Donor Government Assistance for Family Planning in 2012

In July 2012, the U.K. Government and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation – in partnership with the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), civil society organizations, developing countries, donor governments, the private sector, and multilateral organizations – co-sponsored the London Summit on Family Planning, an effort to provide voluntary family planning services to an additional 120 million women and girls in developing countries by 2020 through new commitments. A key step in assessing progress towards these commitments is tracking expenditures for family planning.  While all financing sources are critical to helping to scale-up the response, donor governments provide a significant share of global funding for family planning services.¹ 

This analysis establishes a baseline level of funding in 2012 that can be used to track total international assistance funding levels for family planning over time as well as specific donor government progress in meeting London Summit on Family Planning commitments.  It examines funding for family planning provided by the 24 governments who were members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Development Assistance Committee (DAC) in 2012. Of these, eleven made specific commitments at the Summit to increase funding for family planning including: Australia, Denmark, the European Commission, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the U.K.²  In addition, there are several other donor governments, particularly the United States and Canada, which, while not making specific commitments at the Summit, also provide funding for family planning activities. In general, family planning services are defined to include the following activities: counseling; information, education and communication activities; delivery of contraceptives; capacity building and training.  In addition, family-planning-related activities funded in the context of other official development assistance sectors (e.g. education, civil society) are reflected in this analysis. Key findings include (also, see Table):

• In 2012, donor governments provided US$899.8 million for bilateral family planning programs and an additional US$432.3 million in core contributions to the UNFPA.
• The U.S. was the largest bilateral donor providing US$485.0 million and accounting for more than half (54%) of total bilateral funding in 2012. The U.K. (US$99.4 million, 11%) was the second largest bilateral donor followed by the Netherlands (US$65.5 million, 7%), France (US$49.6 million, 6%), and Germany (US$47.6 million, 5%).
• The eleven who made specific commitments at the Summit accounted for US$371.8 million (41%) of total donor government disbursements for family planning in 2012.
• Sweden (US$66.3 million) was the largest donor to UNFPA followed by Norway (US$59.4 million), the Netherlands (US$49.0 million), and Denmark (US$44.0).
• While complete funding data for 2013 are not yet available, two donor governments (the U.K. and Norway) have already budgeted increased levels of funding for family planning in 2013; U.K. family-planning-specific funding is estimated to be approximately US$103 million, a 5% increase over prior year levels, and the Norwegian budget provides approximately $25 million in new family planning-specific funding. In addition, while family-planning-specific funding data is not yet available, the Netherlands increased budgeted funding in 2013 for “Sexual and Reproductive Health & Rights, including HIV/AIDS” to US$504.1 million. The increases by the U.K. and the Netherlands fulfill their London Summit commitments.

In the wake of the commitments made during the London Summit, timely and accurate tracking of donor financing for family planning takes on new urgency. The data presented in this analysis should be considered a work in progress as donor governments refine existing methodologies to track funding for family planning activities. As we continue to track donor government funding for family planning in future years, we will aim to provide additional detail and trend analyses.

Introduction

Access to family planning (FP) services has a significant impact on the health and wellbeing of women and girls, and on global health and development more broadly. Family planning – the ability of individuals and couples to determine their desired number of children as well as the timing of and spacing between births – can help prevent pregnancy-related health risks, reduce infant mortality, and help in the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV/AIDS.³  Currently, it is estimated that more than 200 million women worldwide would like to delay or stop childbearing, but they do not have access to contraceptives.⁴  The international community has long recognized the importance of improving access to family planning services. In 1994, at the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), 179 governments committed to a 20-year plan of action aimed at providing, among other things, universal access to family planning and sexual and reproductive health services and reproductive rights. Additionally, in 2005, a specific target on reproductive health was added to Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 5, four years after the MDGs were first adopted by Member States of the United Nations.  More recently, in July 2012, the U.K. Government and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, in partnership with UNFPA, civil society organizations, developing countries, donor governments, the private sector, and multilateral organizations met at the London Summit on Family Planning and made commitments aimed at providing voluntary family planning services to an additional 120 million women and girls in developing countries by 2020 (see Box 1).

Findings

Bilateral Assistance

Donor government bilateral assistance for family planning includes both actual funding amounts provided (e.g., cash transfers) as well as other types of transactions and activities (e.g., technical assistance) and products (e.g., commodities). In 2012, donor governments are estimated to have disbursed⁸  US$899.8 million in bilateral funding for family planning activities (see Table & Annex).

The United States (US$485.0 million) was the largest bilateral donor in 2012 accounting for more than half (54%) of total bilateral assistance (see Figure 1). The U.K. (US$99.4 million, 11%) was the second largest bilateral donor followed by the Netherlands (US$65.5 million, 7%), France (US$49.6 million, 6%), and Germany (US$47.6 million, 5%).

The eleven donor governments that made commitments at the London Summit on Family Planning (Australia, Denmark, the European Commission, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the U.K.) accounted for US$371.8 million (41%) of total donor government disbursements for family planning in 2012.

Multilateral Assistance

While the majority of donor government assistance for family planning is provided bilaterally, donors also provide support for family planning activities through multilateral organizations, such as the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Created in 1969, UNFPA supports sexual and reproductive health activities in many low- and middle-income countries and was a key partner in the London Summit on Family Planning (see Box 3).

In 2012, donor governments provided US$432.3 million in core contributions to UNFPA.⁹  Sweden was the largest donor (US$66.3 million, 15%) followed by Norway (US$59.4 million, 14%), the Netherlands (US$49.0 million, 11%), Denmark (US$44.0 million, 10%), the U.K. (US$31.8 million, 7%), and the U.S. (US$30.2 million, 7%) (see Figure 2).

While it was not possible to calculate an adjusted “family planning share” of UNFPA’s 2012 budget and attribute a portion of a donor government’s UNFPA contribution to family planning specific activities,¹⁰  it is important to note the relative balance between a donor’s core-contributions to UNFPA and its bilateral funding for family planning. For instance, three of the ten donor governments profiled provided a larger contribution to UNFPA than their bilateral disbursement: Denmark, Norway, & Sweden.

The eleven donor governments that made commitments at the London Summit on Family Planning (Australia, Denmark, the European Commission, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the U.K.) accounted for US$311.7 million (71%) of total core-contributions to UNFPA in 2012.

Conclusion & Looking Ahead to 2013

The data provided in this analysis provide a baseline level of donor government funding for FP activities in low- and middle-income countries. At the London Summit on Family Planning donors made commitments totaling $2.6 billion in additional funding for family planning.¹¹  While most donor governments have yet to finalize 2013 funding levels, preliminary data indicate two donor governments (the U.K. and Norway) have increased funding for family planning in 2013: U.K. family-planning-specific funding is estimated to be approximately US$105 million, a 5% increase over 2012 levels, and Norway has budgeted approximately $25 million in new family planning-specific funding. In addition, while family-planning-specific funding is not yet available, the Netherlands increased funding in 2013 for “Sexual and Reproductive Health & Rights, including HIV/AIDS” to US$504.1 million. The increases by the U.K. and the Netherlands fulfill their London Summit commitments. As donor governments conclude the 2013 fiscal year, it will be important to track funding for family planning activities in order to determine whether the London Summit commitments are being met.

Bilateral and multilateral data on donor government assistance for FP in low- and middle-income countries were collected from multiple sources.  The research team collected bilateral assistance data directly for 10 governments: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States during the first half of 2013.  Data represent the fiscal year 2012 period for all governments except for Denmark and Germany (data are from FY/CY 2011).  Direct data collection from these donors was desirable because they represent the preponderance of donor government assistance for family planning and the latest official statistics – from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Creditor Reporting System (CRS) (see: http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/data – are from 2011 and do not include all forms of international assistance (e.g., funding to countries such as Russia and the Baltic States that are no longer included in the CRS database).  In addition, the CRS data may not include certain funding streams provided by donors, such as FP components of mixed-purpose grants to non-governmental organizations.   Where donor governments were members of the European Union (EU), the research team ensured that no double-counting of funds occurred between EU Member State reported amounts and EC reported amounts for international FP assistance. Data for all other OECD DAC member governments – Austria, Belgium, the European Union, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, and Switzerland – who collectively accounted for less than 2 percent of bilateral family planning disbursements, were obtained from the OECD CRS and are from calendar year 2011.

For purposes of this analysis, funding was counted as family planning if it met the OECD CRS purpose code definition: “Family planning services including counselling; information, education and communication (IEC) activities; delivery of contraceptives; capacity building and training.” In addition, family-planning-related activities funded in the context of other official development assistance sectors (e.g. education, civil society) are reflected in this analysis. Project-level data were reviewed for Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom to determine whether all or a portion of the funding could be counted as family planning. Family-planning-specific funding totals for Australia and the United States were obtained through direct communications with government representatives. Funding attributed to the United Kingdom represents budgeted disbursements. Funding totals presented in this analysis should be considered preliminary estimates approved by representatives of the 10 donor governments who were contacted directly.

It was difficult in some cases to disaggregate bilateral family planning funding from broader reproductive and maternal health totals, as the two are sometimes represented as integrated totals. In addition, family-planning-related activities funded in the context of other official development assistance sectors (e.g. education, civil society) have in the past remained largely unidentified.  For purposes of this analysis, we worked closely with the largest donors to family planning to identify such family-planning-specific funding where possible (see Annex for detailed data table).

Bilateral funding is defined as any earmarked (FP-designated) amount. U.S. bilateral “enacted” data, or “commitments”, correspond to amounts appropriated for the 2012 fiscal year. UNFPA contributions from all governments correspond to amounts received during the 2012 calendar year, regardless of which contributor’s fiscal year such disbursements pertain to.

With some exceptions, bilateral assistance data were collected for disbursements. A disbursement is the actual release of funds to, or the purchase of goods or services for, a recipient.  Disbursements in any given year may include disbursements of funds committed in prior years and in some cases, not all funds committed during a government fiscal year are disbursed in that year. In addition, a disbursement by a government does not necessarily mean that the funds were provided to a country or other intended end-user. Enacted amounts represent budgetary decisions that funding will be provided, regardless of the time at which actual outlays, or disbursements, occur. In recent years, most governments have converted to cash accounting frameworks, and present budgets for legislative approval accordingly; in such cases, disbursements were used as a proxy for enacted amounts.  In the U.S. case, both enacted and disbursement data were available for analysis.

UNFPA core contributions were obtained from United Nations Executive Board documents; however, we were unable to determine what share of these core contributions are attributable to family planning specifically (since such funding is also used to support broader reproductive health and related efforts). To date, UNFPA family planning activities have often been reported as part of broader categories, including reproductive health and maternal and child health, as well as part of larger multisectoral efforts, including those in education, human rights, and capacity building.  It is expected that such disaggregation will be available in the future and UNFPA reports that it is currently working to develop such a methodology for doing so. Other than contributions provided by governments to UNFPA, un-earmarked general contributions to United Nations entities, most of which are membership contributions set by treaty or other formal agreement (e.g., the World Bank’s International Development Association or United Nations country membership assessments), are not identified as part of a donor government’s FP assistance even if the multilateral organization in turn directs some of these funds to FP.  Rather, these would be considered as FP funding provided by the multilateral organization, as in the case of the World Bank’s efforts, and are not considered for purposes of this report.

The fiscal year period varies by country.  The U.S. fiscal year runs from October 1-September 30. The Australian fiscal year runs from July 1-June 30.  The fiscal years for Canada and the U.K. are April 1-March 31.  Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden use the calendar year.  The OECD uses the calendar year, so data collected from the CRS for other donor governments reflect January 1-December 31. Most UN agencies use the calendar year and their budgets are biennial.

All data are expressed in US dollars (USD).  Where data were provided by governments in their currencies, they were adjusted by average daily exchange rates to obtain a USD equivalent, based on foreign exchange rate historical data available from the U.S. Federal Reserve (see: http://www.federalreserve.gov/).  Data obtained from UNFPA were already adjusted by UNFPA to represent a USD equivalent based on date of receipts.

1. UNFPA, Financial Resource Flows for Population Activities Report 2011, 2013. ↩︎
2. Family Planning 2020, London Summit on Family Planning: Summaries of Commitments, May 2013. ↩︎
3. WHO, Family Planning Fact Sheet, updated May 2013. ↩︎
4. Guttmacher Institute/UNFPA, Adding It Up: Costs and Benefits of Contraceptive Services Estimates for 2012, June 2012. ↩︎
5. While the OECD CRS database and the Resource Flows project, a joint collaboration between UNFPA and the Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute (NIDI), both provide data on donor government funding for family planning activities, the latest available data from both sources is from 2011. Additionally, the CRS data, which is incorporated into the Resource Flows database, does not include all forms of assistance (e.g., funding to countries such as Russia and the Baltic States that are no longer included in the CRS database), and may not include certain funding streams provided by donors, such as family planning components of mixed-purpose grants to non-governmental organizations. ↩︎
6. Since 2012, 4 other governments have become DAC Members: The Czech Republic, Iceland, the Slovak Republic, and Poland. ↩︎
7. OECD, The List of CRS Purpose Codes, 2011. ↩︎
8. A disbursement is the actual release of funds to, or the purchase of goods or services for, a recipient. An enactment represents a budgetary decision that funding will be provided, regardless of the time at which an actual outlays, or disbursement, occurs. Therefore, disbursements in any given year may include funds committed (enacted) in prior years and in some cases, not all funds committed (enacted) during a government fiscal year are disbursed in that year. While most donor governments examined disburse enacted amounts within the same year, the U.S. government does not and may disburse enactments over multiple years. For instance, in FY 2012, U.S. bilateral enacted funding for family planning activities totaled $638.5 million, while disbursements totaled $485 million. ↩︎
9. UNFPA’s revenue in 2012 totaled $981.4 million, of which US$437.5 million was provided by donor governments as direct contributions in support of UNFPA’s core activities (core-contributions). An additional US$530.1 million was provided by donors in support of specific activities implemented by UNFPA (where this funding was provided by donor governments to UNFPA in support of specific family planning activities, it was counted as part of that donor government’s bilateral funding amount). ↩︎
10. At the time of publication, while the analytic team was able to identify specific family planning activities within bilateral programming (except as otherwise noted), it was not able to do so for UNFPA’s core annual funding. To date, UNFPA family planning activities have often been reported as part of broader categories, including reproductive health and maternal and child health, as well as part of larger multisectoral efforts, including those in education, human rights, and capacity building.  It is expected that such disaggregation will be available in the future and UNFPA reports that it is currently working to develop such a methodology for doing so. ↩︎
11. UNFPA, World Population Day Marked with Renewed Push to Expand Family Planning Access Around the Globe, July 2012.   ↩︎