news

Date: 19 November 2009

A newly published report, Euromapping 2009,¹ presented in a meeting at the UK Parliament on 5 November 2009, contains good news about stable and increasing levels of official development assistance (ODA) being given by European countries. The annual report on global population assistance for 2007, Financial Resource Flows for Population Activities² allows tracking of funding for population-related activities, which is a sub-set of ODA. However, data are available only up to 2007, which means current spending and trends can only be estimated.

Both reports raise concerns about major reductions in spending earmarked for reproductive health and family planning since 1995, even as assistance for STDs/HIV/AIDS grows. They also expose a lack of more specific information from governments, in any comparable format, as to what the money for population assistance is actually being spent on, thereby preventing effective monitoring and evaluation of outcomes and impact that should influence future policy.

Here is what the reports said:

Official development assistance (ODA)

The good news:

• Europe provided 67% of global Official Development Assistance in 2008.
• Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway, Netherlands and Sweden remain the most committed donors globally, all exceeding the 0.7% UN benchmark.
• Germany, France, UK, Spain, Belgium, Ireland and Portugal have made significant increases in their development budgets.
• Germany has the highest volume of ODA, due to the size of its economy, with the EC, UK and France close behind. The Scandinavian countries, Netherlands and Luxembourg are the most generous in terms of expenditure per capita.

Not such good news:

• European governments continue to distort their aid figures by counting spending on debt relief, educating foreign students and support to refugees in Europe as part of their total ODA, however.

Assistance for health overall

The good news:

• The UK is the greatest spender in terms of health in absolute terms, with increases since 2004 and a more than two-fold increase in the past two years.
• Spain has increased its health spending, and Canada more than doubled its spending on health.

Not such good news:

• Money for health care has been reduced overall because all other donors have either maintained or reduced funding for health; the US also reduced health funding in 2007.
• The report EC Development Assistance to Health Services in sub-Saharan Africa (European Court of Auditors, 2008) criticises the diminishing aid that the European Commission is providing to the health sector in Africa.

Population assistance

The good news:

• In 2006, the European Union was the single biggest donor to population assistance globally. In 2007, the top five donors were the US, UK, Netherlands, Sweden and European Union.
• Japan, Canada and Norway also stood out as major donors.
• In 2006, spending stagnated for the first time because even though the EU15 increased its contribution by almost US$0.5 billion, the US reduced its contribution by a similar amount. However, population assistance increased from $7.4 billion for 2006 to $8.7 billion for 2007.

Not such good news:

• Population assistance from all developed countries represented only 6.9% of official development assistance (ODA) in 2007, up from only 6.1% in 2006.
• In 2009, the UN Commission for Population and Development announced a revised estimate of the costs for financing the ICPD Programme of Action at just under US$70 billion by 2015. For donor countries to meet their one-third share of these costs, population assistance would need to triple over the next nine years.
• Population assistance was divided in 2007 as follows:
  • STDs/HIV/AIDS - 75% (up from 9% in 1995)
  • Basic reproductive health services - 17% (down from 33% in 1996)
  • Family planning - 5% (down from 55% in 1995)
  • Research, data and policy analysis - 3% (down from 18% in 1995)
• Estimates of assistance for 2009 indicate amounts for HIV/AIDS/STDs continuing to increase, while reproductive health services and family planning together are likely to receive only 24% of what they need.
• The only sexual and reproductive health and rights organisations receiving substantial contributions mentioned in Euromapping 2009 are UNFPA and the IPPF. The other four, except for UNIFEM, were primarily for STD/HIV/AIDS work. These were the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, which received double the contributions to all the other organisations together, UNAIDS, and the International Partnership for Microbicides.

Comment

There appear to be no data available on how or how well funding is being spent at national level on sexual and reproductive health and rights, let alone how much is going into e.g. maternity care, reducing maternal deaths, providing safe abortions, addressing sexual violence, prevention and treatment of cervical and other reproductive cancers, or health systems strengthening. The meaning of "basic reproductive health care" itself is unclear, but implies a low level of care. If we want to know why maternal mortality ratios, including from unsafe abortions, are not falling fast enough or at all, the answer is here. What we do know from national studies is that women's health needs are still treated as the lowest of the low. Certainly, there will be no gender equality until serious money starts to be spent on women.

Contact: Marge Berer, Editor, RHM. E-mail: mberer@rhmjournal.org.uk

¹ EuroNGOs, DSW, EPF, 2009.
² UNFPA/Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute, 2009.