Donor Government Funding for Family Planning in 2016
|Appendix 1: London Summit on Family Planning (2012)|
|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 (FP2020) and made commitments aimed at improving access to voluntary family planning services.
London Summit on Family Planning Goals & Outcomes: “By 2020, the goal is to deliver contraceptives, information, and services to a total of 380 million women and girls in developing countries so they can plan their families.”
|Appendix 2: Other Sources of Funding for FP in Low- & Middle-Income Countries|
In addition to donor governments, there are three other major funding sources for family planning assistance: multilateral organizations, the private sector, and domestic resources.
Multilateral Organizations: Multilateral organizations are international organizations made up of member governments (and in some cases private sector and civil society representatives), who provide both core contributions as well as donor-directed funding for specific projects. Core support from donors is pooled by the multilateral organization, which in turn directs its use, such as for family planning. Donor-directed or earmarked funding, even when provided through a multilateral organization, is considered part of a donor’s bilateral assistance.
The primary multilateral organization focused on family planning is the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which estimates that it spent US$319 million (US$76 million from core resources and US$243 million from non-core resources), or 40% of its total resources, on family planning activities in 2016.1 Another important source of multilateral assistance for family planning is the World Bank which provides such funding under broader population and reproductive health activities and hosts the Secretariat for the Global Financing Facility (GFF).
Private Sector: Foundations (charitable and corporate philanthropic organizations), corporations, faith-based organizations, and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) provide support for FP activities in low- and middle-income countries not only in terms of funding, but through in-kind support; commodity donations; and co-investment strategies with government and other sectors. For instance, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has become a major funder of global health efforts, including family planning activities, and is a core partner of FP2020. In 2016, the Gates Foundation provided US$181 million for family planning.2
Domestic Resources: Domestic resources include spending by country governments that also receive international assistance for FP and spending by households/individuals within these countries for FP services. Such resources represent a significant and critical part of the response. Since the London Summit, a total of 41 low- and middle-income countries have made specific commitments to increase their family planning spending.
|Appendix 3: Donor Government Bilateral Disbursements for Family Planning, 2012-2016* (in current US$, millions)|
|Australia||$43.2||$39.5||$26.6||$12.4||$14.9||Australia identified A$18.4 million in bilateral FP funding for the 2016-17 fiscal year using the FP2020-agreed methodology, which includes funding from non-FP-specific activities (e.g. HIV, RH, maternal health and other sectors) and a percentage of the donor’s core contributions to several multilateral organizations (e.g. UNFPA). For this analysis, Australian bilateral FP funding did not include core contributions to multilateral institutions. However, it was not possible to identify and adjust for funding to other non-FP-specific activities in most cases. Data for 2016 are preliminary.|
|Canada||$41.5||$45.6||$48.3||$43.0||$43.8||Bilateral funding is for family planning and reproductive health components of combined projects/activities in FY16-17; family planning-specific activities cannot be further disaggregated. Reproductive health activities without family planning components are not reflected. This is a preliminary estimate.|
|Denmark||$13.0||$20.3||$28.8||$28.1||$30.7||Bilateral funding is for family planning-specific activities in 2016.|
|France||$49.6||$37.2||$69.8||$68.6||$39.9||Bilateral funding is new commitment data for a mix of family planning, reproductive health and maternal & child health activities in 2012-2016; family planning-specific activities cannot be further disaggregated.|
|Germany||$47.6||$38.2||$31.3||$34.0||$37.8||Bilateral funding is for family planning-specific activities.|
|Netherlands||$105.4||$153.7||$163.6||$165.8||$183.1||The Netherlands budget provided a total of US$469.5 million in 2016 for “Sexual and Reproductive Health & Rights, including HIV/AIDS” of which an estimated US$183.1 million was disbursed for family planning and reproductive health activities (not including HIV); family planning-specific activities cannot be further disaggregated.|
|Norway||$3.3||$20.4||$20.8||$8.1||$5.7||Bilateral funding is for family planning-specific activities, narrowly-defined under the corresponding DAC subsector 13030. Overall bilateral and multilateral Norwegian support to Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) including family planning was NOK1.186 billion ($142 million) in 2016.|
|Sweden||$41.2||$50.4||$70.2||$66.0||$92.5||Bilateral funding is for combined family planning and reproductive health activities; family planning-specific activities cannot be further disaggregated. None of Sweden’s top-magnitude health activities appears to reflect an exclusive family-planning-specific subsector focus, indicative of the integration of FP activities into broader health initiatives in ways similar to those employed by some other governments. It thus may not be possible to identify exact amounts of Swedish bilateral or multi-bi FP financing.|
|U.K.||$252.8||$305.2||$327.6||$269.9||$203.4||In the financial year 2016/17, the UK spending on family planning was £171.23 million. This is a provisional estimate, using the FP2020-greed methodology, which includes funding from non-FP-specific activities (e.g., HIV, RH, maternal health and other sectors) and a percentage of the donor’s core contributions to several multilateral organizations. For this analysis, UK bilateral FP funding of £155.4 million was calculated by removing unrestricted core contributions to multilateral organizations. However, it was not possible to identify and adjust for funding for other non-FP-specific activities in most cases. The nominal 2014-16 US$ decrease is significantly exchange-rate-related. Bilateral funding is for combined family planning and reproductive health, consistent with the agreed-on methodology. A final estimate will be available after DFID publishes its annual report for 2016/17 in 2018.|
|U.S.||$485.0||$585.0||$636.6||$638.0||$532.7||Bilateral funding is for combined family planning and reproductive health activities; while USAID estimates that most funding is for family planning-specific activities only, these cannot be further disaggregated.|
|Other DAC Countries**||$11.0||$29.5||$9.0||$10.1||$3.3||Bilateral funding was obtained from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Credit Reporting System (CRS) database and represents funding provided in the prior year (e.g. data presented for 2016 are the 2015 totals, the most recent year available; 2015 presents 2014 totals; etc.).|
|*For purposes of this analysis, family planning bilateral expenditures represent funding specifically designated by donor governments for family planning as defined by the OECD DAC (see methodology), and include: stand-alone family planning projects; family planning-specific contributions to multilateral organizations (e.g. contributions to UNFPA Supplies); and, in some cases, projects that include family planning within broader reproductive health activities. During the FP2020 Summit, donors agreed to a revised Muskoka methodology to determine their FP disbursements totals. This methodology includes some funding designated for other health sectors including, HIV, reproductive health (RH), maternal health, and other areas, as well as a percentage of a donor’s core contributions to several multilateral organizations including UNFPA, the World Bank, WHO, and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Among the donors profiled, Australia and the U.K. reported FP funding using this revised methodology.|
|**Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, European Union, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, and Switzerland.|
|Appendix 4: United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) Mission, Goals, & London Summit on Family Planning Commitment (2012)|
|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.
UNFPA Goal: “The goal of UNFPA is to deliver a world a world where every pregnancy is wanted, every childbirth is safe and every young person’s potential is fulfilled. To accomplish this, UNFPA works to ensure that all people, especially women and young people, are able to access high quality sexual and reproductive health services, including family planning, so that they can make informed and voluntary choices about their sexual and reproductive lives.”3
UNFPA London Summit on Family Planning Commitment (2012): “UNFPA will double the proportion of its resources focused on family planning from 25% to 40 % based on current funding levels, bringing new funding of at least US$174 million per year from core and noncore funds. This will include a minimum of US $54 million per year, from 2013-2019, in increased funding for family planning from UNFPA’s core resources.”