total ODA, 2016 – 2018
inflation and exchange rates between the donor’s currency and USD.
6 5.82 SRHR
4.99 5.21
FP
4 RMNCH
DUPLICATION 3.13 2.91 2.79
The DAC CRS codes to track funding to SRHR, FP and RMNCH overlap.
2
Adding the outcomes of a donor’s funding to SRHR, FP and RMNCH
0.49 0.71 0.61
together will therefore lead to a duplication of results, and should
be avoided. Rather SRHR, FP and RMNCH should be seen as three 0
2016 2017 2018
different issues that provide different overlapping pictures.
N.B. Each donor profile graph uses a tailored scale according to the donor's results
and cannot be compared.DONOR PROFILES DONORS DELIVERING REPORT 2020 37
AUSTRALIA AUSTRIA
Australia prioritises global health in its development aid and has released a Health for Austria listed access to health, including SRHR, as a major field of activity in its Three-Year Programme
Development Strategy 2015-2020. This strategy includes clear commitments on investment in on Austrian Development Policy 2016 – 2018. This was strengthened in the Three-Year Programme on
MNCH and FP. Australia’s latest development policy, ‘Partnerships for Recovery: Australia’s COVID-19 Austrian Development Policy 2019 – 2021, where the promotion of SRHR and FP are listed as a central
Development Response’, launched in May 2020, is oriented towards COVID-19 response and recovery instrument to achieve health for all. In both the 2016 – 2018 and the 2019 – 2021 programme, gender
efforts, and includes health, sexual and reproductive health (and FP), as a key pillar. equality is included as a cross-cutting issue.
Despite political commitments, a steadily declining trend in Australia’s funding for SRHR has been Austria’s FP and RMNCH disbursements increased from 2016 to 2017 and decreased again from 2017 to
ongoing since 2016, both in absolute terms, as well as in share of ODA. Since a significant cut to 2018. For SRHR an opposite trend took place. Disbursements decreased from 2016 – 2017 and increased
funding between 2016 and 2017, Australia’s funding and prioritising of RMNCH picked up slightly in 2018. again in 2018. When taking into account the disbursements as a percentage of ODA, we see an
The funding for FP remained fairly stable over this period. increase for SRHR over the three years, while RMNCH and FP follow the pattern of the disbursements
in constant prices.
2018 ODA, SRHR, FP and RMNCH disbursements in million USD, 2018 constant prices 2018 ODA, SRHR, FP and RMNCH disbursements in million USD, 2018 constant prices
1,176.61
4,000 1250
3,152.20
1000
3,000
750
2,000
500
1,000
250
88.10 164.36 8.42 14.92
19,38 2.02
0 0
Total ODA SRHR FP RMNCH Total ODA SRHR FP RMNCH
Yearly SRHR, FP and RMNCH disbursements as a percentage of total ODA, 2016 – 2018 Yearly SRHR, FP and RMNCH disbursements as a percentage of total ODA, 2016 – 2018
5.82 1.4
6 SRHR 1.5
SRHR
4.99 5.21 1.27
FP FP
1.01
4 RMNCH 1.0
RMNCH
3.13 2.91 0.72
2.79 0.61
0.48
2 0.5
0.49 0.71 0.61 0.13 0.18 0.17
0 0
2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018DONOR PROFILES DONORS DELIVERING REPORT 2020 39
BELGIUM CANADA
In its 2013 federal law on development cooperation, Belgium stresses the importance of SRHR In 2017, Canada adopted its feminist international assistance policy, which has a specific focus on
for sustainable development and prioritises RH in its bilateral cooperation. SRHR is also a priority empowering women and girls and promoting gender equality. In addition, it also champions SRHR
in operational policy documents on health and gender in development. and commits to support its SRHR work with an investment of 650 million USD over three years.
Moreover, Canada’s global health policy lists SRHR and health of women and children, including
In 2017, Belgium co-launched the SheDecides Initiative, which seeks to promote women’s rights increased access to a full range of health services, such as FP and modern contraception;
and SRH/FP worldwide. Belgium hosted the SheDecides pledging conference in 2017 and as comprehensive sexuality education; safe and legal abortion, and post-abortion care; prevention
part of the country’s contribution, pledged 36 million EUR as core funding to UNFPA. In addition, and treatment of HIV & AIDS and sexually transmitted infections as key areas of action.
Belgium is now including a ‘SheDecides’-programme promoting SRH/FP and gender equality
in every new bilateral cooperation agreement. These commitments were strengthened at the Women Deliver Conference in Vancouver in July 2019
and the Nairobi Summit in November 2019, where Canada committed to increase support for women’s,
Belgium’s disbursements on SRHR, FP and RMNCH (both in total amounts and as a percentage of adolescents’ and children’s health to an average of 1.4 billion USD annually by 2023, with an annual
total ODA) have increased significantly from 2016 to 2017 and experienced a small drop in 2018. average of 700 million USD for SRHR.
The amounts and percentages from 2018 are, however, still higher than those in 2016.
Canada’s funding for SRHR, FP and RMNCH has increased between 2016 and 2018. While RMNCH
disbursements have only increased slightly, a more significant increase can be noted for SRHR
2018 ODA, SRHR, FP and RMNCH disbursements in million USD, 2018 constant prices and FP. FP disbursements as a percentage of ODA have doubled between 2016 and 2018.
2,363.07
2500 2018 ODA, SRHR, FP and RMNCH disbursements in million USD, 2018 constant prices
2000 4,689.47
5000
1500
4000
1000
3000
500
2000
43.64 88.19
11.48
0
Total ODA SRHR FP RMNCH 1000
579.73
300.85
83.91
0
Total ODA SRHR FP RMNCH
Yearly SRHR, FP and RMNCH disbursements as a percentage of total ODA, 2016 – 2018 Yearly SRHR, FP and RMNCH disbursements as a percentage of total ODA, 2016 – 2018
3.84 3.73
4 SRHR 15
3.47
12.4 12.36
SRHR
FP 11 FP
3
10
1.98 1.85
RMNCH 6.42
RMNCH
1.64
2 5.76
4.58
0.72 5
1
0.41 0.49 1.49 1.79
0.88
0 0
2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018DONOR PROFILES DONORS DELIVERING REPORT 2020 41
CZECH REPUBLIC DENMARK
Social development, including education, health care and support for social inclusion, is one of the In its 2017 Development Cooperation Strategy ‘The World in 2030’, Denmark continues to stress the
priorities of the Czech development aid policy for 2018-30. Respect for human rights, including gender importance of SRHR and gender equality as main priorities for development cooperation. This
equality and empowerment of women and girls is considered a cross-cutting issue. The strategy focus builds on a long tradition of Denmark being a SRHR donor champion. Denmark is one of the
does not specifically refer to SRHR, FP or RMNCH. Czech bilateral aid focuses on Balkan and Eastern co-founders of ‘AmplifyChange’ and continues to support this fund. In addition, Denmark was also
European countries, in addition to the Global South. The priority countries are Bosnia and Herzegovina, one of the co-launchers of the SheDecides Initiative in 2017 and, jointly with UNFPA and Kenya,
Cambodia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Moldova, and Zambia. it co-hosted the ICPD25 Summit in Nairobi in November 2019.
Already rather low, Czech disbursements on SRHR, FP and RMNCH (both in total amounts and as a per- Denmark’s disbursements to SRHR, FP and RMNCH have increased substantially between 2016 and
centage of total ODA) have decreased further between 2016 and 2018 with a marginal increase in 2017. 2017, while there has been a more moderate increase between 2017 and 2018. This is mostly linked
to increases in Denmark’s bilateral funding for SRHR, FP and RMNCH. Its multilateral funding only
increased slightly.
2018 ODA, SRHR, FP and RMNCH disbursements in million USD, 2018 constant prices 2018 ODA, SRHR, FP and RMNCH disbursements in million USD, 2018 constant prices
400 3000
2,633.08
305.37
300
2000
200
1000
100
98.52 140.16
0.97 0.24 2.175 26.40
0 0
Total ODA SRHR FP RMNCH Total ODA SRHR FP RMNCH
Yearly SRHR, FP and RMNCH disbursements as a percentage of total ODA, 2016 – 2018 Yearly SRHR, FP and RMNCH disbursements as a percentage of total ODA, 2016 – 2018
1.15
1.25 SRHR 6
5.32 SRHR
1.0 4.95
1. FP FP
4 3.53 3.74
0.71 3.41
0.75 RMNCH RMNCH
0.44 0.46 2.15
0.5
0.32 2
0.25 1 1
0.1 0.13 0.08 0.62
0 0
2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018DONOR PROFILES DONORS DELIVERING REPORT 2020 43
EU INSTITUTIONS FINLAND
The New European Consensus on Development (2017), the Gender Action Plan II (2016 - 2020) There is strong political and financial commitment for global SRHR in the Finnish development
and various other international policies demonstrate the EU’s political commitment to SRHR. policy and cooperation. In 2016, Finland launched its Government Report on Development Policy:
Currently the EU Institutions support SRHR, FP and RMNCH through a range of financial instruments ‘One World, One Future – Towards Sustainable Development’. In this report, Finland recognises the
(geographic and thematic programmes, Global Health Initiatives, support to UN organisations and rights of women and girls with strong emphasis on SRH/FP as a key priority for its development policy.
grants to civil society). At the end of 2020, the EU’s current long-term budget or Multiannual Financial Gender equality and SRHR are also among the funding priorities.
Framework (MFF) will come to an end. Under the new MFF (2021–2027), development cooperation will
be funded by the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI). UNFPA remains the second largest receiver of Finnish funding to UN organisations, which indicates
While discussions on this instrument are still ongoing, the positions of all three European Institutions that Finland’s commitment still lies with SRH/FP related issues. At the Nairobi ICPD25 Summit,
(the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council) contain strong references to Finland committed to significantly increase funding to UNFPA and highlighted Finland’s strong
SRHR. The Spotlight Initiative, a global multi-year partnership between the EU and the UN launched in political support to the organisation and SRHR.
2017, aims to eliminate violence against women and girls and foresees an initial amount of 500 million
EUR for targeted, large-scale investments in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Latin America and the Pacific. Finland’s development cooperation budget was cut dramatically in 2016 and, as a consequence,
the SRHR, FP and RMNCH disbursements were hit. However, between 2016 and 2018 a steady increase
Despite these political commitments, a general decrease of SRHR, FP and RMNCH funding was seen. can be noted both in terms of total disbursements and in relative disbursements compared to ODA.
While there was still an increase of funding from 2016 to 2017, this decreased considerably in 2018 to a
level below that of 2016.
2018 ODA, SRHR, FP and RMNCH disbursements in million USD, 2018 constant prices
2018 ODA, SRHR, FP and RMNCH disbursements in million USD, 2018 constant prices
1250
25000 1,002.58
1000
20,022.57
20000
750
15000
500
10000
250
5000 26.33 8.24 34.56
0
251.74 38.51 486.16 Total ODA SRHR FP RMNCH
0
Total ODA SRHR FP RMNCH
Yearly SRHR, FP and RMNCH disbursements as a percentage of total ODA, 2016 – 2018 Yearly SRHR, FP and RMNCH disbursements as a percentage of total ODA, 2016 – 2018
4 SRHR 4 SRHR
3.39 3.45
3.24 3.1
3 FP 3 2.79 2.63 FP
2.43
RMNCH 2.08 2.22 RMNCH
2 1.59 2
1.50
1.26
0.82
1 1 0.63
0.4 0.55
0.27 0.19
0 0
2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018DONOR PROFILES DONORS DELIVERING REPORT 2020 45
FRANCE GERMANY
Since 2017, France has made gender equality a priority of its foreign policy. In 2016, France published Germany’s policy on SRHR in development is long-standing and mainly based on the 2008 policy
its strategy report on external action on the issues of population and SRHR 2016 – 2020, followed by paper ‘Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights and Population Dynamics’. In 2011, it launched an
the strategy for global health for 2017-2021. In 2018, the French government joined the SheDecides Initiative on Rights-Based Family Planning and Maternal Health. Funding for this initiative currently
initiative by pledging 10 million EUR. Francophone West African countries are priority countries remains at 100 million EUR per year. In April 2019, it was announced that it will be prolonged until 2023.
for French development aid. France co-founded the Muskoka Initiative and has created the Fonds In addition to the committed 40 million for 2020, Germany has recently announced an
Français Muskoka as a follow-up, which is now funding up to 10 million EUR per year to RMNCH and additional EUR 30 million in core funding to UNFPA.
SRHR in West and Central Africa (until 2022).
Germany’s disbursements for SRHR, FP and RMNCH have remained stable from 2016 to 2018.
France is the sixth-largest donor country in terms of total ODA disbursements but allocates only A significant share of Germany’s overall disbursements for SRHR, FP and RMNCH comes from
0.4% to FP and 1.3% to SRHR. While France’s gross disbursements to SRHR, FP and RMNCH have core multilateral contributions, namely to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
increased between 2016 and 2018, this is not the case when they are compared to ODA. France’s
FP disbursements as a percentage of ODA remained fairly stable between 2016 and 2018. However,
its disbursements on RMNCH and SRHR as a percentage of ODA has decreased considerably.
2018 ODA, SRHR, FP and RMNCH disbursements in million USD, 2018 constant prices 2018 ODA, SRHR, FP and RMNCH disbursements in million USD, 2018 constant prices
28,636.72
20000 30000
15,382.81
15000
20000
10000
10000
5000
197.57 57.01 389.80 313.28 80.60 746.98
0 0
Total ODA SRHR FP RMNCH Total ODA SRHR FP RMNCH
Yearly SRHR, FP and RMNCH disbursements as a percentage of total ODA, 2016 – 2018 Yearly SRHR, FP and RMNCH disbursements as a percentage of total ODA, 2016 – 2018
4 SRHR 3
2.48 2.61 SRHR
3.04 2.34
3 FP FP
2.4 2.53 2
RMNCH RMNCH
2
1.43 1.34 1.28 1.1 1.05 1.09
1
1
0.33 0.37 0.37 0.28 0.28 0.28
0 0
2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018DONOR PROFILES DONORS DELIVERING REPORT 2020 47
GREECE HUNGARY
According to the 2019 OECD Development Co‑operation Peer Review, Greek development co-operation In its 2014 – 2020 development policy, Hungary lists human development, including health and
has traditionally focused on poverty, hunger, health, education and culture, and peace and security. education, as one of the priority sectors. In addition, improving the situation of women, education and
Gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls is considered a cross-cutting priority. health is considered a priority for sub-Saharan Africa. Neither SRHR, FP or RMNCH are specifically
There are no specific references to SRHR, FP or RMNCH. mentioned in Hungary’s development policy.
The Greek disbursements on SRHR, FP and RMNCH remain low. While there was a slight increase Hungarian disbursements on SRHR, FP and RMNCH remain rather low, particularly in 2016.
in the disbursements for SRHR, FP and RMNCH in 2017 (both in terms of total amount and as a However, between 2016 and 2018, there was a strong increase in the disbursements on SRHR, FP and
percentage of ODA), disbursements decreased in 2018 to match 2016 levels. RMNCH (both in total amounts and as a percentage of ODA). While in 2016 and 2017, the overwhelming
majority of Hungary’s ODA to SRHR, FP and RMNCH disbursements were part of its multilateral fun-
ding (with a focus on the World Bank’s IDA), this shifted to bilateral funding in 2018.
2018 ODA, SRHR, FP and RMNCH disbursements in million USD, 2018 constant prices 2018 ODA, SRHR, FP and RMNCH disbursements in million USD, 2018 constant prices
290.44 284.94
300 300
200 200
100 100
0.348 0.087 0.949 2.578 0.502 5.02
0 0
Total ODA SRHR FP RMNCH Total ODA SRHR FP RMNCH
Yearly SRHR, FP and RMNCH disbursements as a percentage of total ODA, 2016 – 2018 Yearly SRHR, FP and RMNCH disbursements as a percentage of total ODA, 2016 – 2018
0.8 SRHR 2 SRHR
0.7 1,76
0.6 FP 1,5 FP
0.33 0.33
RMNCH RMNCH
0.4 1 0.9
0.26 0,64
0,34
0.2 0.12 0.12 0.5
0.08 0.27
0.03 0.16 0.18
0.03 0.08
0.04
0 0
2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018You can also read
