Euromapping 2012 by European Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development

Acknowledgements DSW and EPF would like to thank UNFPA for making this publication possible, and Erik Beekink and Paulien Hagedoorn for the data and the generous assistance provided by the UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project. We would also like to thank the following researchers, writers and editors for their substantial contributions: Anna Dahlman, Miguel Ongil, Dominika Jajkowicz and Eddie Wright. Special thanks are also due to Karen Hoehn and Neil Datta for overseeing the project and to Andrew Pavao and Cecile Vernant for their feedback on the first draft of Euromapping 2012.

Layout and Design: hans.robberechts@telenet.be Printing: Drukkerij A. Beullens Printed in November 2012 ÂŠ 2012 DSW and EPF

European Parliamentary Forum DSW (Deutsche Stiftung on Population and Development (EPF) Weltbevolkerung) Rue Montoyer 23 Place du Luxembourg 2/3 1000 Brussels 1050 Brussels Belgium Belgium secretariat@epfweb.org info-eu@dsw-brussels.org www.epfweb.org www.dsw-online.org

Abbreviations ACP APHRC BMGF BMZ CRS CSO DAC DCI DFID DSW EC EDF EU EU MS EU-12 EU-15 EU 27 EPF FP ICPD ICPD PoA IPCI GFATM GIZ GNI HIV/AIDS IIHMRH MFF MDGs MNCH NIDI NGO ODA OECD PEPFAR RF RH RMNCH SRH SRHR SSC STD UK UNAIDS UNCPD UNFPA US USD

African, Caribbean, Pacific Countries African Population and Health Research Center Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development Creditor Reporting System (of the OECD/DAC) Civil Society Organisation Development Assistance Committee Development Cooperation Instrument Department for International Development Deutsche Stiftung Weltbevoelkerung European Commission European Development Fund European Union Institutions and Member States of the European Union European Union Member States New Member States of the European Union since 2004 Member States of the European Union prior to 2004 All 27 European Union Member States European Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development Family Planning International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action of ICPD International Parliamentarian Conference on the Implementation of ICPD The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria German Agency for International Cooperation Gross National Income Human immunodeficiency virus/Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome Indian Institute of Health Management Research Multi-annual Financial Framework Millennium Development Goals Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute Non-governmental Organisation Official Development Assistance Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Presidentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief Resource Flows Project (UNFPA/NIDI) Reproductive Health Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Sexual and Reproductive Health Sexual And Reproductive Health and Rights South-South Cooperation Sexually Transmitted Disease United Kingdom United Nations Joint Programme on HIV/AIDS UN Commission for Population and Development United Nations Population Fund United States United States Dollars

Table of Contents Acknowledgements

Abbreviations

Table of Contents

Preface

Introduction

Executive Summary

Findings and Recommendations

Spotlights

I: London Family Planning Summit

II: The Added Value of EU Population Assistance

III: Donors Agree on New Tracking of RMNCH

Official Development Assistance in 2011

Population Assistance in 2010

Donor Profiles

Annex 1: Footnotes on Donor Reporting

Annex 2: Methodology

Annex 3: Definitions

Annex 4: Donor Data Overview

Annex 5: Bibliography

Preface Since 1997 the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and the Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute (NIDI) have been cooperating in the monitoring of global financial flows for population activities. In 2005 the Indian Institute of Health Management Research (IIHMR) and in 2011 the African Population and Health Research Center (APHRC) joined the project, which is generally known as the Resource Flows (RF) Project. The aim of the RF project is to monitor the implementation of the Programme of Action agreed upon at the International Conference on Population and Development, held in Cairo in 1994, and reinforced by the Declaration of Commitment developed at the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on HIV/AIDS in 2001. Each year, the RF team collects primary data from public and private sources in donor countries, developing countries and countries in transition in order to document the global financial flows for population activities. The Secretary-General of the United Nations reports the findings to the Commission on Population and Development. The Report of the Secretary General and UNFPAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Financial Resource Flows for Population Activities Report represent the core output of the RF project. Over the years the RF team developed an impressive database. A number of organisations have used the data for advocacy, policy-making and scholarly research. The RF database was the main source to document the shift towards AIDS prevention and treatment relative to other population programmes including family planning, and to determine who carries the burden of sexual and reproductive health programmes in developing countries and countries in transition. Since January 2012 a user friendly database, which contains the most important indicators of the RF project, has been available on the internet (http://resourceflowsdata.org/). The Euromapping publication documents how European countries are living up to their international funding commitments to support developing countriesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; population efforts. It combines data from two sources: the OECD/DAC Creditor Reporting System (CRS) and the RF project. The donor survey that is carried out by the RF project supplements the data in the CRS database with data from carefully

Preface selected foundations, UN agencies, international NGOs and development banks and with data on population activities in a much greater detail than is feasible in the CRS database. This approach, in which the RF team coordinates its data collection activities with other major actors, has proven to be successful and has been welcomed by providers and users of data. Like previous reports, Euromapping 2012 again is a rich source of information on financial resource flows originating in Europe. The publication is uniquely informative because of its coverage and depth. This publication deserves to be well received and should stimulate debate on how well countries in Europe â&#x20AC;&#x201C; both individually and together â&#x20AC;&#x201C; are carrying a fair burden of global development and universal access to basic services, including services that improve sexual and reproductive health, especially in this period of economic austerity. When financial resources are limited, donors are increasingly concerned about getting value for money. Interest is shifting from levels of spending and spending commitments to outcome. To link spending to outcome, adequate resource tracking is essential. Tracking and monitoring of resource flows and the dissemination of that information also contribute to transparency and accountability. Euromapping is a great initiative and NIDI gladly assisted DSW (Deutsche Stiftung Weltbevoelkerung) and the European Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development in the preparation of Euromapping 2012.

Prof. dr. Leo van Wissen Director Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute (NIDI)

Introduction Brussels, November 2012 The 2012 edition of Euromapping comes at an exciting time for the population and development community. If rapid population growth were being fuelled by the conscious choices of women to have large families then human rights’ activists would have little reason to worry. But the simple fact remains that the world’s population is rocketing because more than 200 million women cannot access the modern forms of family planning that they desire, and therefore cannot control when they have children or how many they have. A lack of funding, political will, supplies and services, and misogynistic forces at work within society are denying women in the developing world the right to be able to control when they have children and how many they have: an ability that is a central factor in any country’s route to economic development. On the back of the monumental landmark of the world’s 7 billionth inhabitant being born in 2011, the international community at last woke up to the urgent nature of the issue and the simple neglect of women’s rights at its root. On World Population Day (7th July) the UK Government with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the United Nations Population Fund brought together the international community and pledged their commitment to enabling 120 million women to gain access to family planning by 2020. The funds raised by those present surpassed the expectations set by the Family Planning Summit’s Organisers, as 4.6 billion USD of new funds were raised. A great deal of the gap in funding for family planning remains to be filled. This is coupled with growing opposition to SRHR at the EU level. Despite strong EU commitment to SRHR and the Cairo Agenda, population assistance from the EU institutions is falling.

A growing number of ‘anti’ SRHR advocates are trying even harder than ever to deny women the ability to control their fertility, and the global network is growing – across Europe and the Atlantic, and around the world. But let us remember that data from the 2012 Eurobarometer shows that 85% of EU citizens support continued European ODA and health ODA despite the financial crisis, with a majority in favour also of increasing assistance. The message of this year’s Euromapping is therefore one of hope for the future of women, humankind and the planet. But it is also one of warning, for we cannot and must not stand idly by and watch as the personal convictions of a small number of people are used to roll back the tremendous progress achieved for the sexual and reproductive health and rights of the world’s most vulnerable people so far. This edition of Euromapping features the most recent data on general ODA for 2011 based on OECD/DAC data, and more detailed statistics on population assistance for 2010 based on the UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows research. And as ever, we hope that it can serve as a useful resource for the population and development community in advocating for our leaders to make population assistance a development priority.

Karen Hoehn Vice Executive Director, Director of International Affairs DSW (Deutsche Stiftung Weltbevoelkerung)

Neil Datta Secretary European Parliamentary Forum on Population and Development (EPF)

Executive Summary Findings and Recommendations

Executive Summary Main Findings on General ODA in 2011 Total ODA in absolute terms increased slightly in 2011 while ODA as % of GNI decreased to 0.45% across all donors - 0.42% for EU Member States. This is far from the 0.7% commitment. The US remains the biggest donor, while the EU together with other European donors constitute the largest bloc of donors, accounting for 64% of total ODA. The UK is on schedule to achieving the 0.7% of GNI to ODA commitment, being the third largest donor in absolute terms after Germany. Impressive increases in total ODA volumes are reported in Australia (+25%), Switzerland (+34%) and Sweden (+24%). The European countries hit hard by financial crisis, including Spain, Greece and Portugal, all saw large cuts in total ODA.

Main Findings on Population Assistance in 2010 Between 2009 and 2010, population assistance increased across all sectors to 11.7 billion USD. The US is by far the largest donor to population assistance in absolute terms and also in terms of share of total US ODA: 18% of total US ODA is directed towards population assistance â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the majority towards HIV/AIDS. This means the US contributes to 47% of global population assistance. Of total ODA from the EU institutions, population assistance accounts for less than 2% - meaning 1.7% of global population assistance. Apart from the US, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and the UK, few of the donors are within reach of the IPCI commitment to spend 10% of total ODA on population assistance. Several donors, including Ireland, Sweden, Norway and the EU institutions show a negative trend in population assistance as % of total ODA between 2008 and 2010. This seems to imply that population assistance is losing priority compared with other sectors among these donors.

Executive Summary

Swedish population assistance also decreased in absolute terms – from 326 million USD in 2008 to 263 million USD in 2010. In the same time period, Norwegian population assistance decreased from 270 million USD to 257 million USD - with a dip in 2009 down to 250 million USD. Spain also accounts for large decreases, mostly in funds towards HIV/AIDS and general contributions. The UK is the largest European donor in absolute terms, followed by the Netherlands, Germany and France. General contributions constitute a large share of most countries’ population assistance. HIV/AIDS and STD projects account for 66% of all population assistance, while funding for RH increased and now accounts for 24% of population assistance.

Recommendations Donors and partner governments should ensure that commitments made at the London Family Planning Summit are additional to previous commitments, and that they are channelled and implemented in a transparent and efficient way. Donors must enable better tracking of Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (RMNCH) funds, for example by using the new policy marker.(1) The EU should honour previous commitments to population assistance and – based on strong political commitments to the sector, as well as its wide outreach – match political commitments with aid disbursements. All donors must ensure progress towards commitments to quantity and quality of aid and, in line with pursuing the MDGs on RMNCH, increase funding before the expiration of the MDGs in 2015.

(1)

See Spotlight III.

Spotlights

I: London Family Planning Summit II: The Added Value of EU Population Assistance III: Donors Agree on New Tracking of RMNCH

Spotlight I London Summit Brings Renewed Attention to Family Planning In 2012, the EU Development Commissioner Andris Piebalgs stated that “helping to provide family planning services is one of the best investments that a country can make into its future” and announced that the EU committed to provide 23 million EUR to family planning services. While family planning was not included in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the Family Planning Summit - co-hosted by DFID and BMGF in July 2012 - offered a renewed focus on the sector, also resulting in commitments from partner countries. Malawi stated for example that the country would raise the minimum age for marriage to 18 years by 2014 to ensure that there is no ‘parenthood before adulthood’. Malawi will also create a budget line for contraceptives to enable better monitoring of funds. Uganda, Zambia and Pakistan all announced increased budgets for family planning supplies.(2) While partner governments have a responsibility to realise their commitments and increase health budgets to the extent they can, donors cannot leave the sector to partner governments alone. Yet total donor support to family planning in 2010 was at more or less the same level as in 1999 while total population assistance had increased. In 1999, family planning accounted for around 30% of total population assistance, while the share in 2010 was down to 7%. One reason for this is that investments in family planning have not increased to the same extent as investments in HIV/AIDS – in fact aid to family planning more or less stagnated in the last decade. Renewed focus on this sector is direly needed, and may help push total population assistance in the right direction. The summit aimed at raising commitments from global leaders “to support the rights of an additional 120 million women and girls in the world’s poorest countries to use contraceptive information, services and supplies, without coercion or discrimination, by 2020.”(3) In addition to this, partner governments committed to continue supporting the rights of the around 260 million women who currently have access to modern contraceptives in their countries. This would reduce maternal and new-born child mortality, unintended pregnancies and also reduce the number of abortions. (2) The London Family Planning Summit (2012). Available: http://www.londonfamilyplanningsummit.co.uk/COMMITMENTS_090712.pdf (3) Ibid

Spotlight I While the Family Planning Summit brought attention and commitments from donors, country governments and civil society,(4) some of these may simply restate previous commitments such as the 2010 Muskoka initiative, the EU 1 billion EUR Millennium Development Goals Initiative, the Every Woman Every Child campaign, and commitments already made in long-term budgets. The European Commission (EC) pledge of 28.3 million USD or 23 million EUR included 15 million EUR for CSOs – something that was already foreseen under the DCI “Investing in People” budget line for 2013. In total, donors pledged an additional 2.6 billion USD by 2020. This would mean raising annual average disbursements by 328.2 million USD until 2020, an increase of 39% when compared with 2010, when the total donor support to family planning was 838.1 million USD. It is still not clear how these additional funds will be channelled, and monitoring will be crucial. As data on population assistance at this moment is only available up until 2010, it remains to be seen whether political commitments made at the Summit will indeed help close the unmet need for family planning services before 2020, or whether they will remain empty promises.

Commitments made by donors (5) Commitments (USD millions)

Increased contribution to reach 120 million more women by 2020 Australia 59.5 Denmark 13 European Commission 28.3 France 125 Germany 122.3 Netherlands 160 Norway 200 Sweden 32 United Kingdom 800 TOTAL 1,540.1

(4)

Increase in annual contribution by 2015 26.6 1.6 n/a 25 30.6 55 25 8 100 271.8

Ibid The donors included in this table are the donors whose contributions to population assistance are reported on by Euromapping 2012. For a full list of commitments and narratives from all donors and organisations, please see (ibid). (5)

Spotlight II The Added Value of Increased EU Population Assistance As stated in the European Consensus on Development, the EU “supports the full implementation of strategies to promote sexual and reproductive health and rights”, but this is only one of several political commitments from the EU to population assistance, reproductive health and family planning.(6) The EU has always been supportive of SRHR at the international level, notably at moments when other actors have withdrawn. SRHR, family planning, the HIV/AIDS response and research and development for new treatments as means to achieve the health-related MDGs, are all stated priorities for the EU development policy. Not only are they stated priorities but they also underpin fulfilment of the right to health and gender equality which are among the core values of the union. The EU has also made substantial funding commitments notably in favour of education and health, which include population assistance. For the current DCI the EC has confirmed a 20% EU ODA benchmark to health and education. Indeed there is an added value of having the EU present in the health and population sector. With its 140 delegations worldwide, representing 27 Member States and with the EC managing one of the world’s biggest development budgets, the EU can support larger projects and in countries where many other donors are not present. According to the Thematic Evaluation of the European Commission support to the Health sector,(7) the EU is best placed to support activities to the underserved and underprivileged populations, especially in remote areas. Given its history, the diversity of health systems in Europe and its regional nature, the EU could also share best practices. It could take the lead in global health debates on issues such as health systems strengthening and social protection systems, and it could do so both at the international level and in political dialogue with partner countries. Finally with its seven-year budget, the EU offers a higher degree of predictability than most other donors.

(6) See e.g. the European Consensus on Development (2005); the EC MDG Initiative for progress on the most off-track MDGs (2010); the EC Communication and Council conclusions on the EU role in global health (2010); the Council Conclusions on the Millennium Development Goals (2010) (7) Thematic Evaluation of the European Commission support to the health sector (2012) Available: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/evaluation_reports/2012/1308_docs_en.htm

Spotlight II Despite this, EU aid to health and population has decreased in the last few years. Total EU institution funding for population assistance in 2010 was the lowest in absolute terms since 2003 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a decrease from 3.2% of total ODA in 2003 to 1.6% in 2010. Globally, the EU institution share of global population assistance went down from 5.9% in 2003 to 1.7% in 2010 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; about the same level as in year 2000 when the MDGs were launched. There are, however, other players which have increased their spending and commitment to population policies. Among the bigger donors, the UK directed 7.7% of total ODA to population assistance in 2010. Others are stepping up their support to the issue. French population assistance as share of total ODA increased from 0.8% in 2003 to 3.1% in 2010. At the European Development Days in Brussels in October 2012, French government officials repeatedly called for an increased focus on SRHR and gender equality as cross-cutting issues in the new development frameworks. In the same time period, 2003-2010, German population assistance as a share of total ODA increased from 1.9% to 2.8%. Some of the smaller EU Member States have higher shares of total ODA devoted to population assistance, but given that their total ODA is smaller than donors such as France, Germany or the EU institutions, this bigger share does not translate into bigger absolute spending on population assistance. Some examples are Sweden, the Netherlands and Ireland, all countries contributing between 6-10% of total ODA to population assistance in 2003-2010. However, these figures become dwarfed compared with US funding for population â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 18% of total US ODA was directed to population assistance in 2010, the major part going towards HIV/AIDS and STD projects. Harmonisation and concentration of donor efforts reflect the aid and development effectiveness principles and are to be commended as long as the following necessary conditions are fulfilled. Firstly, the total funding commitments need to be achieved to ensure predictability but above all, outcomes for the poor. If one of the bigger donors changed policy direction and withdrew from population assistance, it would have a huge impact on total aid in the sector which already sees mixed progress on MDG5 and SRHR indicators.

Spotlight II Secondly, expertise must be retained. As pointed out by the external evaluation of the EC support to the health sector, lack of health expertise in the EU delegations limits the EU’s ability to have a leading role in support for health sector in some countries. Thirdly, the donor coordination should be done at country’s level based on the country needs and not in political headquarters of EU donors, to avoid the risk of creating a donor-driven development and aid agenda. The level of EU funding through the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2014-2020 and its associated external instruments are currently being negotiated and the programming of these instruments has started. The Global Public Goods and Challenges and the intra ACP funds – the thematic programmes of the DCI and the European Development Fund (EDF) – are among these new instruments. This process of negotiation and programming is a good opportunity for the EU to fulfil its commitment to SRHR and to reinforce the role of SRHR as a key sector of sustainable development.

Spotlight III Donors Agree on New Way of Tracking of Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn and Child Health The 2011 Euromapping report focused on the need to improve transparency of reporting population assistance to the OECD-DAC CRS database to enable better monitoring and stronger accountability in this sector. The reason that this publication uses – and greatly values – data from NIDI is that there is currently no way of obtaining data from the OECD for aid flows going towards the different ICPD categories. In 2011 the OECD Working Party on Statistics (OECD-STAT) invited donors and other stakeholders, including Euromapping partners Countdown 2015 Europe, DSW, EPF and NIDI, to give their view on how to improve reporting on population assistance. After consultations between OECD members, the OECD-STAT made progress on introducing a new policy marker to track spending on maternal, newborn and child health in June 2012.(8) The adoption of a new way of reporting RMNCH to the OECD-DAC CRS database is based on Recommendation 9 from the Commission on Information and Accountability for Women’s and Children’s Health, which asks for a way of capture all aid flows directed to RMNCH. The recommendation further says that while a comprehensive way of doing this may not be feasible to develop in the short run, a simple method should be implemented as a midterm solution. Introducing policy markers is only an interim solution, the idea being to – in addition to the project description and purpose code of each entry in the CRS database – include an RMNCH policy marker to indicate whether a project includes funds directed towards these sectors. The RMNCH share of a project can be determined in different ways; the OECD-STAT opted for adopting a policy marker with “quartile markers” for implementation in 2013. Quartile markers can quantify resource flows on a 0-4 scale, something that a 0-1 marker with a simple yes/no option had not been able to do to the same extent. While the introduction of a policy marker is a step forwards for transparency of RMNCH funding, and it might be useful for qualitative analysis, it will still not be possible to estimate the precise amounts directed to different sectors of population assistance. This is because even the quartile markers will not be broken down by ICPD category, and the quartile markers will not reveal the exact amounts of funds directed to RMNCH. Furthermore, much will depend on to what extent donors will have the capacity and understanding to use the marker to show which projects include funds going to RMNCH .

(8) OECD-DAC Report of Recent Meetings (2012) Available: http://search.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DCD/DAC/RD(2012)9/RD1&docLanguage=En

Official Development Assistance in 2011 Global and Historical Disbursements

Official Development Assistance in 2011

(net disbursements in billion USD)

ODA Volume from 2000 to 2011 Financial Crisis

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

148.68

All Donors, Total DAC Countries, Total DAC EU Countries

133.53 72.32

‘00

‘01

‘02

‘03

‘04

‘05

‘06

‘07

‘08

‘09

‘10

‘11

Source: OECD/DAC CRS Database

In 2011 total aid volumes from all donors increased to 148.68 billion USD, which represents a small increase in absolute terms compared to 2010. DAC EU members contributed 72.3 billion USD in 2011, increasing their contributions by 2 billion USD over the last year. Similarly, the major economies of the G7 raised their contributions from 88.5 billion USD to 92.1 billion USD in 2011 when compared to 2010. However, total ODA efforts represented as a percentage of GNI dropped for the first time since 2009, breaking a persistent trend of annual increases. This decrease reflects fiscal and budgetary constraints in several donor countries, which presumably affected their ODA budgets. Traditionally, the DAC EU countries emerge as the most generous donors (in terms of ODA/GNI ratio) ahead of non-EU DAC members such as the US and Japan, and this is also the case in 2011.

(% of GNI)

ODA Efforts from 1994 to 2011 as % of GNI Financial Crisis

0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0

0.45 0.42 0.31

DAC Members EU Member States EU 15 ‘95

‘97

‘99

‘01

‘03

‘05

‘07

‘09

‘11

Source: OECD DAC EC Communication: “Financing for Development Graphics”, April 2010

Official Development Assistance in 2011 Reaching an ODA level of 0.7% of GNI is not a new target but was agreed on already in the 1970s. In the 2002 Monterrey Consensus on Financing for Development, it was again endorsed by global leaders and development agencies as a way of increasing funds for development. Since 2002 donors have increased their ODA, but due to the large cuts they had seen in previous years they have only just managed to surpass the overall levels that the development sector saw in the mid-1990s. EU leaders once again recommitted to the 0.7% in the May 2012 Council Conclusions,(9) but the European Commission has admitted that it seems unlikely that the collective targets will be met by 2015.(10) This year total aid flows from the EU Member States represents 0.42% of their GNI. In 2010 a majority of the EU Member States failed to meet their interim targets (0.51% ODA/GNI for the EU15 and 0.17% ODA/GNI for the EU12). Moreover, in 2011 ODA from the EU Member States dropped from 0.44% of GNI to 0.42 % compared to 2010, making it evident that the EU as a total is not progressing towards its commitment to provide 0.7% of its GNI by 2015 – or to the Monterrey consensus. It is worth noting that ODA as % of GNI continued to rise during the two first year of financial crisis – this can most likely be explained by GNI dropping in these years, which made ODA account for a larger share of GNI although ODA levels themselves did not necessarily increase. The lack of progress in achieving the collective targets set for the EU 27 is the result of mixed performances by its Member States. Whilst some Member States are close to reaching their targets others are far away, and some of the EU’s biggest economies are the most off-course. Low or negative economic growth in the EU due to the financial crisis, combined with austerity measures introduced by the Member States, led to restrictions on their development assistance spending. Furthermore, although some of the smaller economies perform well in terms of ODA/GNI, their GNI is simply not big enough to compare with the ODA volumes contributed by the bigger economies. In other words, the biggest economies are responsible for a large share of the global ODA funding gap.

(9) Council Conclusions: ‘Increasing the Impact of EU Development Policy: an Agenda for Change’(2012) Available: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/130243.pdf (10) EU Accountability Report on Financing for Development (2012) Available: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-policies/financing_for_development/documents/swp-199-main-report.pdf

Official Development Assistance in 2011 Among the non-EU DAC members, Australia shows an impressive 25% increase in its ODA flows, while Korea increased ODA by 12.6%. Looking at European countries, Switzerland increased ODA flows by 34.2% and Sweden, with a 23.7% increase in absolute terms, strengthened its position as one of the most generous donors in terms of share of ODA/GNI. Greece sharply reduced ODA by 35%, and in light of the financial crisis this is unlikely to be reversed in the next year. Likewise, Spanish ODA fell by 28.3% and is likely to receive further massive cuts both in 2012 and in 2013. Among the smaller donors, we see some mixed results; while Cypriot ODA fell by 31.5%, Lithuania and Romania saw increases of around 30%.

73.5

2009

2010

2011

4.9

5.3

10.6

ay rw No

a ad

n Ca

Ins

A US

r EUmbe s te Me Sta

12.6

30.7

2008

pa Ja

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

n EU utio tit

(net disbursements in billion USD)

Top Global ODA Donors

Source: OECD DAC EC Communication: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Financing for Development Graphicsâ&#x20AC;?, April 2010

Top Global Donors

Official Development Assistance in 2011 National ODA as % of GNI (2011)

ODA/GNI > 0.70% ODA/GNI 0.69% - 0.42% ODA/GNI 0.41% - 0.17% ODA/GNI < 0.17% No data available Positive change No change Negative change

Percentages of ODA/GNI correspond to international commitments. 0.7% is the 2015 goal of ODA/GNI established by the Monterrey consensus (2001), 0.42% is the EU average in 2011, and 0.17% refers to the EU intermediate 2010 target for EU-12. Source: OECD DAC EC Communication: “Financing for Development Graphics”, April 2010

The EU-15 contributes the major share of total EU ODA. In 2011 the ODA/GNI share amounted to 0.45%, a decrease by 0.01% over the year before. The 12 new EU Member States, which joined the union between 2004 and 2007, contributed collectively 0.1% of their GNI, thereby increasing their contributions by 0.01%. All EU-12 Members States have either increased or maintained their level of ODA volumes with the sole exception of Cyprus.

Official Development Assistance in 2011 These increases can be largely attributed to the fact that several states made their first contribution to the 10th EDF.(11) In the light of the on-going negotiations on the budget for the 11th EDF, this can serve as a reminder that increased budget for this development instrument can help EU Member States make progress towards their ODA commitments. Â In 2011 Denmark, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden again topped the list of the most generous donors in the world, measured as percentage of GNI, contributing more than 0.7% of their GNI to ODA, and thereby reaching the 2015 target. Sweden is the most generous donor in terms of ODA as share of GNI and together with Norway is the only country that contributed over 1% of its GNI to ODA in 2011. Sweden is also constantly committed to improving aid transparency. In 2011 the country launched its Open Aid data, an online toolkit to provide information on Swedish development assistance. Norway lowered its contributions by 0.1 % when compared to 2010. However, the country remains one of few OECD members which has been continuously raising its ODA contributions. Although the volume of Dutch aid remained stable, the share of GNI decreased from 0.81% to 0.75%. Given that this share has been at least 0.8% since 2008, the 2011 figure represents a worrying trend, reflecting the new government decision of reducing the 2011 ODA budget to 0.75% of GNI. Â It is also worth noting Italy, whose ODA commitments increased significantly in 2011 to 0.19% of its GNI. Until 2010 Italy remained the only EU-15 country spending less than 0.15% of its GNI on ODA. This increase, however, is largely due to significant debt relief operations. This is one of the ways of channeling aid, which has been criticised for inflating aid volumes by incorporating transfers that are not necessarily pro-poor. One positive sign is that the country appointed its first ever Development Minister, following the recommendations from OECD DAC peer reviews. Despite these new developments, Italy will need to significantly scale up its external assistance in order to be on track to reach its 2015 targets.

(11)

EU Accountability Report on Financing for Development (2012) Available: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-policies/financing_for_development/documents/swp-199-main-report.pdf

Official Development Assistance in 2011 Europeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Share of Global ODA Canada 5,291

4% Japan 10,604 (+1.57%)

Australia 4,799

(0%)

(+15.44%)

Net disbursements in billion USD (2011)

European Union Institutions denotes funds and instruments administered by the European Commission.

Other Donors* 1,750

(-3.78%) USA 30,745

*Other Donors does not include data for Chinese Taipei, Thailand or Israel in 2011 **Other Europeans includes Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and Iceland. Source: OECD DAC and Ministries of Foreign Affairs.

21%

(+1.29%)

EU Instit. & Member States 86,160

58%

Other Europeans** 9,367

(+18.95%)

(2.20%) EU-Member States 73,533

EU Institutions 12,627

49%

(+4.04%)

COUNTRY AMOUNT SHARE OF TOTAL

VARIANCE IN ABSOLUTE DISBURSEMENTS OVER PREVIOUS YEAR

(-0.41%)

As in previous years, over 50% of global ODA comes from the EU Member States and the EU institutions. When other European donors are added to this, Europe provides 64% of all ODA. Europe as a whole thus remains the largest bloc of donors, and the EU institutions one of the overall biggest donors. EU Member States contribute to ODA channeled through the EU institutions in two ways: through the EU budget and its external relations instruments (most notably the DCI) and through the EDF, which is agreed on by Member States and ACP countries on a voluntarily basis. With the EU budget and the EDF being agreed on for 7 years at the time, these negotiations affect Member State ODA in the coming years and contribute to more long-term and predictable aid flows from the EU Member States and institutions.

Official Development Assistance in 2011 European and Global ODA Disbursements The US continues to top the list of the world’s largest donors in absolute terms. This is followed by Germany, which after a 12% increase of its ODA volumes (from 13 billion USD in 2010 to 14.6 billion USD in 2011, representing 0.4% of their GNI) became Europe’s largest donor in absolute terms, pushing the UK down into second position. In addition to better ODA performance, 2011 was also the year of significant changes in German development assistance, marking the establishment of the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ), operating on behalf of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), and merging three different development cooperation agencies.

0.42 (+10.3%)

0.43 (+25.4%)

0.67 (+3.1%)

0.90 (+1.0%)

0.06 (+6.8%)

0.41 (+2.7%)

0.04 (+29.4%)

0.33 (-34.9%)

0.03 (+7.7%)

0.26 (+12.3%)

0.03 (-10.3%)

0.14 (+22.8%)

0.03 (-31.5%)

0.12 (+30.8%)

0.02 (+22.6%)

0.09 (+17.6%)

0.01 (+11.3%)

Irela

tuga

Por l

land

our

Zea

New

an Pol

emb

Lux

e Gre

ep. ch R

Cze

Donor Tracker (2012) Available: http://www.donortracker.org/donor-profiles/uk

y gar

Hun

Rep

(12)

ania

Rom

vak

ve Slo

nia

Lith

Slo

Bul

uan

Icel

gar

Cyp

and

onia Est

rus

Latv ia

Mal ta

0.01 (+33.5%)

The UK, the world’s third largest donor, remains politically committed to meeting the 0.7% goal and met its 2010 mid-term target, but recently announcements have been made to cut its development budget by 1.86 billion USD for 2012-2015.(12) In 2011 the EU institutions were the fifth largest donor in the world in absolute terms, stepping down from its third position in 2010. The development co-operation budget managed by the EC amounted to 12.63 billion USD, which includes aid coming from both the European Union budget and from the EDF.

30.74 (+1.3%)

Official Development Assistance in 2011

2009

2010

2011

10.60 (-3.8%)

9 donors decreased their ODA volumes Total volume of decreases: 2.7 billion USD

14.53 (+11.9%)

13.74 (+5.3%)

12.63 (-0.4%)

Summary: Total ODA in 2011 29 donors increased their ODA volumes Total volume of increases: 8.3 billion USD

12.99 (+0.6%)

6.32 (-0.5%)

5.61 (+23.7%)

5.29 (+1.6%)

4.94 (+7.8%)

4.80 (+25.4%)

4.26 (-28.3%) 4.24 (+41.5%)

3.09 (+34.2%)

2.98 (+3.8%)

2.80 (-6.8%)

1.41 (+5.7%)

1.32 (+12.6%)

1.32 (+36.5%)

1.11 (-8.4%)

0 US

nce

i Inst

land

man Ger

Fra

her

Jap

Net

d Swe

a Can

w Nor

erla

trali

Aus

Spa

Italy

k mar

tz Swi

Den

and

gium

Bel

Finl

Kor

tria

key

Tur

Aus

Countries indicated in grey represent non-EU donors - Source: OECD DAC EC Communication: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Financing for Development Graphicsâ&#x20AC;?, April 2010

(percentage and disbursements in billion USD)

Official Development Assistance

Population Assistance in 2010

Population Assistance in 2010 Methodology Global level resource tracking of ODA relies to a large extent on the OECD/DAC’s Creditor Reporting System (CRS). However, the accounting methods of the CRS make it difficult to discern funding for particular health concerns noted by the ICPD Programme of Action. Therefore a separate inquiry is needed to refine the CRS-based data, most notably the two-step approach adopted by the UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project. The charts and graphs of this section are based upon the Resource Flows database, with the most recent data available showing disbursements in 2010.

Summary of UNFPA/NIDI’s Resource Flows Project Methodology Resource Flows Project data is based upon OECD datasets and extended/complemented by data collected through an annual donor survey. Calculation of ICPD activity code amounts is based upon a standard methodology agreed between NIDI and OECD in 1999/2001. Data is provided by donors themselves, and cleared by them again after the calculations have been applied. A more detailed explanation of the process and methodology of the UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project can be found in Annex 1 and 2 of this publication.

Total Funding for Population Assistance 1991-2010 (Net disbursements in billion USD)

Beijing Declaration

ICPD

12 10

Financial Crisis

MDGs

10.8

Current Constant

7.2

6 4 2 0

‘91

‘93

‘95

‘97

‘99

‘01

‘03

‘05

‘07

‘09

Source: UNFPA & NIDI. “Resource Flows for Population Activities” This graph refers to total primary funds to population assistance 1991-2010. For a definition of primary funds, see Annex 3.

Includes all donor institutions, including OECD/DAC donor governments, foundations/NGOS and development banks (grants)

Population Assistance in 2010

2008

2009

2010

3,347

5,000 4,000 3,000

151

156

197

256

1,000

330

2,000

(disbursements in million USD)

6,000

5,531

Top Donors of Population Assistance

nd ala Ze w Ne d lan er itz Sw da na Ca a ali str Au n a pe s ro on Eutituti Ins ay rw

-1

Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database

Looking at total spending on population assistance, the US remains the largest donor, spending 65% more than the EU-15. Of the top donors to population assistance, the biggest increase in absolute numbers can likewise be found in the US, while the biggest percentage increase took place in Australia, where population assistance increased by 34% compared with 2009. Funding from the EU institutions to population assistance continues to decrease, reflecting a steady downwards trend since 2007. Recent policy developments seem to suggest that this trend will continue within the coming years. Canadian support to population assistance was cut by 23% in 2010.

Breakdown of Population Assistance 1995 Family Planning Services 55% Basic Reproductive Health Services 18% STDs & HIV/AIDS Activities 9% Basic Research 18% Total (Billion USD) 1.3

2000 29% 29% 32% 9% 1.8

2005 7% 17% 72% 4% 6.8

2010 7% 24% 66% 3% 11.7

Includes all donor institutions, including developed country governments, foundations/NGOS and development banks. Source: UNFPA & NIDI - â&#x20AC;&#x153;Resource Flows for Population Activitiesâ&#x20AC;? This table refers to the final expenditures directed to population assistance. For a definition of final expenditures, see Annex 3.

Population Assistance in 2010 Nearly two thirds of all population assistance is directed towards STD and HIV/AIDS projects, a slight decrease from 2009 when the share was 67%. Worth noting is that although overall population assistance increased by more than 1.5 times since 2005, the growth rate was even faster in the preceding five-year period: the 2005 level was almost four times the total amount spent by all donors on population assistance in 2000. One reason for this, also explaining the large increase in STD and HIV/AIDS activities, might be the launch of the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM), as well as the launch of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a US programme targeting HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment. At the same time the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were launched, drawing more attention to maternal and child health, reproductive health and HIV/AIDS.

(Net disbursements in billion USD)

Breakdown of Population Assistance Funding 1999-2010 Financial Crisis

MDGs

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

7.6 Basic Research Family planning services Basic RH services STD/HIV/AIDS

Includes all donor institutions, including OECD/DAC donor governments, foundations/NGOS and development banks (grants)

2.8 0.8 0.4 ‘99

‘00

‘01

‘02

‘03

‘04

‘05

‘06

‘07

‘08

‘09

‘10

Source: UNFPA & NIDI. “Resource Flows for Population Activities” This graph refers to the final expenditures directed to population assistance. For a definition of final expenditures, see Annex 3.

Between 2009 and 2010 there was an increase in total spending in all population sectors of 11.7 billion USD, including in HIV/AIDS projects, which saw a decrease in 2009. The HIV/AIDS sector remains by far the largest recipient of population assistance, while investment in basic RH services continues to increase, albeit at a somewhat slower pace than in the year before. It is also worth noting that funding for neither basic RH services, nor for family planning services decreased during the financial crisis. Basi c research

Fami ly p lanni ng servi ces Basi c RH servi ces

Population Assistance in 2010 Several important initiatives on SRHR, family planning and MNCH took place in 2010. The G8 committed to direct an additional 5 billion USD towards achieving MDGs 4 and 5 by 2015 in the Muskoka initiative on MNCH. The UN Secretary General launched the Global Strategy on Women’s and Children’s Health, which raised commitments of another 40 billion USD over a five-year period. As part of this the EU also launched its 1 billion EUR MDG initiative to help progress on the MDGs lagging most behind – including the goals on maternal and child health. However, it remains to be seen whether these commitments are reflected in disbursements for 2011-2015, and also whether the funds committed were truly additional to existing commitments or included in these.

European Population Assistance Efforts as % of ODA (2010)

>7% of ODA 4-7% of ODA 2-4% of ODA <2% of ODA No data available Positive change No change Negative change

Population Assistance in 2010 Global Efforts on Population Assistance

18%

18.22%

20%

16%

12%

4.68%

4.92%

5.21%

5.59%

5.81%

5.97%

6.90%

7.87%

10%

7.73%

9.22%

(as percentage of ODA)

14%

The US not only provides the most population assistance in absolute terms, but also as share of total ODA; in 2010 close to 18% of total ODA. This is almost twice as much as the second most generous donor, the Netherlands, which in 2010 accounted for 9.2% of total ODA to population assistance. The highest share from any other donor was the UK peak of 10% in 2008. A positive trend for all three years in the period 2008-2010 can only be found in the Netherlands and Italy. On the other hand, Negative trends can be found all three years in Ireland, Sweden, Norway, Spain, Japan, EU institutions and Portugal. Most donors are far off-track from commitments made at IPCI conferences to direct at least 10% of total ODA to population assistance.

0 land Zea

Spa

New

and Finl

way

Nor

den

Swe

k mar

Den

nd Irela

urg

s land her

o emb

Lux

Net

Population Assistance in 2010

2008

2009

2010

Summary: Population Assistance in 2010 7 donors increased their contributions as % of ODA 16 donors decreased their contributions as % of ODA

0.38%

0.60%

0.87%

1.56%

2.29%

2.41%

2.83%

2.91%

3.00%

average percentage of ODA = 6.75% 3.08%

4.07%

10% Commitment from IPCI Conferences (13)

l tuga Por

ece

Gre

tria

Aus

Italy

s EU itution Inst

land

tzer Swi

gium

Bel

any

m Ger

ada

Can

Jap

trali

nce

Fra

Aus

Source: UNFPA & NIDI. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Resource Flows for Population Activitiesâ&#x20AC;?

(13) International Parliamentarians agreed at the IPCI (International Parliamentarians Conference on the Implementation of the ICPD) conferences in 2002 that their countries should provide at least 10% of their ODA towards population assistance. This was reaffirmed at subsequent IPCI conferences in 2006 and 2009.

Population Assistance in 2010

2009

2010

171

256

263

278

367

398

586

2008

197

1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0

1,009

(in million USD)

Top European Donors to Population Assistance from 2008 to 2010

lan

u lgi

tit.

Ins

a rw

Fin

n rla

a rm

ain

the

Source: UNFPA & NIDI. “Resource Flows for Population Activities”

When looking at top European donors to population assistance, the UK remains number one, which furthermore increased population assistance by 176.6 million USD, most of which was reported as general contributions. Parts of this variance may be explained with DFID revising its tracking method for ODA in 2009. The Netherlands, with no significant change since 2009, stays as second biggest donor, while France takes over third place ahead of Germany, which along with Spain and Sweden account for the biggest decreases. All three countries saw decreases especially in general contributions and HIV/ AIDS spending. Much of the increase in French population assistance was based on a 50 million USD increase in funds for reproductive health, at the same time as the country also reported support to family planning for the first time since 2002. French commitment to these sectors was confirmed in October 2012, as highlighted in Spotlight II.

2008

2009

2010

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

(in million USD)

Remaining European Donors to Population Assistance from 2008 to 2010

rtu

str

ly Ita rg ou mb xe Lu

lan

d an erl itz Sw

Ire

Source: UNFPA & NIDI. “Resource Flows for Population Activities”

Population Assistance in 2010 Among the smaller European donors, Luxembourg and Switzerland were the only ones to increase population assistance in 2009. For Switzerland, most of the increased funds went in general contributions to multilateral organisations. Greece, being hit hard by the financial crisis, cut its aid to a minimum while Ireland has almost halved its population assistance since 2008. Most of the Irish decrease occurred in the HIV/AIDS sector. Portugal further halved its total population assistance across all sectors.

The Funding Gap As this graph shows, substantial increases in funding for population assistance are needed if the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are to be met by 2015. The calculation of the funding gap is based on the costed population package agreed in the ICPD (para. 13.14), which was revised by the UN Commission on Population and Development in 2009. While the actual funding gap only in 2010 amounted to 9.9 billion USD, the projected gaps in funding from 2011-2015 show that additional 56 billion are needed before 2015, 35.8 billion USD for FP/RH alone.

FUNDING GAP ESTIMATIONS (BILLIONS USD, BASED ON 2010 EXPENDITURES) (*) FP & RH HIV/AIDS Basic Research Annual Totals

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Total

5,527.37 3,181.37 1,214.13 9,922.87

6,619.03 3,400.37 916.13 10,935.53

7,050.37 3,681.70 348.13 11,080.20

7,286.37 3,942,70 -4.53 11,224.53

7,476.37 4,179.37 -110.20 11,545.53

7,391.70 4,427.70 -201.20 11.618.20

35,823.83 19,631.83 948.33 56,404.00

* The 2010 figures refer to the actual funding gap in 2010, while figures for 2011-2015 refer to estimated funding gaps.

( )

actual expenditures FP and Basic reproductive health services STDs-HIV/AIDS activities Basic research, data and population

(donor share of) future funding needs FP & RH - Estimated funding needs STDs-HIV/AIDS - Estimated funding needs Basic Research - Estimated funding needs To meet the MDGs by 2015, there should have been mobilised (baseline 2010):

(in billion USD)

12 10

$19.6 additional billions for HIV/AIDS in 5 years

8 6

$35.8 additional billions for FP/RH in 5 years

4 2 0 ‘00

‘01

‘02

‘03

‘04

‘05

‘06

‘07

‘08

‘09

‘10

‘11

‘12

‘13

‘14

‘15

$0.9 additional billions for basic research in 5 years

Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, UN CPD 2010 report “The Flow of Financial - Resource for Assisting in the Implementation of the PoA ICPD”.

Population Assistance in 2010 The following two graphs compare spending on FP and RH as reported to the OECD /DAC CRS and to the UNFPA/NIDI survey. The US remains the largest donors to FP, with the UK and Germany as second and third biggest. Seven donors, including Belgium, New Zealand and Sweden, do not report any funding for FP.

Top Donors to Family Planning 2008

450

2009

2010

429.61

500

400 350 300

200 150 100

0.02

0.03

0.06

0.09 0.07

0.73

1.06

2.33

6.07

3.56

1.47

7.34

11.23

10.37

49.30

(net disbursements in million USD)

250

d lan er itz Sw en ed Sw gal d rtu lan Po Zea w Ne ly Ita ce ee Gr um lgi Be d lan Ire ia g str ur Au mbo xe Lu n pa Ja d lan Fin ce an Fr ay ns rw tio No stitu In ds EU rlan the Ne da na Ca alia str Au ark nm De ain Sp any rm

Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database

Definition of Family Planning According to the ICPD Programme of Action:

600

t s in million USD

500

400

FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES - contraceptive commodities and service delivery; capacity-building for information, education and communication regarding family planning and population and development issues; national capacity-building through support for training; infrastructure development and upgrading of facilities; policy development and programme evaluation; manage2007 ment information systems; basic service statistics; and focused efforts to ensure good quality care.

2008 2009 40

300

Population Assistance in 2010 A larger number of donors seem to be active in RH than in FP, with the US being the largest donor in absolute terms also to RH, followed by the UK and the Netherlands. Canadian support to RH decreased by 114 million USD from 2009 to 2010, reflecting overall large cuts in Canadian population assistance.

2008

2009

2010

6.91 3.05

1.90

550

10.67

600

567.69

Top Donors to Reproductive Health

500 345.13

450 400

0.93

9.27

14.01

15.15

15.63

16.54

23.07

55.63

57.65

23.89

87.67

100

62.58

150

111.78

200

106.32

250

113.43

225.82

300

121.93

(disbursements in million USD)

350

0 l ga rtu Po ce ee Gr ia str Au ada nd n la Ca Zea w Ne nd la urg Fin bo m xe Lu ly nd Ita erla itz Sw d lan Ire um lgi Be ark nm De en ed Sw ay rw No alia str Au any rm Ge ain Sp e ns c o an ti Fr stitu In EU n s pa nd Ja rla

the

*Data for 2009 is derived from the OECD DAC, while previous yearsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; data was received directly from the UK. Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database

Definition of Reproductive Health According to the ICPD Programme of Action: BASIC REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES - information and routine services for prenatal, normal and safe delivery and post-natal care; abortion (as specified in paragraph 8.25 of the ICPD Programme of Action); information, education and communication about reproductive health, including sexually transmitted diseases, human sexuality and responsible parenthood, and against harmful practices; adequate counselling; diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and other reproductive tract infections, as feasible; prevention of infertility and appropriate treatment, where feasible; and referrals, education and counselling services for sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS, and for pregnancy and delivery complications. 41

Population Assistance

Donor Profiles

Donor Profiles Ranking of Population Assistance as % of Total ODA, 2010 (14) Rank Country

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

US Netherlands Luxembourg UK Ireland Denmark Sweden Norway Finland New Zealand Spain Australia France Japan Canada Germany Belgium Switzerland EU institutions Italy Austria Greece Portugal

Population Assistance as % of ODA

HIV/AIDS/STDSs as % of ODA

RH as % of ODA

FP as % of ODA

18,22% 9.22% 7.87% 7.73% 6.90% 5.97% 5.81% 5.59% 5.21% 4.92% 4.68% 4.07% 3.08% 3.00% 2.91% 2.83% 2.41% 2.29% 1.55% 0.87% 0.60% 0.38% 0.38%

14.62% 1.04% 1.22% 2.10% 4.21% 1.72% 1.37% 0.99% 0.39% 0.66% 0.15% 0.05% 0.26% 0.22% 0.76% 0.69% 0.36% 0.11% 0.31% 0.17% 0.12% 0.00% 0.07%

1.87% 3.55% 3.48% 2.64% 1.85% 0.83% 1.23% 1.26% 0.80% 2.71% 1.79% 1.64% 0.87% 1.11% 0.13% 0.68% 0.13% 0.77% 0.68% 0.89% 0.51% 0.25% 0.14%

1.415% 0.037% 0.014% 0.378% 0.002% 0.256% 0% 0.023% 0.007% 0% 0.174% 0.159% 0.006% 0.001% 0.068% 0.086% 0% 0% 0.012% 0% 0.003% 0% 0%

In some previous editions of Euromapping donors have been ranked according to absolute expenditures towards the ICPD categories. This year, as in 2011, they are instead ranked according to disbursements as a percentage of total ODA and all four categories are shown in one table. The idea behind this is to allow an easier comparison of donors and disbursements, and ranking donors by their percentage of total ODA also simplifies a comparison between donors with relatively smaller or bigger economies. The fact that some countriesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; disbursements to FP are shown as 0% does not necessarily mean that these countries direct no aid at all to this sector. Due to the difficulties in tracking aid discussed in the Annex 2, aid that is actually targeting FP might have been assigned with a purpose code other than 13030 for FP and is therefore not included in the data. All donors with zero expenditure for family planning have been put in 17th position. (14) Total ODA data is based on the OECD/DAC CRS database, while data on population assistance, HIV/AIDS/STDSs, RH and FP is based on the UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database.

Quick Reference to Donor Profiles Euromapping Rank

Population Assistance Trends (1996-2012)

Family Planning

23 23

T tall Pop Tot Popula ulati l tio tionn

23 of 23

STD/HIV/AIDS Basic Research

RH FP Gen. Contributions

Reprod.are Health Donors ranked according tooftheir 23 disbursements as a STD/HIV/AIDS % of ODA towards each of the ICPD of2010. 23 categories in

(in million USD)

100

of 23

60 40 20

2011 and 2012 figures are estimates and projections, respectively.

0 ‘96

‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12

Annual, Estimated and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category

2011 and 2012 figures are estimates and projections, respectively.

Notes

Total ODA Spending

(1) General Contributions denotes amounts allocated towards multilateral organisations. (2) Figures for 2011 and 2012 are estimates and projections, respectively. See Annex 2 for more details. (3) Global/Interregional denotes programmes that are implemented in multiple regions as well as general contributions towards multilateral organisations. (4) Destination region percentages are rounded up to the nearest whole number; totals may not equal 100%

Million USD

> 80% 80-50% 50-30% 30-10% < 10%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

% of GNI

Total ODA Spending is listed here to provide comparable figures to a donor’s Population Assistance.

Australia's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 2010

(3) (4)

Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Projeect Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

AUSTRALIA Population Assistance Trends (1996-2012) Euromapping Rank

STD/HIV/AIDS Basic Research

Family Planning

Reprod. Health

of 23

STD/HIV/AIDS

120

of 23

100 (in million USD)

RH FP Gen. Contributions

of 23

80 60 40 20

Total Population

12 of 23

0 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12

Annual, Estimated and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category in Million USD

2007 2008 2009 2010 (2) 2011 (2) 2012

Project Expenditures

Family Planning

Reproductive Health

STD/ HIV/AIDS

Basic Research

0.03 0.00 0.53 6.07 7.26 7.74

21.98 32.53 36.64 62.58 74.79 79.70

64.50 79.22 69.90 78.45 93.75 99.91

6.85 8.23 0.83 0.12 0.15 0.16

General (1) Contributions

Total Primary Funds

% of ODA

99.32 125.94 115.88 155.90 186.32 198.55

3.7% 4.3% 4.2% 4.1%

5.97 5.97 7.98 8.68 10.37 11.05

Notes

Total ODA Spending

Million USD

% of GNI

2,668.52 2,954.07 2,761.61 3,826.10 4,798,63

0.32% 0.32% 0.29% 0.32% 0.35%

> 80% 80-50% 50-30% 30-10% < 10%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Australia's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 2010

(3) (4)

0% Eastern and Southern Europe 18% Global/Interregional 1%

0% Latin America

76% Asia and the Pacific

5% Sub-Saharan Africa

Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

AUSTRIA Population Assistance Trends (1996-2012) Euromapping Rank

STD/HIV/AIDS Basic Research

Family Planning

21 of 23

STD/HIV/AIDS

20 of 23

(in million USD)

14 of 23

Reprod. Health

RH FP Gen. Contributions

3 2 1

Total Population

21 of 23

0 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12

Annual, Estimated and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category in Million USD

2007 2008 2009 2010 (2) 2011 (2) 2012

Project Expenditures

Family Planning

Reproductive Health

STD/ HIV/AIDS

Basic Research

0.00 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.04

3.39 2.66 3.15 3.05 3.36 3.29

2.43 3.09 2.49 1.43 1.58 1.55

0.06 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.05

General (1) Contributions

Total Primary Funds

8.00 8.38 8.32 7.30 8.06 7.88

2.11 2.61 2.60 2.74 3.02 2.95

Notes

Total ODA Spending

Million USD

% of GNI

1,808.46 1,713.51 1,141.78 1,208.42 1,106.89

0.50% 0.43% 0.30% 0.32% 0.27%

> 80% 80-50% 50-30% 30-10% < 10%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Austria's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 2010

% of ODA

0.4% 0.5% 0.7% 0.6%

(3) (4)

10% 45% 14%

17%

11%

Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

Population Assistance Trends (1996-2012) STD/HIV/AIDS Basic Research 40

14 of 23

(in million USD)

17 of 23 16 of 23

RH FP Gen. Contributions

30 20 10

17 of 23

0 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12

Annual, Estimated and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category (1)

2007 2008 2009 2010 (2) 2011 (2) 2012

0.78 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

16.81 20.94 19.08 23.07 25.19 24.38

28.76 11.04 16.92 10.81 11.81 11.43

3.78 1.27 4.05 4.92 5.37 5.20

5.84 6.37 35.35 33.68 34.77 33.64

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

1,950.70 2,385.64 2,609.60 3,003.93 2,799.85

55.96 39.64 75.39 72.49 77.13 74.64

2.9% 0,3% 2.9% 2.4%

Notes (1) General Contributions denotes amounts allocated towards multilateral organisations. (2) Figures for 2011 and 2012 are estimates and projections, respectively. See Annex 2 for more details. (3) Global/Interregional denotes programmes that are implemented in multiple regions as well as general contributions towards multilateral organisations. (4) Destination region percentages are rounded up to the nearest whole number; totals may not equal 100%

0.43% 0.48% 0.55% 0.64% 0.53%

Belgium's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 2010

(3) (4)

0% 48% 2%

40%

Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

CANADA Population Assistance Trends (1996-2012) Euromapping Rank

STD/HIV/AIDS Basic Research

Family Planning

300

of 23

Reprod. Health

23 of 23

STD/HIV/AIDS

10 of 23

250 (in million USD)

RH FP Gen. Contributions

200 150 100 50

Total Population

15 of 23

0 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12

Annual, Estimated and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category in Million USD Family Planning 2007 2008 2009 2010 (2) 2011 (2) 2012

1.41 0.57 4.18 3.56 3.92 4.08

Project Expenditures Reproductive Health 128.72 119.50 120.47 6.91 7.62 7.91

STD/ HIV/AIDS

Basic Research

78.64 45.33 47.06 39.48 43.48 45.18

0.02 0.44 6.91 1.70 1.88 1.95

General (1) Contributions

Total Primary Funds

% of ODA

231.14 187.51 196.41 151.41 166.76 173.26

5.7% 3.9% 9% 2.9%

22.35 21.68 17.78 99.75 109.86 114.14

Notes

Total ODA Spending

Million USD

% of GNI

4,079.69 4,794.71 4,000.07 5,208,57 5,291.48

0.29% 0.33% 0.30% 0.34% 0.31%

> 80% 80-50% 50-30% 30-10% < 10%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Canada's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 2010

(3) (4)

0% Eastern and Southern Europe 66% Global/Interregional 0%

9% Latin America

3% Asia and the Pacific

21% Sub-Saharan Africa

Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

DENMARK Population Assistance Trends (1996-2012) Euromapping Rank

STD/HIV/AIDS Basic Research

Family Planning

Reprod. Health

14 of 23

STD/HIV/AIDS

140

of 23

120 (in million USD)

100

of 23

80 60 40 20

Total Population

RH FP Gen. Contributions

of 23

‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12

Annual, Estimated and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category in Million USD

2007 2008 2009 2010 (2) 2011 (2) 2012

Project Expenditures

Family Planning

Reproductive Health

STD/ HIV/AIDS

Basic Research

0.26 0.48 0.37 7.34 7.84 7.55

43.61 14.11 22.64 23.88 25.51 24.58

22.45 25.47 39.64 49.31 52.67 50.74

0.47 0.09 0.45 4.70 5.02 4.83

General (1) Contributions

Total Primary Funds

% of ODA

138.99 129.46 147.37 171.28 182.94 176.24

5.4% 4.6% 5.2% 6.0%

72.50 89.31 84.27 86.04 91.90 88.54

Notes

Total ODA Spending

Million USD

% of GNI

2,562.23 2,803.28 2,809.88 2,871.24 2,980.54

0.81% 0.82% 0.88% 0.91% 0.86%

> 80% 80-50% 50-30% 30-10% < 10%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Denmark's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 2010

(3) (4)

50% Eastern and Southern Europe 13% Global/Interregional 0%

0% Latin America

2% Asia and the Pacific

33% Sub-Saharan Africa

Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

EU INSTITUTIONS Population Assistance Trends (1996-2012) Euromapping Rank

STD/HIV/AIDS Basic Research

Family Planning

300

11 of 23

12 of 23

STD/HIV/AIDS

15 of 23

250 (in million USD)

Reprod. Health

RH FP Gen. Contributions

200 150 100 50

Total Population

19 of 23

0 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12

Annual, Estimated and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category in Million USD Family Planning 2007 2008 2009 2010 (2) 2011 (2) 2012

0.00 4.36 0.25 1.47 1.59 1.53

Project Expenditures Reproductive Health 133.98 139.67 158.24 113.43 122.39 117.45

STD/ HIV/AIDS

Basic Research 29.07 81.04 21.46 42.17 45.50 43.67

152.15 44.44 29.93 39.92 43.07 41.33

General (1) Contributions

Total Primary Funds

% of ODA

2.84(*) 0.16(*) 0.00(*) 0.00(*) 0.00(*) 0.00(*)

318.03 269.67 209.88 197.00 212.55 203.97

2.7% 2.0% 1.6% 1.6%

( ) * The contributions to the Global Fund are not accounted by in the NIDI figures but the contribution has been €100 million annually. 56% is attributable to population according to NIDI methodology, that is €56 million or nearly 80 million USD a year.

Notes

Total ODA Spending

Million USD

% of GNI

11,634.23 13,196.99 13,443.66 12,679.00 12,627.00

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

> 80% 80-50% 50-30% 30-10% < 10%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

European Union's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 2010

(3) (4)

6% Eastern and Southern Europe 10% Global/Interregional 8%

5% Latin America

27% Asia and the Pacific

43% Sub-Saharan Africa

Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

FINLAND Population Assistance Trends (1996-2012) Euromapping Rank

STD/HIV/AIDS Basic Research

Family Planning

15 of 23

STD/HIV/AIDS

13 of 23

(in million USD)

12 of 23

Reprod. Health

60 40 20

Total Population

RH FP Gen. Contributions

of 23

‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12

Annual, Estimated and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category in Million USD

2007 2008 2009 2010 (2) 2011 (2) 2012

Project Expenditures

Family Planning

Reproductive Health

STD/ HIV/AIDS

Basic Research

0.16 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.10 0.10

10.43 14.11 9.16 10.67 11.93 11.54

3.29 4.77 4.24 5.19 5.80 5.61

0.72 0.34 0.40 0.75 0.84 0.81

General (1) Contributions

Total Primary Funds

% of ODA

38.83 61.12 71.09 69.39 77.56 75.01

4.0% 5.2% 5.5% 5.2%

24.23 41.90 57.28 52.69 58.89 56.95

Notes

Total ODA Spending

Million USD

% of GNI

981.34 1,165.73 1,290.18 1,332.95 1,408.98

0.39% 0.44% 0.54% 0.55% 0.52%

> 80% 80-50% 50-30% 30-10% < 10%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Finland's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 2010

(3) (4)

0% Eastern and Southern Europe 82% Global/Interregional 1%

4% Latin America

3% Asia and the Pacific

10% Sub-Saharan Africa

Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

FRANCE Population Assistance Trends (1996-2012) Euromapping Rank

STD/HIV/AIDS Basic Research

Family Planning

300

13 of 23 13 of 23

STD/HIV/AIDS

16 of 23

250 (in million USD)

Reprod. Health

RH FP Gen. Contributions

200 150 100 50

Total Population

13 of 23

0 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12

Annual, Estimated and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category in Million USD Family Planning 2007 2008 2009 2010 (2) 2011 (2) 2012

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.80 0.78

Project Expenditures Reproductive Health 51.19 105.61 61.39 111.78 121.09 118.29

STD/ HIV/AIDS

Basic Research

2.68 3.51 19.51 33.97 36.80 35.95

1.75 3.87 8.54 8.33 9.03 8.82

General (1) Contributions

Total Primary Funds

% of ODA

307.19 382.99 345.48 398.17 431.36 421.37

3.1% 3.5% 2.7% 3.1%

251.58 269.99 256.04 243.36 263.64 257.54

Notes

Total ODA Spending

Million USD

% of GNI

9,883.59 10,907.55 12,600.02 12,915.10 12,993.89

0.38% 0.39% 0.47% 0.50% 0.46%

> 80% 80-50% 50-30% 30-10% < 10%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

France's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 2010

(3) (4)

0% Eastern and Southern Europe 78% Global/Interregional 2%

2% Latin America

3% Asia and the Pacific

16% Sub-Saharan Africa

Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

GERMANY Population Assistance Trends (1996-2012) Euromapping Rank

STD/HIV/AIDS Basic Research

Family Planning

240

of 23

Reprod. Health

17 of 23

STD/HIV/AIDS

11 of 23

200 (in million USD)

RH FP Gen. Contributions

160 120 80 40

Total Population

16 of 23

0 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12

Annual, Estimated and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category in Million USD

2007 2008 2009 2010 (2) 2011 (2) 2012

Project Expenditures

Family Planning

Reproductive Health

16.97 17.59 10.98 11.23 12.22 11.89

63.86 57.63 94.09 87.67 95.43 92.81

STD/ HIV/AIDS

Basic Research 1.82 1.92 1.77 0.66 0.72 0.70

80.73 87.56 104.30 89.34 97.24 94.57

General (1) Contributions

Total Primary Funds

% of ODA

193.15 194.58 421.34 367.26 399.73 388.75

1.6% 1.4% 3.5% 2.8%

29.78 29.88 210.20 178.36 194.13 188.79

Notes

Total ODA Spending

Million USD

% of GNI

12,290.70 13,980.87 12,079.30 12,985.36 14,533.36

0.37% 0.38% 0.35% 0.39% 0.40%

> 80% 80-50% 50-30% 30-10% < 10%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Germany's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 2010

(3) (4)

1% Eastern and Southern Europe 54% Global/Interregional 2%

3% Latin America

16% Asia and the Pacific

22% Sub-Saharan Africa

Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

GREECE Population Assistance Trends (1996-2012) Euromapping Rank

STD/HIV/AIDS Basic Research

Family Planning

17 of 23 20 of 23

STD/HIV/AIDS

23 of 23

10 (in million USD)

Reprod. Health

RH FP Gen. Contributions

8 6 4 2

Total Population

22 of 23

0 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12

Annual, Estimated and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category in Million USD

2007 2008 2009 2010 (2) 2011 (2) 2012

Project Expenditures

Family Planning

Reproductive Health

STD/ HIV/AIDS

Basic Research

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

6.19 0.42 3.33 1.91 1.89 1.69

5.91 5.86 7.85 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

General (1) Contributions

Total Primary Funds

% of ODA

12.19 6.36 11.26 1.95 1.94 1.73

2.4% 0.9% 1.9% 0.4%

0.09 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.04

Notes

Total ODA Spending

Million USD

% of GNI

500.82 703.16 607.27 507.72 330.74

0.16% 0.21% 0.19% 0.17% 0.11%

> 80% 80-50% 50-30% 30-10% < 10%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Greece's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 2010

(3) (4)

33% Eastern and Southern Europe 5% Global/Interregional 42%

4% Latin America

3% Asia and the Pacific

12% Sub-Saharan Africa

Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

IRELAND Population Assistance Trends (1996-2012) Euromapping Rank

STD/HIV/AIDS Basic Research

Family Planning

120

15 of 23 6

of 23

STD/HIV/AIDS

100 (in million USD)

Reprod. Health

of 23

80 60 40 20

Total Population

RH FP Gen. Contributions

of 23

‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12

Annual, Estimated and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category in Million USD

2007 2008 2009 2010 (2) 2011 (2) 2012

Project Expenditures

Family Planning

Reproductive Health

STD/ HIV/AIDS

Basic Research

0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

15.72 19.77 19.60 16.54 24.22 21.67

89.34 81.07 53.83 37.65 55.13 49.32

0.00 0.00 0.09 1.35 1.98 1.77

General (1) Contributions

Total Primary Funds

% of ODA

121.02 113.29 79.58 61.76 90.42 80.89

10.2% 8.5% 7.9% 6.9%

15.95 12.45 6.04 6.19 9.07 8.11

Notes

Total ODA Spending

Million USD

% of GNI

1,192.15 1,327.85 1,005.78 895.15 904.08

0.55% 0.59% 0.54% 0.52% 0.52%

> 80% 80-50% 50-30% 30-10% < 10%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Ireland's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 2010

(3) (4)

0% Eastern and Southern Europe 21% Global/Interregional 3%

1% Latin America

1% Asia and the Pacific

74% Sub-Saharan Africa

Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

ITALY Population Assistance Trends (1996-2012) Euromapping Rank

STD/HIV/AIDS Basic Research

Family Planning

19 of 23

STD/HIV/AIDS

18 of 23

(in million USD)

17 of 23

Reprod. Health

RH FP Gen. Contributions

30 20 10

Total Population

20 of 23

0 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12

Annual, Estimated and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category in Million USD

2007 2008 2009 2010 (2) 2011 (2) 2012

Project Expenditures

Family Planning

Reproductive Health

STD/ HIV/AIDS

Basic Research

0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

13.69 13.69 12.12 15.15 16.16 15.19

6.02 9.46 12,44 5.12 5.46 5.13

1.89 2.16 0.39 1.41 1.51 1.42

General (1) Contributions

Total Primary Funds

% of ODA

38.32 29.39 26.97 26.08 27.83 26.16

1.0% 0.6% 0.8% 0.9%

16.71 3.97 2.02 4.41 4.70 4.42

Notes

Total ODA Spending

Million USD

% of GNI

3,970.62 4,860.64 3,297.49 2,996.39 4,240.89

0.19% 0.22% 0.16% 0.15% 0.19%

> 80% 80-50% 50-30% 30-10% < 10%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Italy's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 2010

(3) (4)

2% Eastern and Southern Europe 19% Global/Interregional 19%

8% Latin America

13% Asia and the Pacific

38% Sub-Saharan Africa

Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

JAPAN Population Assistance Trends (1996-2012) Euromapping Rank

STD/HIV/AIDS Basic Research

Family Planning

500

13 of 23 11 of 23

STD/HIV/AIDS

17 of 23

400 (in million USD)

Reprod. Health

RH FP Gen. Contributions

300 200 100

Total Population

14 of 23

0 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12

Annual, Estimated and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category in Million USD Family Planning 2007 2008 2009 2010 (2) 2011 (2) 2012

3.14 0.00 0.12 0.07 0.08 0.08

Project Expenditures Reproductive Health 86.23 87.02 122.36 121.93 130.39 132.87

STD/ HIV/AIDS

Basic Research

25.61 29.16 16.85 24.47 26.17 26.66

4.33 8.74 0.47 10.50 11.23 11.44

General (1) Contributions

Total Primary Funds

% of ODA

313.69 479.02 351.73 330.45 353.39 360.10

4.1% 5.0% 3.7% 3.0%

194.38 354.10 211.93 173.48 185.52 189.05

Notes

Total ODA Spending

Million USD

% of GNI

7,697.14 9,600.71 9,456.93 11,020.98 10,604.41

0.17% 0.19% 0.18% 0.20% 0.18%

> 80% 80-50% 50-30% 30-10% < 10%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

(3) (4)

Japan's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 2010

0% Eastern and Southern Europe 56% Global/Interregional 8%

3% Latin America

12% Asia and the Pacific

21% Sub-Saharan Africa

Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

LUXEMBOURG Population Assistance Trends (1996-2012) Euromapping Rank

STD/HIV/AIDS Basic Research

Family Planning

of 23

STD/HIV/AIDS

(in million USD)

10 of 23

Reprod. Health

30 20 10

of 23

Total Population

RH FP Gen. Contributions

of 23

‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12

Annual, Estimated and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category in Million USD

2007 2008 2009 2010 (2) 2011 (2) 2012

Project Expenditures

Family Planning

Reproductive Health

STD/ HIV/AIDS

Basic Research

0.56 0.59 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.06

18.70 15.54 10.22 14.01 15.32 14.67

6.54 9.18 8.03 4.93 5.39 5.16

0.97 1.67 1.66 3.15 3.44 3.30

General (1) Contributions

Total Primary Funds

% of ODA

28.90 35.75 28.80 31.70 34.66 33.19

7.7% 8.6% 6.9% 7.9%

2.13 8.77 8.83 9.55 10.45 10.00

Notes

Total ODA Spending

Million USD

% of GNI

375.53 414.94 402.73 402.69 413.39

0.92% 0.97% 1.04% 1.05% 0.99%

> 80% 80-50% 50-30% 30-10% < 10%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Luxembourg's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 2010

(3) (4)

5% Eastern and Southern Europe 64% Global/Interregional 2%

3% Latin America

9% Asia and the Pacific

16% Sub-Saharan Africa

Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

THE NETHERLANDS Population Assistance Trends (1996-2012) Euromapping Rank

STD/HIV/AIDS Basic Research

Family Planning

Reprod. Health

of 23

STD/HIV/AIDS

350

of 23

300 (in million USD)

of 23

250 200 150 100 50

Total Population

RH FP Gen. Contributions

of 23

‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12

Annual, Estimated and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category in Million USD Family Planning 2007 2008 2009 2010 (2) 2011 (2) 2012

3.21 5.88 4.98 2.33 0.80 0.65

Project Expenditures Reproductive Health 193.31 89.33 228.48 225.82 239.40 239.40

STD/ HIV/AIDS

Basic Research

87.40 86.79 91.29 66.11 77.15 62.85

0.00 0.00 0.77 0.78 0.27 0.22

General (1) Contributions

Total Primary Funds

% of ODA

552.55 496.01 588.70 586.35 567.67 543.80

8.9% 7.1% 9.2% 9.2%

268.61 314.01 263,18 290.31 250.06 240.69

Notes

Total ODA Spending

Million USD

% of GNI

6,224.26 6,992.60 6,426.08 6,357.31 6,324.15

0.81% 0.80% 0.82% 0.81% 0.75%

> 80% 80-50% 50-30% 30-10% < 10%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

The Netherland's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 2010

(3) (4)

0% Eastern and Southern Europe 70% Global/Interregional 1%

3% Latin America

3% Asia and the Pacific

23% Sub-Saharan Africa

Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

NEW ZEALAND Population Assistance Trends (1996-2012) Euromapping Rank

STD/HIV/AIDS Basic Research

Family Planning

17 of 23 3

of 23

STD/HIV/AIDS

12 of 23

12 (in million USD)

Reprod. Health

RH FP Gen. Contributions

10 8 6 4 2

Total Population

10 of 23

0 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12

Annual, Estimated and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category in Million USD

2007 2008 2009 2010 (2) 2011 (2) 2012

Project Expenditures

Family Planning

Reproductive Health

STD/ HIV/AIDS

Basic Research

0.37 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.54 5.82 7.15 9.27 10.66 11.89

3.52 3.38 0.95 2.24 2.58 2.88

0.01 0.01 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00

General (1) Contributions

Total Primary Funds

% of ODA

13.85 17.16 16.92 16.82 19.34 21.57

4.3% 4.9% 5.5% 4.9%

6.41 7.61 8.52 5.31 6.10 6.80

Notes

Total ODA Spending

Million USD

% of GNI

319.80 347.96 309.28 342.22 429.06

0.27% 0.30% 0.28% 0.26% 0.28%

> 80% 80-50% 50-30% 30-10% < 10%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

New Zealand's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 2010

(3) (4)

0% Eastern and Southern Europe 42% Global/Interregional 0%

0% Latin America

45% Asia and the Pacific

13% Sub-Saharan Africa

Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

NORWAY Population Assistance Trends (1996-2012) Euromapping Rank

STD/HIV/AIDS Basic Research

Family Planning

Reprod. Health

of 23

STD/HIV/AIDS

300

of 23

250 (in million USD)

200 150 100

of 23

Total Population

RH FP Gen. Contributions

of 23

‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12

Annual, Estimated and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category in Million USD

2007 2008 2009 2010 (2) 2011 (2) 2012

Project Expenditures

Family Planning

Reproductive Health

STD/ HIV/AIDS

Basic Research

0.27 0.53 0.09 1.06 1.23 1.28

42.45 44.51 56.77 57.65 66.79 69.26

66.61 73.40 58.67 45.18 52.34 54.28

2.74 1.00 0 1.78 2.06 2.13

General (1) Contributions

Total Primary Funds

% of ODA

264.92 269.84 250.04 255.79 296.34 307.33

7.1% 6.7% 6.1% 5.6%

152.85 150.41 134.57 150.13 173.93 180.38

Notes

Total ODA Spending

Million USD

% of GNI

3,734.83 4,005.76 4,085.84 4,579.57 4,935.90

0.95% 0.89% 1.06% 1.10% 1.00%

> 80% 80-50% 50-30% 30-10% < 10%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Norway's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 2010

(3) (4)

0% Eastern and Southern Europe 73% Global/Interregional 1%

1% Latin America

5% Asia and the Pacific

19% Sub-Saharan Africa

Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

PORTUGAL Population Assistance Trends (1996-2012) Euromapping Rank

STD/HIV/AIDS Basic Research

Family Planning

17 of 23 22 of 23

STD/HIV/AIDS

22 of 23

5 (in million USD)

Reprod. Health

RH FP Gen. Contributions

4 3 2 1

Total Population

22 of 23

0 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12

Annual, Estimated and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category in Million USD

2007 2008 2009 2010 (2) 2011 (2) 2012

Project Expenditures

Family Planning

Reproductive Health

STD/ HIV/AIDS

Basic Research

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2.74 3.18 2.24 0.93 0.85 0.79

0.04 0.69 0.69 0.42 0.56 0.52

0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

General (1) Contributions

Total Primary Funds

5.78 7.35 5.10 2.43 2.29 2.11

2.66 3.48 2.17 1.08 0.88 0.81

Notes

Total ODA Spending

Million USD

% of GNI

470.54 620.15 512.71 648.96 668.82

0.22% 0.27% 0.23% 0.29% 0.29%

> 80% 80-50% 50-30% 30-10% < 10%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

% of ODA

Portugal's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 2010

1.2% 1.2% 1.0% 0.4%

(3) (4)

0% Eastern and Southern Europe 50% Global/Interregional 0%

1% Latin America

3% Asia and the Pacific

46% Sub-Saharan Africa

Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

SPAIN Population Assistance Trends (1996-2012) Euromapping Rank

STD/HIV/AIDS Basic Research

Family Planning

Reprod. Health

200

of 23

STD/HIV/AIDS

19 of 23

160 (in million USD)

RH FP Gen. Contributions

120 80 40

Total Population

11 of 23

0 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12

Annual, Estimated and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category in Million USD Family Planning 2007 2008 2009 2010 (2) 2011 (2) 2012

1.04 1.16 7.08 10.37 11.10 10.39

Project Expenditures Reproductive Health 88.00 150.30 109.12 106.32 113.83 106.53

STD/ HIV/AIDS

Basic Research

21.29 26.74 22.12 9.19 0.98 9.21

9.88 25.44 9.61 5.72 6.12 5.73

General (1) Contributions

Total Primary Funds

% of ODA

139.50 348.09 330.48 278.46 289.26 279.01

2.7% 5.1% 5.0% 4.7%

19.28 144.44 182.55 146.86 157.23 147.15

Notes

Total ODA Spending

Million USD

% of GNI

5,139.80 6,866.83 6,584.11 5,949.46 4,264.17

0.37% 0.45% 0.46% 0.43% 0.29%

> 80% 80-50% 50-30% 30-10% < 10%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Spain's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 2010

(3) (4)

0% Eastern and Southern Europe 59% Global/Interregional 5%

15% Latin America

3% Asia and the Pacific

18% Sub-Saharan Africa

Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

SWEDEN Population Assistance Trends (1996-2012) Euromapping Rank

STD/HIV/AIDS Basic Research

Family Planning

300

17 of 23 10 of 23

STD/HIV/AIDS

250 (in million USD)

Reprod. Health

200 150 100

of 23

Total Population

RH FP Gen. Contributions

of 23

‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12

Annual, Estimated and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category in Million USD

2007 2008 2009 2010 (2) 2011 (2) 2012

Project Expenditures

Family Planning

Reproductive Health

STD/ HIV/AIDS

Basic Research

0.00(*) 0.00(*) 0.00(*) 0.00(*) 0.00(*) 0.00(*)

61.50 61.44 55.77 55.63 64.80 66.14

104.98 86.91 83.50 62.33 72.60 74.10

1.69 1.75 0.01 0.55 0.64 0.65

General (1) Contributions

Total Primary Funds

% of ODA

366.18 325.98 304.76 263.27 306.65 312.98

8.4% 7.4% 6.7% 5.8%

198.02 175.88 165.47 144.75 168.60 172.09

* Sweden does not report on Family Planning.

( )

Notes

Total ODA Spending

Million USD

% of GNI

4,338.94 4,731.75 4,548.23 4,533.49 5,606.24

0.93% 0.98% 1.12% 0.97% 1.02%

> 80% 80-50% 50-30% 30-10% < 10%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Sweden's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 2010

(3) (4)

0% Eastern and Southern Europe 72% Global/Interregional 1%

0% Latin America

5% Asia and the Pacific

21% Sub-Saharan Africa

Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

SWITZERLAND Population Assistance Trends (1996-2012) Euromapping Rank

STD/HIV/AIDS Basic Research

Family Planning

17 of 23 18 of 23

STD/HIV/AIDS

21 of 23

50 (in million USD)

Reprod. Health

RH FP Gen. Contributions

40 30 20 10

Total Population

18 of 23

0 ‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12

Annual, Estimated and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category in Million USD

2007 2008 2009 2010 (2) 2011 (2) 2012

Project Expenditures

Family Planning

Reproductive Health

STD/ HIV/AIDS

Basic Research

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

8.81 9.89 14.00 15.63 18.83 18.38

2.67 2.91 2.57 2.50 3.01 2.94

0.00 0.00 0.29 1.34 1.62 1.58

General (1) Contributions

Total Primary Funds

% of ODA

36.97 44.85 47.32 52.75 63.56 62.04

2.2% 2.2% 2.0% 2.3%

25.50 32.05 30.46 33.28 40.10 39.14

Notes

Total ODA Spending

Million USD

% of GNI

1,684.87 2,037.63 2,310.07 2,299.95 3,085.56

0.38% 0.44% 0.45% 0.40% 0.46%

> 80% 80-50% 50-30% 30-10% < 10%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Switzerland's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 2010

(3) (4)

5% Eastern and Southern Europe 66% Global/Interregional 1%

0% Latin America

9% Asia and the Pacific

18% Sub-Saharan Africa

Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

UK Population Assistance Trends (1996-2012) Euromapping Rank

STD/HIV/AIDS Basic Research

Family Planning

Reprod. Health

of 23

STD/HIV/AIDS

1,400

of 23

1,200 (in million USD)

of 23

1,000 800 600 400 200

Total Population

RH FP Gen. Contributions

of 23

‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12

Annual, Estimated and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category in Million USD Family Planning 2007 2008 2009 2010 (2) 2011 (2) 2012

0.00 0.00 25.21 48.05 51.34 52.08

Project Expenditures Reproductive Health 31.73 0.00 321.48 342.86 366.26 371.58

STD/ HIV/AIDS

Basic Research 0.00 0.00 44.12 40.03 42.76 43.38

846.25 959.78 239.53 273.39 292.06 296.30

General (1) Contributions

259.37 179.04 202.13 304.73 325.53 330.26

Total Primary Funds

% of ODA

1,137.84 1,138.82 832.48 1.009,07 1,077.95 1,093.61

11.5% 9.9% 7.4% 7.7%

Notes

Total ODA Spending

Million USD

% of GNI

9,848.53 11,499.87 11,282.61 13,052.97 13,739.02

0.36% 0.43% 0.51% 0.57% 0.56%

> 80% 80-50% 50-30% 30-10% < 10%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

United Kingdom's Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 2010

(3) (4)

0% Eastern and Southern Europe 47% Global/Interregional 0%

0% Latin America

22% Asia and the Pacific

31% Sub-Saharan Africa

Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

US Population Assistance Trends (1996-2012) Euromapping Rank

STD/HIV/AIDS Basic Research

Family Planning

Reprod. Health

of 23

STD/HIV/AIDS

6,000

of 23

5,000 (in million USD)

of 23

4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000

Total Population

RH FP Gen. Contributions

of 23

‘96 ‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12

Annual, Estimated and Projected Population Assistance per ICPD Category in Million USD Family Planning 2007 2008 2009 2010 (2) 2011 (2) 2012

224.26 335.62 477.67 429.61 446.39 461.64

Project Expenditures Reproductive Health 114.52 222.61 390.99 567.69 589.86 610.01

STD/ HIV/AIDS

Basic Research 87.74 32.60 13.51 16.96 17.63 18.23

2,627.23 4,063.30 4,208.85 4,437.66 4,611.02 4,768.55

General (1) Contributions

12.08 18.03 48.50 79.47 82.57 85.39

Total Primary Funds

3,065.84 4,672.16 5,139.53 5,531.39 5,747.47 5,943.83

Notes

Total ODA Spending

Million USD

% of GNI

21,786.90 26,436.78 28,831.34 30,353.16 30,744.52

1.16% 0.19% 0.21% 0.21% 0.20%

> 80% 80-50% 50-30% 30-10% < 10%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

United States’ Regional Distribution of Population Assistance, 2010

% of ODA

14.1% 17.7% 17.8% 18.2%

(3) (4)

0% Eastern and Southern Europe 31% Global/Interregional 2%

4% Latin America

8% Asia and the Pacific

53% Sub-Saharan Africa

Source: UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database, OECD/DAC CRS Database

Annex 1: Footnotes on Donor Reporting Australia

organisations was not reported. As a result, 2009 figures on general contributions are estimated at the 2006 level. 2010: Information on general contributions to intermediate organisations was not reported. As a result, 2010 figures on general contributions are estimated at the 2006 level.

2008: Information on general contributions to intermediate organisations was not reported. As a result, 2008 figures on general contributions are estimated at the 2007 level. 2001: Information on expenditures for population projects/ programmes was not reported. As a result, 2001 project/ programme figures are estimated at the 2000 level.

Germany

2009: General contributions to the Global Fund are included from this year onward. 2010: Data for Germany is recalculated into $US using the OECD exchange rate based on their request

Austria

2001: Information on expenditures for population projects/ programmes was not reported. As a result, 2001 project/ programme figures are estimated at the 2000 level. 2003: Information on general contributions to intermediate organisations was not reported. As a result, 2004 figures on general contributions are estimated at the 2003 level.

Greece

2003: Information on general contributions to intermediate organisations was not reported. As a result, 2004 figures on general contributions are estimated at the 2003 level. 2005: Information on general contributions to intermediate organisations was not reported. As a result, 2005 figures on general contributions are estimated at the 2003 level.

Canada

2003: Information on general contributions to intermediate organisations was not reported. As a result, 2004 figures on general contributions are estimated at the 2003 level. 2006: Information on general contributions to intermediate organisations was not reported. As a result, 2006 figures on general contributions are estimated at the 2005 level.

Ireland

2003: Information on general contributions to intermediate organisations was not reported. As a result, 2004 figures on general contributions are estimated at the 2003 level.

Italy

Denmark

2002: Project/programme expenditures are estimated based on 2000 data. 2003: Information on general contributions to intermediate organisations was not reported. As a result, 2004 figures on general contributions are estimated at the 2003 level. 2001: Information on expenditures for population projects /programmes was not reported. As a result, 2001 project /programme figures are estimated at the 2000 level. 2006:Information on project/programme expenditures was not reported. As a result, project/programme figures are estimated based on 2005 data.

2003: Information on project/programme expenditures was not reported. As a result, project/programme figures are estimated based on 2002 data.

EU Institutions

2000: Figures on expenditures for population assistance for 2000 were not provided. As a result, 2000 figures are estimated at the 1999 level. 2001: Figures on expenditures for population assistance for 2001 were not provided. As a result, 2001 figures are estimated at the 1999 level. 2002: Figures for the European Union have been estimated by NIDI based on data from the European Commission and the DAC Watch of the European Union, IPPF, January 2002.

Luxembourg

2001: Information on expenditures for population projects /programmes was not reported. As a result, 2001 project /programme figures are estimated at the 2000 level. 2002: Project/programme expenditures for 2002 have been estimated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2003: Information on project/programme expenditures was not reported. As a result, project/programme figures are estimated based on 2002 data. 2004: Information on general contributions to intermediate organisations was not reported. As a result, 2004 figures on general contributions are estimated at the 2003 level.

Finland

2004 figures are estimated at the 2003 level. 2005: Information on project/programme expenditures was not reported. As a result, project/programme figures are estimated based on 2003 data.

France

2007: Information on general contributions to intermediate organisations was not reported. As a result, 2007 figures on general contributions are estimated at the 2006 level. 2008: Information on general contributions to intermediate organisations was not reported. As a result, 2008 figures on general contributions are estimated at the 2006 level. 2009: Information on general contributions to intermediate

United Kingdom

2009: DFID revised the tracking method for development assistance as of this year.

United States

2004: figures are estimated at the 2003 level.

Annex 2: Methodology Explanation of Sources and Research Methodology Euromapping 2012 relies on two primary sources for its figures and data on financial resource flows towards Official Development Assistance and Population Assistance: The OECD/DAC CRS database and the UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database. OECD/DAC Database The DAC database or the Aid Activity Database of the DAC(15) contains information on resource flows to developing countries. It covers bilateral and multilateral donorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;aid. The DAC database is made up of the two following elements: The DAC annual aggregates database, which provides comprehensive data on the volume, origin and types of aid and other resource flows. The Creditor Reporting System (CRS), which provides detailed information on individual aid activities, such as sectors, countries, project descriptions etc. The database can be used to study where aid goes, what purposes it serves and what policies it supports. The CRS was established in 1967, jointly by the OECD and the World Bank, with the aim of supplying the participants with a regular flow of data on indebtedness and capital flows. Calculating capital flows and debt stock remain key functions of the system, but others have evolved in the course of years. In particular, the CRS Aid Activity Database has become the internationally recognised source of data on aid by country and sector. The CRS serves as a tool for monitoring specific policy issues. It supplements aggregate information in the annual DAC Statistics. The CRS compiles all funding commitments(16) by donor country, purpose, recipient country, and whether the type of funding is a grant or loan. The data is self-reported by the donors. An aid activity can take many forms. It could be a project or a programme, a cash transfer or delivery of goods, a training course or a research project, a debt relief operation or a contribution to an NGO. The level of detail of ODA reported varies, in particular between sector-allocable and non-sector-allocable aid.

(15)

CRS (Creditor Reporting System) www.oecd.org/dac/stats/crs or www.oecd.org/dac/stats/idsonline A commitment is a firm written obligation by a government or official agency, backed by the appropriation or availability of the necessary funds, to provide resources of a specified amount under specified financial terms and conditions and for specified purposes for the benefit of the recipient country. A disbursement is the placement of resources at the disposal of a recipient country or agency, or in the case of internal development-related expenditures, the outlay of funds by the official sector.

(15)

Annex 2: Methodology Tracking of donor assistance to health issues at the global level relies to a large extent on the OECD’s Creditor Reporting System. However, the accounting methods of the CRS make it difficult to discern funding for particular health concerns or diseases. In the CRS database individual projects are catalogued under a category and standardised 5-digit sector code. Euromapping 2012 employs two of the CRS sectors explicitly related to health in order to track donor country disbursements for health, namely I.2 Health and 1.3 Population Programmes. These codes provide a general image of health disbursements, but are not appropriate for a more detailed analysis: for example, while the CRS has a separate category and sector for HIV/AIDS, none exist for other diseases. Therefore a separate inquiry is needed to complement the CRS-based data, most notably the two-step approach adopted by the UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project.(17) UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database While the OECD DAC database includes population project/programme details for selected CRS codes, the UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows project collects additional data necessary to more comprehensively track resource flows for population activities. The Resource Flows Project employs a two-step procedure to calculate global spending along the population assistance sub-categories established in the Programme of Action of the ICPD.

Summary of UNFPA/NIDI’s Methodology Resource Flows Project data is based upon OECD datasets and extended/complemented by data collected through a donor survey. Calculation of ICPD activity code amounts is based upon a standard methodology agreed between NIDI and OECD in 1999/2001. Data is provided by donors themselves, and finally cleared by them once again after the calculations have been applied.

(17)

This approach has also been adopted by other projects that monitor resource flows for particular health concerns. For instance, Narasimhan and Attaran (2003) report on a two-stage procedure to determine international funding for malaria control following WHO’s Roll Back Malaria movement launched in 1998. The first stage is to use the official database of the OECD DAC and the second stage is a written donor survey requesting donors to disclose their malaria control financing projects.

Annex 2: Methodology First, the Resource Flows Project downloads disbursement data from the CRS database. For each relevant project, the purpose code and the channel of delivery(18) are considered. To determine the amount spent on each ICPD activity code, a conversion table is used for each project to convert spending by purpose code to spending by ICPD activity code. The conversion tables were drawn up in 2001 during an expert meeting involving OECD and NIDI. Since then the tables have only undergone minor updates. The second step involves the Resource Flows questionnaire (donor survey) which is designed to collect information that cannot be obtained from the CRS database. The RF 2010 questionnaire referred to general contributions for population to intermediate organisations not approached by OECD/DAC; additional CRS codes that may partially cover population activities; a breakdown of the STD/HIV/AIDS sub-categories; expenditures specifically for young people and finally estimated future expenditures for population from 2011 and 2012 inclusively. The estimates are mainly based upon the estimated developments in the GDP (in US dollars) of the respective donor countries.â&#x20AC;&#x2122; (19) In general, the CRS releases the data on a given year in December of the following year. The donor questionnaires are mailed in April of the year following the year to which the data pertains. In the most recent year (2010), the questionnaire was mailed to 124 key actors in the field of population and AIDS. These include donor countries that are part of the OECD/DAC and the European Union, multilateral organisations and agencies, major private foundations and other international NGOs that provide substantial population assistance. A total of 71 organisations responded to the 2010 financial resource flows survey, including 24 OECD/ DAC donor countries and the European Union; 5 multilateral organisations; 14 major foundations, 26 international NGOs, 1 network organisation and 1 development bank. After data entry, a clearance report is sent to the data providers, who are given a final chance to check the data and to confirm that they are accurate.

(18)

The Channel of delivery is the implementing agency. Broad categories of channels are distinguished, such as Public sector NGOs and civil society, Public Private Partnerships (PPP), or Multilateral organisations (UN, WB/IMF/Regional Banks). The channel of delivery enables a distinction between aid delivered directly by the donor and aid channeled through a multilateral organisation. (19) For more information see: Van Dalen, H.P. and M. Reuser, 2005, Projections of Funds for Population and AIDS activities, 2004-2006, Resource Flows Project, working paper.

Annex 2: Methodology Figure 1: Excerpt of UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Questionnaire to Donors: All stated percentages have been agreed with OECD specialists at the task force meeting of 9 April 1999 in The Hague, The Netherlands. However, these percentages can be changed by the donor themselves while completing the survey, based on their project expenditures in a given year. CRS code

11220 11230 11240 11320 12110 12220 12230 12240 12261 12281 13010 13020 13030 13040 13081 16064

Description Primary education Non-formal education Pre-school education Secondary education Health policy administrative management Basic health care Basic heal th infrastructure Nutrition Health education Health personnel development Population policy and administrative management Reproductive health care Family Planning STD control, including HIV/AIDS Personnel development for population and reproductive health Social mitigation of HIV/AIDS

Accounted for (%)

10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 25% 25% 75% 25% 25% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Category Repr. Health Repr. Health Repr. Health Repr. Health Repr. Health Repr. Health Repr. Health Repr. Health Repr. Health Repr. Health Basic Research Repr. Health Fam. Planning STD, HIV/AIDS Repr. Health STD, HIV/AIDS

General Contributions to Multilateral Organisations For many donors, including some of the largest donors to population assistance such as France, Germany and Denmark, general contributions account for a large share of total population assistance. The donor profiles include a breakdown of the ICPD categories plus general contributions to multilateral organisations. Tracking of these contributions does, however, involve some difficulties. First; donors report on these contributions themselves which could mean both over- and underreporting due to political, constitutional and other considerations. Similarly, some donors are de facto contributing funds to organisations, without reporting it to the Resource Flows database. One example is the EC contribution to the Global Fund, which has never been reported to the Resource Flows database although it is reported in official EU reporting.(20) Secondly, it should be noted that the list of organisations considered as multilaterals has expanded to include more organisations in recent years â&#x20AC;&#x201C; which has also meant larger general contributions. While it is clear that many donors channel large amounts of aid through multilaterals, there is room for improvement in the tracking of these flows.

(20)

Annual Report 2011 on the European Unionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s development and external assistance policies and their implementation in 2010 (2011) Available: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/multimedia/publications/documents/annual-reports/annual-report-2011_en.pdf

Annex 3: Definitions BASIC REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES - Information and routine services for prenatal, normal and safe delivery and post-natal care; abortion (as specified in paragraph 8.25 of the ICPD Programme of Action); information, education and communication about reproductive health, including sexually transmitted diseases, human sexuality and responsible parenthood, and against harmful practices; adequate counselling; diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and other reproductive tract infections, as feasible; prevention of infertility and appropriate treatment, where feasible; and referrals, education and counselling services for sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS, and for pregnancy and delivery complications. BASIC RESEARCH, DATA AND POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY ANALYSIS - National capacitybuilding through support for demographic as well as programme-related data collection and analysis, research, policy development and training. CONSTANT DOLLARS - Constant dollars are current dollars that have been adjusted to measure a value over a series of years at the prices prevailing during a particular year. In this report, 1993 - the year in which the ICPD cost estimates were made - was selected as the base year. CURRENT DOLLARS - Current dollars are dollar figures prevailing at the time of measurement. In this report, current dollars were taken as reported by the organisations surveyed. Non-dollar currencies were converted to US dollars using the International Monetary Fund (IMF) period-average exchange rates for the year the funds were expended for population assistance. DONOR COUNTRIES - In this report, donor countries refer to the 22 developed donor countries and the European Union, all of which are members of the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD/DAC). The 22 donors are Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America. EUROPEAN INSTITUTIONS - This refers to the European Union institutions, often mentioned in relation to the funds they administer (usually the European Commission). EUROPEAN UNION - European Union Institutions (European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission) and Member States of the European Union

Annex 3: Definitions EU-12 - This refers to the new EU Member States who joined in 2004 and 2007: Cyprus, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. EU-15 - This refers to the Member States of the European Union until Eastern Enlargement in 2004: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom. EU delegations - 140 offices around the world representing the European Union. FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES - These include commodities and service delivery; capacity-building for information, education and communication regarding family planning and population and development issues; national capacity-building through support for training; infrastructure development and upgrading of facilities; policy development and programme evaluation; management information systems; basic service statistics; and focused efforts to ensure good quality care. FINAL EXPENDITURES - Final expenditures refer to funds that have been received by developing countries directly from donor governments or through intermediate donors. The final recipients may be developing-country governments, national NGOs, or donorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; field offices in developing countries. The programmes in which expenditures are made do not necessarily have to be located in developing countries and may include activities, such as research, that benefit more than one developing country or region. POPULATION ASSISTANCE - According to the ICPD, this term refers to funds made available for HIV/AIDS activities and research in addition to family planning, maternal health care, and general reproductive health. PRIMARY FUNDS - Primary funds refer to the financial resources contributed by a primary donor for population activities. Primary funds may be provided by a donor either directly to the developing country or to an intermediate donor such as a multilateral organisation or international NGO. Primary funds also include self-generated income of intermediate donors as well as contributions which they receive from donor countries that are not members of OECD/DAC. SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES/HIV/AIDS PREVENTION PROGRAMME - Mass media and in-school education programmes, promotion of voluntary abstinence and responsible sexual behaviour and expanded distribution of condoms.

Annex 4: Donor Data Overview Total ODA (USD millions)

ODA per Capita (USD)

(19)

ODA % of GNI

Total Pop Assistance (USD millions)

Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden UK EU-15

‘08 1,714 2,386 2,803 1,166 10,908 13,981 703 1,328 4,861 415 6,993 620 6,867 4,732 11,500 70,974

’09 1,142 2,610 2,810 1,290 12,600 12,079 607 1,006 3,297 415 6,426 513 6,584 4,548 11,283 67,210

‘10 1,208 3,004 2,871 1,333 12,915 12,985 508 895 2,996 403 6,357 649 5,949 4,533 13,053 69,661

’11 1,107 2,800 2,981 1,409 12,994 14,533 331 904 4,241 413 6,324 669 4,264 5,606 13,739 72,315

‘08 205 219 512 225 305 170 33 137 58 881 269 81 156 510 188 175

’09 136 242 488 245 228 147 35 126 48 873 303 55 110 509 183 159

‘10 143 249 483 280 200 155 31 173 61 833 299 51 89 516 222 174

’11 132 263 598 261 202 177 31 215 63 862 403 70 81 537 221 193

‘08 0.43 0.48 0.82 0.44 0.39 0.38 0.21 0.59 0.22 0.97 0.80 0.27 0.45 0.98 0.43 0.45

’09 0.30 0.55 0.88 0.54 0.47 0.35 0.19 0.54 0.16 1.04 0.82 0.23 0.46 1.12 0.51 0.46

‘10 0.32 0.64 0.90 0.55 0.50 0.38 0.17 0.53 0.15 1.09 0.81 0.29 0.43 0.97 0.56 0.45

’11 0.27 0.53 0.86 0.52 0.46 0.40 0.11 0.52 0.19 0.99 0.75 0.29 0.29 1.02 0.56 0.45

Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Rep. Estonia Hungary Latvia Lithuania Malta Poland Romania Slovakia Slovenia EU-12 EU Inst.

19 17 38 46 249 215 23 18 107 117 22 21 51 42 16 14 372 375 137 138 92 75 68 71 1,195 1,147 13,197 13,444

23 29 228 11 114 9 21 8 378 65 74 59 1,018 12,679

25 28 256 18 140 14 38 14 417 118 87 63 1,218 12,627

6 62 39 15 11 10 10 24 11 3 17 35 14 n/a

6 54 33 12 10 9 10 21 12 2 14 42 13 n/a

5 44 22 11 13 7 10 21 11 5 13 41 14 n/a

4 29 24 8 18 4 11 24 14 3 16 57 15 n/a

0.04 0.17 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.07 0.11 0.20 0.08 0.07 0.10 0.13 0.10 n/a

0.04 0.20 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.07 0.11 0.18 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.15 0.09 n/a

0.09 0.20 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.06 0.10 0.11 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.13 0.10 n/a

0.09 0.16 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.07 0.13 0.25 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.13 0.10 n/a

EU-27+EUInst.

85,366 81,801

83,359

86,160

141

131

138

151

0.42

0.44

0.42

35 4,086 2,310 707 7,138

29 4,580 2,300 967 7,875

26 4,936 3,086 1,320 9,367

81 838 424 17 423

72 845 388 13 401

81 938 382 14 416

98 938 381 10 417

0.47 0.89 0.44 0.11 0.42

0.35 1.06 0.45 0.11 0.46

0.28 1.10 0.41 0.13 0.46

0.22 1.00 0.46 0.19 0,50

2,954 2,762 4,795 4,000 9,601 9,457 802 816 348 309 26,437 28,831 44,937 46,175

3,826 5,209 11,021 1,174 342 30,353 51,925

4,799 5,291 10,604 1,321 429 30,745 53,189

176 144 76 17 87 152 96

202 119 75 17 94 144 100

206 151 87 24 97 128 106

207 156 84 27 99 93 104

0.32 0.33 0.19 0.09 0.30 0.19 0.19

0.29 0.30 0.18 0.10 0.28 0.21 0.19

0.32 0.33 0.20 0.12 0.26 0.21 0.23

0.35 0.31 0.18 0.12 0.28 0.20 0.24

125.95 115.88 155.90 187.51 196.40 151.41 479.01 351.73 330.45 n/a n/a n/a 17.16 16.92 16.82 4,672.16 5,139.53 5,531.39 5,481.80 5,820.47 6,185.97

137,175 135,114 143,158 148,717

111

108

116

120

0.31

0.32

0.31

9,338.51 9,604.83 10,039.26

Iceland Norway Switzerland Turkey Other Europeans

48 4,006 2,038 780 6,872

Australia Canada Japan Korea New Zealand US Others Grand Total

(18)

The Donor Data Overview contains both OECD and RF data

‘08 ’09 ‘10 8.00 8.32 7.30 39.64 75.40 72.49 129.46 147.37 171.28 61.11 71.09 69.389 382.00 345.48 398.17 194.58 421.34 367.26 6.36 11.26 1.95 113.30 79.58 61.76 29.40 26.97 26.08 35.75 28.80 31.70 496.01 588.70 586.35 7.35 5.10 2.43 348.09 330.48 278.46 325.99 304.76 263.27 1,138.87 832.48 1,009.07 3,317.22 3,277.12 3,346.96 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 269.67

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 209.88

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 197.00

3,586.89 3,487.00 3,543.96 n/a 269.87 0 n/a 269.84

n/a 250.04 47.32 n/a 297.36

n/a 256.58 52.75 n/a 309.33

Annex 4: Donor Data Overview FP (USD millions) ‘08 ’09 ‘10 0 0.05 0.03 0.02 0 0 0.50 0.37 7.34 0 0 0.09 0 0 0.73 17.60 10.98 11.23 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.002 0 0.59 0.07 0.06 5.88 5.00 2.33 0 0 0 1.16 7.08 10.37 0 0 0 0 25.21 49.30 25.84 48.76 81.50

HIV/AIDS (USD millions) ’08 3.09 11.04 25.45 4.77 3.51 87.56 5.86 81.07 9.46 9.18 86.79 0.69 26.74 86.91 959.78 1,401.96

‘09 2.49 16.92 39.64 4.24 19.51 104.30 7.85 53.83 12.44 8.03 91.30 0.69 22.12 83.50 239.53 706.40

Basic Research (USD millions)

’10 ‘08 1.43 0.03 10.81 1.27 49.31 0.09 5.00 0.34 33.98 3.87 89.34 1.92 0 0 37.65 0 5.12 2.16 4.93 1.67 66.11 0 0.42 0.004 9.19 25.44 62.33 1.75 274.70 0 650.51 38.56

RH (USD millions)

Gen Contributions (USD millions)

’09 0.04 4.05 0.45 0.40 8.54 1.77 0 0.09 0.39 1.66 0.77 0 9.61 0.01 44.12 71.89

‘10 0.50 4.92 4.70 075 8.33 0.66 0 1.35 1.41 3.15 0.78 0 5.72 0.55 35.22 67.58

’08 2.66 20.94 14.11 14.11 105.61 57.63 0.42 19.77 13.69 15.54 89.33 3.18 150.30 61.44 0 568.73

‘09 3.15 19.08 22.64 9.16 61.39 94.09 3.33 19.60 12.12 10.22 228.48 2.24 109.12 55.77 321.48 971.87

’10 3.05 23.07 23.89 10.67 111.78 87.67 1.91 16.54 15.15 14.01 225.82 0.93 106.32 55.63 345.13 1,041.57

‘08 ’09 2.61 2.60 6.37 35.35 89.31 84.27 41.90 57.28 270.00 256.04 29.88 210.20 0.08 0.07 12.45 6.04 3.97 2.02 8.77 8.83 314.01 263.18 3.48 2.17 144.44 182.55 175.88 165.47 179.04 202.13 1,282.17 1,478.20 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.16

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0

‘10 2.74 33.68 86.04 52.69 243.36 178.36 0.05 6.19 4.41 9.55 291.31 1.08 146.86 144.75 304.73 1,505.80

Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden UK EU-15

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0

Bulgaria Cyprus Czech Re. Estonia Hungary Latvia Lithuania Malta Poland Romania Slovakia Slovenia EU-12 EU Inst.

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 4.36

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.25

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.47

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 44.47

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 29.93

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 39.92

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 81.04

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 21.46

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 42.17

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 139.67

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 158.24

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 113.43

30.20

49.00

82.98

1.446.36

736.33

690.43 119.60

93.36

109.76

708.40

1,130.11

1,155.00

1,282.33 1,478.20 1,505.80

EU-27 + EU Inst.

n/a 0.53 n/a n/a 0.53

n/a 0.09 0 n/a 0.09

n/a 1.06 0 n/a 1.06

n/a 73.40 n/a n/a 73.40

n/a 58.67 2.57 n/a 61.24

n/a 45.18 2.50 n/a 47.67

n/a n/a 1.00 -0.06 n/a 0.29 n/a n/a 0.99 226.393

n/a 1.78 1.34 n/a 3.12

n/a 44.51 n/a n/a 44.51

n/a 56.776 14.00 n/a 70.77

n/a 57.65 15.63 n/a 73.281

n/a 150.41 n/a n/a 150.41

n/a n/a 134.57 150.92 30.46 33.28 n/a n/a 165.03 184.20

Iceland Norway Switzerland Turkey Other Europeans

0 0.53 6.07 0.57 4.18 3.56 0 0.12 0.07 n/a n/a n/a 0.35 0 0 335.62 477.67 429.61 336.54 482.51 439.32

79.22 69.90 78.45 45.33 47.06 39.48 29.16 16.85 24.47 n/a n/a n/a 3.38 0.95 2.24 4,063.30 4,208.85 4,437.66 4,220.38 4,343.62 4,582.30

8.23 0.44 8.74 n/a 0.01 32.60 50.02

0.83 6.91 0.47 n/a 0.30 13.51 22.01

0.12 1.70 10.50 n/a 0 16.96 29.29

32.53 119.50 87.02 n/a 5.82 222.61 467.470

36.64 120.47 122.36 n/a 7.15 390.99 677.62

62.58 6.91 121.93 n/a 9.27 567.69 768.38

5.97 21.68 354.10 n/a 7.61 18.02 407.39

7.98 8.68 17.78 99.75 211.93 173.48 n/a n/a 8.52 5.31 48.50 79.47 294.71 366.67

Australia Canada Japan Korea New Zealand US Others

367.26 531.61 523.39

5,740.14 5,141.19 5,320.41 170.61

115.60

142.17

1,220.38

1,878.50

1,996.67

1,840.13 1,937.95 2,056.67

Grand Total

Annex 5: Bibliography 1. Council of the European Union (2010), Council Conclusions on the EU role in Global Health. Available: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/114352.pdf [accessed on 13/11/12] 2. Council of the European Union (2012), Council conclusions: Increasing the Impact of EU Development Policy: an Agenda for Change. Available: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/ pressdata/EN/foraff/130243.pdf [accessed on 13/11/12] 3. Council of the European Union (2010), Council Conclusions on the Millennium Development Goals (...) Available: http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/EU_council_conclusions_MDGs_20100614.pdf [accessed on 13/11/12] 4. Donor Tracker (2012). Available: http://www.donortracker.org/donor-profiles/uk 5. European Commission (2011), Annual Report 2011 on the European Unionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s development and external assistance policies and their implementation in 2010. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/multimedia/ publications/documents/annual-reports/annual-report-2011_en.pdf [accessed on 13/11/12] 5. European Commission (2010), Communication on the EU Role in Global Health Available: http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/COMM_PDF_COM_2010_0128_EN.PDF [accessed on 13/11/12] 6.European Commission (2012), EU Accountability Report 2012 on Financing for Development Available: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/development-policies/financing_for_development/ documents/swp-199-main-report.pdf [accessed on 13/11/12] 7. European Commission (2010), MDG Initiative. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/what/milleniumdevelopment-goals/mdg_initiative_en.htm [accessed on 13/11/12] 8. European Parliament, Council, Commission (2006), European Consensus on Development 2005 Available: http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/european_consensus_2005_en.pdf [accessed on 13/11/12] 9. The London Family Planning Summit (2012), Summaries of Commitments. Available: http://www. londonfamilyplanningsummit.co.uk/COMMITMENTS_090712.pdf [accessed on 13/11/12] 10. OECD/DAC Creditor Report System (CRS) Database 11. OECD Development Assistance Committee (2012), Report of Recent Meetings. Available: http:// search.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DCD/DAC/RD(2012)9/ RD1&docLanguage=En [accessed on 13/11/12] 12. Particip GmbH (2012), Thematic evaluation of the European Commission support to the health sector Available: http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/how/evaluation/evaluation_reports/2012/1308_docs_en.htm [accessed on 13/11/12] 13. UNFPA/NIDI Resource Flows Project Database 78

dsw-online.org

epfweb.org

nidi.knaw.nl/en/

countdown2015europe.org