Donor Government Funding for Family Planning in 2017
| Appendix 1: 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$303 million (US$120 million from core resources and US$183 million from non-core resources), or 40% of its total resources, on family planning activities in 2017.1 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$181 million for family planning.2 Domestic Resources: Domestic resources include spending by country governments that also receive international assistance for FP and spending by households/individuals within these countries for FP services. Such resources represent a significant and critical part of the response. Since the London Summit, a total of 44 low- and middle-income countries have made specific commitments to increase their family planning spending. |
| Appendix 2: Donor Government Bilateral Disbursements for Family Planning, 2012-2017* (in current US$, millions) | |||||||
| Country | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | Notes |
| Australia | $43.2 | $39.5 | $26.6 | $12.4 | $24.9 | $25.6 | Australia has now identified A$33 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 contributions to multilateral institutions. However, it was not possible to identify and adjust for funding to other non-FP-specific activities in most cases. |
| Canada | $41.5 | $45.6 | $48.3 | $43.0 | $43.8 | $69.0 | Bilateral funding is for family planning and reproductive health components of combined projects/activities in FY17-18. Reproductive health activities without family planning components are not reflected. This is a preliminary estimate. In support of its feminist international agenda, Canada committed to double its funding to sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) from 2017-2020 with an additional CAD 650 million. This amount includes the CAD 241.5 million that Canada announced at the London FP2020 Summit. Canada is taking a comprehensive approach to SRHR. Efforts focus on providing comprehensive sexuality education, strengthening reproductive health services, and investing in family planning and contraceptives. Programs will also help prevent and respond to sexual and gender-based violence, including child early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation and cutting, and support the right to choose safe and legal abortion, as well as access to post-abortion care. The rise in Canada’s funding for family planning in this year’s report reflects the roll-out of this broader commitment to SRHR. |
| Denmark | $13.0 | $20.3 | $28.8 | $28.1 | $30.7 | $33.1 | Bilateral funding is for family planning-specific activities. |
| France | $49.6 | $37.2 | $69.8 | $68.6 | $39.9 | $19.2 | Bilateral funding is new commitment data for a mix of family planning, reproductive health and maternal & child health activities in 2012-2017; family planning-specific activities cannot be further disaggregated. 2017 data is preliminary. |
| Germany | $47.6 | $38.2 | $31.3 | $34.0 | $37.8 | $36.8 | Bilateral funding is for family planning-specific activities. |
| Netherlands | $105.4 | $153.7 | $163.6 | $165.8 | $183.1 | $197.0 | The Netherlands budget provided a total of US$471 million in 2017 for “Sexual and Reproductive Health & Rights, including HIV/AIDS” of which an estimated US$197 million was disbursed for bilateral family planning and reproductive health activities (not including HIV). |
| Norway | $3.3 | $20.4 | $20.8 | $8.1 | $5.7 | $2.2 | Bilateral funding is for family planning-specific activities, narrowly-defined under the corresponding DAC subsector 13030. Overall bilateral Norwegian support to Population and Reproductive Health activities including family planning was NOK312.5 million ($37.8 million) in 2017, an increase of NOK135.1 million over 2016 levels. |
| Sweden | $41.2 | $50.4 | $70.2 | $66.0 | $92.5 | $109.2 | 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. |
| United Kingdom | $252.8 | $305.2 | $327.6 | $269.9 | $204.8 | $282.4 | In the financial year 2017/18, total UK spending on family planning was £243.3 million. This is a provisional estimate, based upon the revised Muskoka Methodology*, which includes funding from non-FP-specific activities (e.g., HIV, RH, maternal health and other sectors) and a percentage of the donor’s core contributions to several multilateral organizations. For this analysis, UK bilateral FP funding of £212.9 million was calculated by removing unrestricted core contributions to multilateral organizations. However, it was not possible to identify and adjust for funding for other non-FP-specific activities in most cases. The 2014-16 US$ decrease is significantly exchange-rate-related. Bilateral funding is for combined family planning and reproductive health, consistent with the methodology. A final estimate will be available after DFID publishes its annual report for 2017/18 in 2019. |
| United States | $485.0 | $585.0 | $636.6 | $638.0 | $532.7 | $488.7 | 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 | $9.6 | 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 2017 are the 2016 totals, the most recent year available; 2016 presents 2015 totals; etc.). |
| TOTAL | $1,093.6 | $1,325.0 | $1,432.7 | $1,344.0 | $1,199.2 | $1,272.7 | |
| *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. |
|||||||