1 Acknowledgements

Deutsche Stiftung Weltbevölkerung (DSW) and the European Parliamentary Forum Layout and Design: on Population & Development (EPF) would like to thank the following researchers, [email protected] writers and partners for their valuable contributions: Hon. Heidi Hautala (Member of the European Parliament), Elena Zacharenko (consultant), OECD, Countdown 2030 Print: Europe, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and the Secretariats of FP2020, Every Woman Drukkerij Bulckens Every Child, the Ouagadougou Partnership and the Government of Canada (for the Muskoka initiative). Printed in November 2016 © 2016 DSW and EPF

Deutsche Stiftung European Parliamentary Forum Weltbevölkerung (DSW) on Population and Development (EPF) [email protected] [email protected] www.dsw.org www.epfweb.org Abbreviations

ACP African, Caribbean and Pacific MNCH Maternal, Newborn and Child Health AUD Australian Dollar MS Member States of the European Union CAD Canadian Dollar NIDI Netherlands Interdisciplinary CRS Creditor Reporting System Demographic Institute CSO Civil Society Organisation ODA Official Development Assistance DAC Development Assistance Committee OCTs Overseas Countries and Territories DSW Deutsche Stiftung Weltbevölkerung OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation EC European Commission and Development EDF European Development Fund PMNCH Partnership for Maternal, Newborn EEAS European External Action Service and Child Health EP European Parliament RH Reproductive Health EPF European Parliamentary Forum RMNCH Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn on Population and Development and Child Health EU European Union RMNCAH Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn, EUR Euros Adolescent and Child Health EWEC Every Woman Every Child SDGs Sustainable Development Goals FP Family Planning SEK Swedish Krona GAVI Global Alliance for Vaccines SRH Sexual and Reproductive Health and Immunisation SRHR Sexual and Reproductive Health GBP British Pound and Rights GFF Global Financial Facility STD Sexually Transmitted Diseases GNI Gross National Income TB Tuberculosis HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection UK United Kingdom and Acquired Immune Deficiency UN United Nations Syndrome UNFPA United Nations Population Fund JPY Japanese Yen UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund KFF Kaiser Family Foundation US United States of America MDGs Millennium Development Goals USD United States Dollars MMR Maternal Mortality Rate

3 Table of Contents

Acknowledgements 2 3. RMNCAH and FP from 2011 to 2014 21 Abbreviations 3 Why RMNCAH and FP? 22 Table of Contents 4 Existing Initiatives on RMNCAH and FP 23 Preface 5 How Donors Report 28 Introduction 7 The RMNCH Marker 29 1. Executive Summary 9 Methodology 30 Main Findings on ODA, RMNCH Why Commitments? 31 and FP Commitments 10 Donor Contributions to RMNCH and FP 32 Main Findings on Pledges 4. Donor Profiles 39 to International Initiatives 12 How Do The Donor Profiles Work? 40 2. ODA from 2011 to 2014 13 Donor Profiles 41 Official Development Assistance 14 Overview of Pledges to International Initiatives: 0.7 Per Cent Target 15 Are Donors Fulfilling? 70 The European Union 18 Annex 1: Footnotes on Donor Reporting 72 Annex 2: Methodology 75 Annex 3: Donor Data Overview 76 Annex 4: Definitions 78

4 Preface

he Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) delivered undeni- able progress in several areas of international development. However, it is clear that a number of their objectives remain to T be achieved. Of all MDGs, none remained as far from fulfilment as MDG 5 – improve maternal health. While 2015 figures showed that the maternal mortality rate (MMR) has decreased by 44% since 1990, this still falls far short of the aimed for target of a 75% reduction.

In the wake of the launch of the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), taking stock of the achievements and results of global efforts for sustainable development is particularly crucial. As a member of the High Level Panel on the future of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), I am convinced of the crucial importance of ensuring the transparency and accountability of donors’ development assistance to guarantee the effectiveness of development.

Realising the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development will require the mobilisation and effective use of all types of development resources in order to bring about tangible results in the key areas of reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescents’ health (RMNCAH). We also need to ensure that commitments made at the political level will be implemented. orgovnik

5 Jonathan T Jonathan Preface

The existence of tools such as Euromapping is therefore essential. Not By tracking DAC donors’ political and financial commitments to this area, only to demonstrate the current trends in Official Development Aid Euromapping contributes to ensuring that the funding for healthcare (ODA) provision, but also to keep donors to account to their pledges. at crucial points in individuals’ lives continues to flow in a transparent ODA can and should play a crucial role in delivering on the 2030 Agenda and accountable manner. This is, now more than ever, a prerequisite to for Sustainable Development, in particular in low-income countries and achieving sustainable development. in fighting extreme poverty and inequality. ODA should focus on the most neglected and support those sectors that tend to be ignored and rely on out-of-pocket expenditures.

It is fundamental that ODA respects the principles of effective devel- opment cooperation: country ownership and democratic principles, transparency and accountability, focus on results, inclusiveness and aid conditions derived from partner countries’ own development policies. Respecting these criteria is particularly important at a time when the EU and its Member States – together the largest providers of ODA globally – are attaching conditions to aid provision based on partner countries’ cooperation on migration issues.

Heidi Hautala Member of the European Parliament Co-Chair of the European Parliament Working Group on Reproductive Health, HIV/AIDS and Development

6 Introduction

or its 2016 edition, Euromapping focuses on tracking ODA funding from donor governments for RMNCAH and FP. The development community has moved from the MDGs to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Develop- F ment and the SDGs. RMNCAH and FP face an important challenge: they, together, are key to achieving sustainable development and ensuring that all human beings can fulfil their potential in a dignified and equal way; however, they also represent the most off-track of the MDG targets. Aside from the SDG process, tracking RMNCAH and FP is crucial for assessing progress under the agendas of the International Confer- ence on Population and Development (ICPD) Program of Action (Cairo, 1994) and Beijing Platform for Action (Beijing, 1995); both of these processes are essential to the success of the 2030 Agenda.

Euromapping 2016 bridges the data gap between the data represented in the most recent Euromapping report (covering 2012-2013), and the most recent year for which official OECD data is available, 2014. It reviews the data between 2011 and 2014, analysing the trends affecting funding for RMNCAH and FP. The purpose of Euromapping 2016, in setting out this analysis, is to become an important advocacy tool to hold donors to account on their funding commitments.

It is clear that, to reach the SDGs, a multi-stakeholder approach will be crucial. Development partners – donors and civil society – will have to work together at all levels to ensure progress on the goals. Given that RMNCAH and FP are important in achieving many of the SDGs’ targets, they ought to be high on all partners’ agenda. orgovnik

7 Jonathan T Jonathan Introduction

Worrying trends have however been observed in donor behaviour in Donors, civil society, and other development actors must step up and recent years. European donors in particular have resorted to channelling work together in defence of RMNCAH and FP, at the frontline of the development funding towards in-country spending focused on the global development agenda. By measuring the results in this report, we asylum crisis, accommodating refugees and asylum seekers. While there continue to hold them to account. is a clear and justifiable need for investing in this area, this should not be done at the expense of ODA spending in third countries. ODA is one of the few concrete tools to deliver real solutions towards the world’s most vulnerable, yet capable, populations, including women and girls.

At the same time, the very recent political developments in the United States (US) pose a threat. It is very likely that the incoming US administration, the individual leading donor in ODA, RMNCAH, and FP, will follow the pattern of previous Republican administrations, one that is hostile towards Sexual and Reproductive Health (SRH) in general, and which will withdraw financial and political support for RMNCAH and FP in US development policies.

It is, therefore, even more important that other OECD DAC donors, par- Renate Baehr Neil Datta ticularly in Europe, increase their commitments; it is a matter of significant Executive Director Secretary urgency. The right to health, including RMNCAH and FP, is a sinequanon Deutsche Stiftung European Parliamentary Forum condition for human and sustainable development. The international com- Weltbevölkerung on Population and Development munity has recognised this time and again, and now it must deliver. (DSW) (EPF)

8 1. Executive Summary

9 Main Findings on ODA, RMNCH and FP Commitments

The US was the leading global donor for ODA, RMNCH, and 1 FP aggregate commitments between 2011 and 2014. During this period, RMNCH and FP represented 15.9% and 2.69% of US ODA respectively, the highest of all donor countries reviewed.

The United Kingdom (UK) emerged as a champion donor: 2 ODA, RMNCH, and FP commitments from the UK rose consistently in the period under review. In 2014 RMNCH and FP commitments had quadrupled as a share of the UK’s ODA, compared to four years earlier. Consequently, the UK is also on track to deliver on its ambitious funding pledges under international initiatives (Muskoka Initiative, FP2020).

Combined European ODA aggregate commitments (the EU 3 Institutions, Member States, Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland) represented more than 60% of total ODA during the examined period. However, combined European RMNCH and FP commitments represented only approximately 40% of total donors’ RMNCH and FP commitments.

More effort is possible and needed in order to secure a higher 4 share of European ODA for RMNCH and FP. orgovnik

10 Jonathan T Jonathan Funding from six countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, the 5 Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden) was consistent, with these countries ranking high in both overall RMNCH and FP commitments, as well as in commitments as a percentage of overall ODA.

The high relative positions of the above six donors, along 6 with the US and the UK, does not rely exclusively on the size of their economies. The proportion of RMNCH and FP commitments compared to total ODA spending reflect the fact that these issues are priorities in these countries’ respective development cooperation policies (please refer to country profiles, in chapter 4).

There are four donors (the EU Institutions, France, Germany, 7 and Japan) that demonstrate the opposite; they rank very high in total ODA, RMNCH, and FP commitments in total spent, but significantly lower as a percentage of their total ODA commitments.

Luxembourg, Ireland, and Iceland have smaller economies 8 relative to other donors reviewed, and consequently smaller ODA, RMNCH and FP commitments. However, these countries spend a relatively high proportion of their ODA on RMNCH and FP.

11 Main Findings on Pledges to International Initiatives

Pledges to international initiatives have contributed to overall in- 1 creased funding commitments from donors to RMNCH and FP; but this is not a pre-condition for investments, as several donors contribute significant funds to these sectors, without having committed to any initiative.

The majority of donors who have pledged to more than one initiative 2 have reported the same amount under the different frameworks.

A number of donors made important pledges to the Muskoka Initia- 3 tive, FP2020, and the Global Strategy for Women’s and Children’s Health. Overall, as of the latest available data (2014), donors were on track to deliver on their pledges. There is however a lack of available information and transparency about the different types of donor reporting used.

Following the launch of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Develop- 4 ment, a number of donors (11 out of 29) have confirmed their sup- port (political and/or financial) for the renewed Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ Health. These commitments raise the prospect that investments in RMNCH and FP will not be diluted as part of the 17 SDGs.

12 2. ODA from 2011 to 2014 OECD DAC first used the term ODA in 1969. Since then it has been used as the key global measure for both aid targets and performance. ODA can be measured in the form of commitments (budget appropriations that are planned) or disbursements (funds already allocated to specific beneficiaries or projects).

13 Official Development Assistance

Figure 1 shows total volumes of ODA commitments by major donors During the period covered by this report, total ODA commitments have from 2006 to 2014. increased by 10.85% in 2014 (to 185 billion USD), compared to 2011 (166.9 billion USD). In the same period, commitments by DAC EU Member States FIGURE 1: Source: (MS) and the EU Institutions rose to 103.69 billion USD, 9.88% more than ODA VOLUME 2006 2014 OECD Stats, Total ows by donor in 2011. It was only in 2014 that the EU (MS and Institutions) offset (Commitments in billion USD - constant prices) 200 185.06 the impact of the financial crisis in its development aid budgets: 175 2014 was the first time when combined EU ODA commitments (103.69 150 182.23 billion USD) surpassed their 2006 level (102.70 billion USD). The 29 125 DAC donors dominate, while commitments by non-DAC donors 103.69 100 represent a tiny share, usually less than10 billion USD per year. Only in 125 2010 did they reach 16.10 billion USD. 50 25 There are five leading bilateral donors in terms of ODA volume: the 0 US, Germany, Japan, France and the UK. Amongst these, only the UK ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12 ‘13 ‘14 achieved the long-pledged commitment to allocate 0.7% of Gross All Donors, Total DAC Donors, Total DAC EU + EU Institutions National Income (GNI) to ODA. The other major donors have yet to meet All donors: Includes non-OECD-DAC donors this target, similarly to all DAC donor countries on average, spending DAC Donors: 29 members (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, EU Institutions, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, 0.3% GNI on ODA in 2014, down from 0.31% in 2011. Only the following Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, US). European countries consistently meet the 0.7% target: Denmark, DAC EU + EU Institutions: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Luxembourg, Norway and Sweden. Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and EU Institutions. Non DAC donors: Estonia, Kuwait, Romania, United Arab Emirates and others.

14 FIGURE 2: 0.7 Per Cent Target FIGURE 2: ODA EFFORTS 20112014 1 ODA EFFORTS 20102014 1 (As percentage of GNI) (As percentage of GNI) Having been first agreed in 1970, the 0.7 per cent 1.2 1.2 DAC Countries target refers to the percentage of GNI donor countries DAC Countries Japan Japan 1.1 1.1 US individually commit to ODA in order to foster global US Germany Germany 1.0 development. Since its inception, this target1.0 has been France France restated in several international agreements over the 0.9 UK 0.9 UK Netherlands years, the latest of which was in Addis Ababa, on the Netherlands 0.8 Denmark occasion of the Third International Conference0.8 on Denmark Luxembourg Luxembourg 0.7 Norway Financing for Development in 2015. The Addis0.7 Ababa Norway Sweden Action Agenda brought renewed commitment to the Sweden 0.6 0.6 United Nations 0.7 per cent, extended to the timeframe 0.5 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development0.5 .

0.4 0.4 The EU and its Member States also agreed to extend 0.3 the timeframe for their collective contribution0.3 to 0.2 2030, making them the only group of countries,0.2 plus Norway, that have ongoing collective targets to in- 0.1 0.1 crease ODA. 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Not all OECD DAC donors have committed to achieving the target within a certain timeframe, including the US, (1) OECD (2016), Net ODA (indicator). doi: 10.1787/33346549-en (Accessed on 22 August 2016) https://data.oecd.org/oda/net-oda.htm#indicator-chart Canada and Japan.

15 FIGURE 3: 29 DAC DONORS' COMMITMENTS 20112014 Source: OECD DAC (Commitments in billion USD - constant prices)

150

135 133.27 Between 2011 and 2014, the US remain the 5 largest overall ODA donor, followed by the 120 4 EU Institutions, Germany, Japan, and France. 3.39 Germany and the UK have significantly and 105 3 constantly increased their ODA flows between 2.40 2.25 90.35 2.04 90 2012 and 2014, as have eight other countries, 2 1.71 82.82 including Italy, Switzerland, Norway, Belgium, 1.24 75.95 75 and Denmark. Seven of the top ten ODA 1 0.92 18.54 donors are European. 0.34 0.26 0.13 60 58.62 0

. al p. g ece 43.70 e 45 Ireland Poland Gr ch Rep Iceland Portu e Slovenia ovak Re Cz Sl uxembourg New Zealand L 30 24.97 20.70 19.91 18.83 18.21 16.48 16.26 15 12.10 11.21 10.96 10.01 6.66 5.10 3.39 2.40 2.25 2.04 1.71 1.24 0.92 0.34 0.26 0.13 Focus 0

y e l al p. US EU da ns UK g Ita ands Japan ranc Spain Korea F Austria Ireland Poland Greece Norway Cana Finland ch Rep. Iceland Sweden Australia Belgium Portu e Slovenia Germany Denmark ovak Re Cz Switzerland Sl Institutio Netherl uxembourg New Zealand L

16 FIGURE 3: 29 DAC DONORS' COMMITMENTS 20112014 Source: OECD DAC (Commitments in billion USD - constant prices)

150

135 133.27 5 European donors 120 4 make up 23 out 3.39 105 3 of 29 members 2.40 2.25 90.35 “ 2.04 90 2 of the OECD-DAC. Poland, 1.71 82.82 1.24 75.95 75 Slovenia, and Iceland 1 0.92 18.54 0.34 are the newest members.” 0.26 0.13 60 58.62 0

. al p. g ece 43.70 e 45 Ireland Poland Gr ch Rep Iceland Portu e Slovenia ovak Re Cz Sl uxembourg New Zealand L 30 24.97 20.70 19.91 18.83 18.21 16.48 16.26 15 12.10 11.21 10.96 10.01 6.66 5.10 3.39 2.40 2.25 2.04 1.71 1.24 0.92 0.34 0.26 0.13 Focus 0 y e l al p. US EU da ns UK g Ita ands Japan ranc Spain Korea F Austria Ireland Poland Greece Norway Cana Finland ch Rep. Iceland Sweden Australia Belgium Portu e Slovenia Germany Denmark ovak Re Cz Switzerland Sl Institutio Netherl uxembourg New Zealand L

17 FIGURE 4: NATIONAL ODA Source: OECD (2016), Net ODA (indicator). doi: The European Union 10.1787/33346549-en (Accessed on 22 August 2016) AS PERCENTAGE OF GNI 2014 https://data.oecd.org/oda/net-oda.htm#indicator-chart Compared to 2013: ≥0.7% >0.5% >0.3% ≤0.3% The EU is an economic and political partnership between 28 European countries called Member States (MS) and it 0.22% 0.59% is the only multilateral OECD DAC donor, having joined in 1961. 1%

1.09% The European Commission (EC) acts as the EU’s quasi- executive branch, proposing legislation and implementing

0.38% policies and programmes. The EC works together with 0.86% the European External Action Service (EEAS) to identify development strategies, priorities and funding allocations.

0.64% 0.46% It is also through the EEAS that the EU is represented in 139 0.42% 0.7% 0.09% partner countries worldwide. Legislative competencies are shared between the Council of the EU, which brings 1.06% 0.11% together EU government representatives, and the European 0.37% 0.51% 0.09% 0.28% Parliament, which is directly elected by EU citizens. 0.13% 0.19% 0.19% 0.13% There are two distinct types of development assistance from the EU Institutions and its MS: the national development assistance controlled, funded and administrated by each EU Member State individually; 0.11% and the development assistance administered by the EC.

18 FIGURE 5: EUROPE’S SHARE Source: OECD DAC and OF ODA COMMITMENTS 20112014 Ministries of Foreign Aairs EU development assistance is funded either via the EU’s (Commitments as percentage) Non-DAC Donors DAC EU Member States own budget (which is in turn funded by MS), or the 2.16% 43.17% European Development Fund (EDF), which exists outside the general EU budget and serves only African, Caribbean Other DAC Donors**

and Pacific (ACP) countries and overseas countries and 17.76%

E R

territories (OCTs). These funds can be allocated bilaterally A

TOTAL ODA H

S

706,181.45 S or through international and multilateral organisations. ’ million USD E US P O 18.87% R U E

The EU’s strategic priorities for development are set in the

European Consensus on Development, agreed in 2005.

The Consensus has identified several different objectives Other European in line with the MDGs, including human development, DAC Donors* EU Institutions 5.25% which includes health. 12.79%

*Other European DAC Donors include Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. **Other DAC Donors include Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea, and New Zealand.

European donors (EU and Non-EU) provided the majority of overall ODA commitments between 2011 and 2014. More than 6 out of every 10 dollars committed (61.21%) came from Europe. The US contributed 18.87% of overall ODA commitments during the same period.

19 More than half (56%) of the total ODA “commitments in 2014 came from the EU. The US remained the largest single donor in 2014, with total commitments of almost 34 billion USD.” orgovnik

20 Jonathan T Jonathan 3. RMNCAH and FP from 2011 to 2014

21 Why RMNCAH and FP?

Reproductive, maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health (RMNCAH) child mortality – reproductive and maternal health is also closely linked relates to a person’s health at key points in their life. The health of an ado- to other goals: gender equality and the empowerment of women (MDG lescent girl impacts pregnancy while the health of a pregnant woman 3), education (MDG 2) and consequently the fight against poverty and impacts the health of the newborn and the child. Furthermore, there is hunger (MDG 1). a well-established link between maternal and child survival and the use of modern FP methods. Access to accurate information and safe, effec- With the conclusion of the MDG process in 2015 and the launch of the tive, affordable and acceptable FP methods is a prerequisite for attaining SDGs for the period 2015 to 2030, global support for improving RMN- sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR). SRHR is understood CAH remains crucial as this will accelerate progress towards several as a state of and the rights to complete physical, mental and social well- SDGs. Indeed, empowering people especially women and adolescents being in all matters relating to the reproductive system and sexual life. take informed decisions on pregnancies and ensuring that they access RMNCAH, FP and SRHR are therefore closely linked, as investing in one quality care for themselves and their newborn and children has a posi- will benefit the others. tive impact on, not only SDGs related to health and gender, but poten- tially all SDGs.(3) Donors and development partners have renewed their MDG 5 (improve maternal health, and its respective targets, including pledges through a number of initiatives in order to accelerate efforts to universal access to reproductive health, RH) was the one goal of the improve the health and overall well-being of women and children. MDG process which was furthest from being achieved at the end of the MDG process in 2015. Despite global efforts in recent years, the unmet need for modern contraception in low and middle income countries re- mains high: an estimated 225 million women in 2014 would like to delay (2) (2) Guttmacher Institute (2014). Adding It Up: Costs and Benefits of Investing in or avoid pregnancy but are not using any method of contraception. In Sexual and Reproductive Health Services addition to being a prerequisite for the attainment of MDG 4 – reduce (3) UNFPA 2016 State of the World Population Report: http://www.unfpa.org/swop

22 Existing Initiatives on RMNCAH and FP

The initiatives supporting RMNCAH and FP described below have com- plimentary priorities and approaches. The initiatives work in partnership to achieve their objectives.

Financial commitments made by donor countries to individual initia- tives are often part of a wider pledge made to RMNCAH and FP and can be reported several times under dif- ferent headings. orgovnik

23 Jonathan T Jonathan Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ Health/ Every Woman Every Child

Scope, priorities and approaches: Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health (RMNCAH). Priorities: voluntary FP, treatment and prevention of diseases, women’s empowerment, education, nutrition, water, sanitation and hygiene. Approaches: strengthening health care systems, improving the quality of health services and equity in their coverage, working with health-enhancing sectors.

DAC donor partners: Australia, Background and objectives: Launched by the UN Secretary General in 2010, the Global Canada, Denmark, Finland, Strategy for Women’s and Children’s Health aims to mobilise international and national France, Germany, Japan, Korea, action by governments, multilaterals, the private sector and civil society to address the the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, major health challenges facing women, children and adolescents. At the same time, the UK, US. Every Woman Every Child (EWEC) movement was launched as a platform for stakeholders to interact and hold each other accountable to their commitments to implement the Global Strategy. By May 2014, nearly 60 billion USD had been committed to advance this Timeline: 2010-2015, agenda, with almost 34 billion USD already disbursed. In 2015, the Global Strategy was renewed for 2016-2030. relaunched for 2016-2030 with a new call for commitments and with a stronger focus on adolescents’ health (now included in the title). By September 2015, 25 billion USD in initial Vision: commitments were made, including contributions from the US (3.3 billion USD), Canada (2.6 billion USD), Sweden (2.5 billion USD), Germany (1.3 billion USD), Norway (430 million To end all preventable USD), the Netherlands (317 million USD) and Korea (300 million USD).(4) maternal, newborn and child “ deaths, including stillbirths, and Assessment methodology: Assessed using different methodologies including the improving the overall health and one developed for the Muskoka Initiative based on OECD Data (as in the annual wellbeing of these groups by 2030. PMNCH Report).(5)

24 The Muskoka Initiative

Scope, priorities and approaches: Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (MNCH). Priorities: prenatal care, attended childbirth, postpartum care, sexual and reproductive healthcare and services, voluntary FP, health education, treatment and prevention of diseases, prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV, immunisation, basic nutrition. Approaches: strengthening health care systems, supporting DAC donor partners: Canada, nutrition, reducing the burden of disease through vaccinations. European Commission, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Background and objectives: Under Canada’s leadership, G8 New Zealand, Norway, Korea, Spain countries were to mobilise an additional 5 billion USD of funding Switzerland, UK, US, the Bill & Melinda between 2010 and 2015 towards MNCH, on top of the 4.1 billion USD Gates Foundation and UN Foundation they were already contributing annually. An additional 2.3 billion USD was pledged by the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Korea, Spain, Switzerland, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and UN Foundation, Timeline: 2010-2015. resulting in a total of 7.3 billion USD in new and additional funding towards MNCH. Vision: Assessment methodology: The Muskoka Initiative relies on custom- To close the existing designed methodology based on data within the OECD’s Creditor gaps in funding Reporting System. It applies percentages to funding reported under “ for maternal, newborn, certain purpose codes or to selected multilateral organisations. The and child health percentages applied vary depending on the intended target group of in developing countries. the activity (for more information see page 75).

25 FP2020

Scope, priorities and approaches: Family Planning (FP). Priorities: voluntary, rights-based FP, youth. Approaches: country support, data and performance management, global advocacy.

Background and objectives: In 2012, on the occasion of the London Summit on Family Planning, the UK government and the DAC donor partners: Australia, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, in partnership with the UNFPA and Denmark, European Commission, USAID, called on stakeholders to mobilise additional resources to France, Germany, Japan, address the policy, financing, delivery, and socio-cultural barriers to the Netherlands, Norway, women accessing contraceptive information, services and supplies. Korea, Sweden, UK, US. The goals of FP2020 are aligned with those of EWEC, and FP has been the subject of the largest number of commitments to EWEC.(6) At the 2012 London Family Planning Summit, donors Timeline: 2013-2020. commited to an additional 2.6 billion USD in funding towards FP. Support for the initiative has continued to grow, with the number Vision: of countries, civil society and private sector donors, expanding from 20 in 2012 to over 90 in 2016. To allow 120 million additional women to use Assessment methodology: Assessed by the FP2020 Performance “ contraceptives by 2020. Monitoring and Accountability Working Group by using data from the Track20(7) project. The project works with governments in participating FP2020 countries to collect and analyse data to monitor annual progress on FP.

26 The Ouagadougou Partnership

Scope, priorities and approaches: Family Planning (FP). Priorities: meeting FP demand and enhancing access. Approaches: partnerships, providing an enabling environment, collaboration and coordination between donors, implementation, tracking, sharing.

Background and objectives: Launched at the 2011 Conference on Population, DAC donor partners: Development and Family Planning in Burkina Faso, the partnership aims to tackle France, US. the issues limiting the use of voluntary FP methods by women. This is to be achieved through better donor coordination and high-level government commitments in partnership countries. France has committed 100 million EUR over 2011-2015 to Timeline: 2011-2015, the partnership. The founding donors agreed to renew the initiative in 2015 with renewed for 2016-2020. revised goals.

Vision: Assessment methodology: Data from the Track20(8) project supplemented by qualitative data on national plan implementation. To reach at least 2.2 million new family planning users in Benin, Burkina “ (4) Spotlight: FP2020 and EWEC, http://progress.familyplanning2020.org/page/progress-on- Faso, Guinea, Ivory Coast, commitments/spotlight-fp2020-and-every-woman-every-child Mauritania, Mali, Niger, (5) http://www.who.int/pmnch/activities/accountability/reports/en/ (6) EWEC press release: UN Secretary-General Announces $25 Billion in Initial Commitments to End Senegal, Togo by 2020. Preventable Deaths of Women, Children and Adolescents by 2030, 25 September 2015, http://www. everywomaneverychild.org/news-events/news/1141-un-secretary-general-announces-25-billion- in-initial-commitments-to-end-preventable-deaths-of-women-children-and-adolescents-by-2030 (7) (8) http://www.track20.org/

27 How Donors Report

Established in 1961, the OECD DAC is a forum that brings donors to- The OECD systematises the detailed information and statistics, sent by gether with the aim of promoting sustainable development. In order donors on individual projects through purpose codes per sector of des- to do so, the Committee provides guidance on development coop- tination of a contribution. Those codes that reflect donors’ contribution eration policies, promotes good practices and develops recommenda- to a certain sector are then publicly available online at the Creditor Re- tions and standards for policies and funding. As part of the monitoring porting System (CRS). In addition to individual projects, donors also self- of development finance, DAC members are requested to submit annual report on their respective core contributions to the multilateral system. ODA statistics related to their development projects and programmes. As part of the DAC guidelines for reporting, OECD DAC suggests the FIGURE 6: identification of policy markers. The policy markers are specific codes OECD DATA CYCLE FOR DEVELOPMENT FINANCE STATISTICS which, if taken together, track, in a harmonised and comparable way, do-

Online database update: Donors’ preliminary nor performance in certain areas. Gender equality marker is such a mark- Publication of nal data J ODA aggregate data: r an er example that DAC donors widely use. Policy data marker are mainly be ua high level information r em y c - descriptive measures - not quantitative - hence they do not reflect ad- e A D p r i ditional spending to what is already recorded per sector under CRS. l

Annual monitoring of development finance measures donors efforts and informs decision-making. The OECD and the development community have questions about whether existing methods of categorisation (like e J n Donors’ complete u u l J the CRS codes) can properly assess overall contributions beyond their and detailed ODA data: y - - N y information on individual o a specific sectorial silos. It is for this reason that development community aid activity that informs vem M Online database the CRS ber update partners have developed different trackers to cover different sectors.

28 The RMNCH Marker

Existing RMNCAH-related tracking methodologies assess either flows In 2014, the OECD introduced a new to beneficiary organisations or countries (such as Track20)(9) or donors’ policy marker dedicated to RMNCH. Fol- contributions. The first methodology to track donor support to MNCH lowing the G8 Muskoka commitment, was developed by the G8 health working group for the G8 Muskoka and understanding that activities across Summit in 2010. Other RMNCH-relevant initiatives include those ad- different sectors beyond health can be vanced by Countdown 2030 Europe, a consortium that collects financial targeted to RMNCH, the OECD developed data from its members’ governments for RH and FP; the Kaiser Family reporting guidelines to be implemented Foundation (KFF), who collects government assistance for FP, and NIDI as of 2014. According to these guidelines, UNFPA Resource Flows data, which tracked resources flows for popula- all projects recorded under the Popula- tion activities. tion policies/programmes and reproduc- tive health sector (CRS code 130) should While all these different tracking exercises focus on disbursements, this be considered as at least contributing to publication aims at capturing donors’ commitments with the objective RMNCH. Few donors have used the mark- of complementing existing methodologies. er to date.

(9) As referred in p. 26 under FP2020

29 Methodology

The quantitative analysis of Euromapping 2016 is based included in the G8 Muskoka Accountability reports.(12) on the Muskoka methodology.(10) The G8 Health Work- Other donors have chosen to internally report in line with ing Group introduced this methodology to follow up on this approach, even if no pledge has been made. This is pledges made to MNCH in 2010. however not the case for all OECD DAC donors. In this edition of Euromapping, we applied the Muskoka meth- The Muskoka methodology stipulates certain percent- odology to all the OECD DAC donors’ commitments, as ages for donors’ multilateral and bilateral contributions to reported to the OECD CRS. It is hence important to read sector codes relevant for MNCH. These percentages were the following tables as a hypothetical exercise, i.e. the calculated based on the population segment (women outcomes are as if the donors were to report on their of reproductive age and/or children under five) targeted commitments based on the Muskoka methodology. by an activity. Given the importance of the reproductive system for maternal health, the Muskoka methodology, Similarly, the section of the donor profiles on FP are originally used to target MNCH, soon enlarged in scope based on the subset of Muskoka methodology defined to cover reproductive health (RMNCH).(11) during the London Family Planning Summit in 2012. This There are currently no criteria to track funding for adoles- is a revised Muskoka methodology, based on the same cent’s health, which is why from now on this publication principle but with different imputed percentages, as uses ‘RMNCH’ instead of ‘RMNCAH’. these assess contribution to FP only.

To track their efforts, G8 members have been reporting However, the measured flow type is different: while the funding towards MNCH by using the Muskoka method- Muskoka methodology suggests using disbursements, ology applied to respective disbursements. This is later this publication analyses commitments. A commitment

30 Why Commitments? is a firm written obligation by a government or In order to eliminate possible errors resulting from fluctuations, annual official agency, backed by the appropriation or reports and tracking are usually done based on disbursements. Euro- availability of necessary funds, to provide resources mapping 2016 will however analyse commitments for the following reasons: to the benefit of a recipient. A disbursement is the actual placement of resources at the disposal of (i) This publication provides an overview of aggregated data over four years, a recipient (for more information, please refer to instead of an annual reading, in order to bridge and cover the financial data the glossary). There are often fluctuations between period since the previous edition. By using aggregate data for a longer commitments and disbursements. For instance, a period (from 2011 until the latest available from 2014), the publication aims government might commit to a single project at a to minimise the above-mentioned challenge of yearly fluctuations, while certain moment and actually disburse resources over capturing the political willingness of donors to support RMNCH and FP in the several years. medium-term. This publication’s focus therefore shifts from a quick ‘snapshot’ that would be a report based on an annual performance, towards capturing a bigger picture of the aggregate commitments during a four-year period. (10) http://www.g8.utoronto.ca/summit/2010muskoka/meth- odology.html (ii) Euromapping 2016 aims at informing advocates, and at complementing (11) As reflected in the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn & Child Health (PMNCH) annual Accountability report, which other tracking exercises that review disbursements, by providing an overview traces efforts in line with the Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ Health. Because the renewed of existing pledges and commitments. We believe that this complimentary strategy now includes enhanced attention over adolescent information on reported commitments will be particularly useful to further health, stakeholders, such as PMNCH, have been asking for the development of new and updated criteria to track commit- outline donors’ political commitments to fund and support RMNCH and FP as ments to adolescent’s health part of their development cooperation obligations. (12) As an example, http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/ summit/2010/pdfs/accountability.pdf

31 Donor Contributions FIGURE 7: AGGREGATE RMNCH COMMITMENTS to RMNCH and FP 2011 2014 Source: OECD DAC (In million USD constant prices) The total volume of RMNCH commitments from 25,000 the 29 DAC donors for the period 2011-2014 was 46.55 billion USD. The US was by far the leading

donor in RMNCH, with aggregate commitments 21,187.80 of 21.19 billion USD during those four years. That is 20,000 more than four times the commitments of the UK, which was the second largest donor (4.96 billion

USD), and significantly more than the combined 5,000 4,956.14 RMNCH commitments of the 19 DAC EU MS and

the EU Institutions, which together committed a 4,000 total 17.18 billion USD during the same period.

3,000 2,495.87 2,171.93 2,075.41 1,930.23

2,000 1,842.23 1,840.01 The US was by far 1,773.49 1,391.42 1,159.79 the leading donor. Its 1,000 614.82 568.78 516.18 479.61 295.12 287.46 249.25 275.62

commitments are more 158.97 134.07 90.14 “ 0 31.33 7.91 7.47 4.24 3.56 2.59 0.46 . than four times the s e y l al p. US UK da g Ita ece Inst e Japan ranc Korea Spain F Ireland Austria Gr Poland Cana Norway EU Finland ch Rep. Iceland commitments of the UK. Australia Sweden Belgium Portu e Slovenia Germany Denmark ovak Re Cz Switzerland Sl Netherland uxembourg L New Zealand

32 FIGURE 8: RMNCH COMMITMENTS AS % OF ODA COMMITMENTS 20112014 Source: OECD DAC (In percentages) However, when we analyse what those commit- Slovak Rep. 0.26% ments represent in the total ODA commitments Poland 0.30% Greece 0.34% of each country, the picture changes dramatically. Slovenia 0.72% Czech Rep. 0.86% Leading donors, like France, Germany, Japan, and Portugal 1.3% the EU Institutions, move to the lower half of the Italy 1.51% EU Inst. 1.96% ranking, respectively to 18th, 19th, 20th and 22nd Spain 2.44% Japan 2.73% positions. The US, Canada, the UK, Norway, Australia, Germany 3.01% France 3.14% and the Netherlands score equally high compared Switzerland 3.5% with the previous ranking on aggregate RMNCH New Zealand 4.01% Finland 4.14% Commitments (figure 7) and remain in the top-10 of Austria 4.18% Belgium 4.38% donors that commit a large share of their ODA pie Korea 5.15% Denmark 5.48% to RMNCH. Iceland 5.71% Sweden 5.83% Netherlands 7.38% Australia 7.64% Remarkably, Ireland Luxembourg 7.83% Ireland 8.47% Norway 9.33% (5th), Luxembourg (6th), UK 11.34% Canada 11.53% and Iceland (10th) score US 15.90% “ 02%4%6%8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% very high and emerge as champion RMNCH donors.

33 A similar pattern of RMNCH commitments is observed FIGURE 9: when assessing FP aggregate commitments between AGGREGATE FP COMMITMENTS 2011 2014 Source: OECD DAC 2011 and 2014. The US committed more than half (3.59 (In million USD) billion USD) of the total amount of commitments (6.94 4,000 billion USD) to FP. The combined commitments of

the EU Institutions and MS amounted to 2.51 billion 3,588.54 USD to FP during the same period. If we look into the ten leading FP donors, those are the same as the ten largest donors in RMNCH commitments. However, 1,500 European donors score better in FP commitments. The

US leads again in the ranking, but the following four 953.23 donors all come from the EU (the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, France), while in RMNCH commitments 500 only two EU donors (the UK and Germany) made it to

the top-5. 362.33 249.96 240.09

250 232.80 221.64 202.24 176.62 151.27 The European 146.08 93.10 67.53 60.24 55.20 50.54 35.47 30.65 23.25 21.33

donors score better 16.51 12.69 0.80 0.74 0.08 0 4.03 1.12 0.56 0.38

. in FP commitments than s e y l al p. US UK da g Ita ece Inst e “ ranc Japan Korea Spain F Ireland Austria Gr Poland EU Norway Cana Finland ch Rep. Iceland in RMNCH commitments. Australia Sweden Belgium Portu e Slovenia Germany Denmark ovak Re Cz Switzerland Sl Netherland uxembourg L New Zealand

34 FIGURE 10: When assessing what the volume of FP com- FP COMMITMENTS AS % OF ODA COMMITMENTS mitments represents relative to total ODA com- 2011 2014 Source: OECD DAC (In percentages) mitments, the UK and the US dominate again, followed by the Netherlands, Norway, and Slovak Rep. 0.05% Luxembourg. It is worth noting that a number of Poland 0.05% Greece 0.06% European donors with medium or even small vol- Slovenia 0.10% Czech Rep. 0.12% ume of commitments score highly in this ranking, Portugal 0.17% such as Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Ireland, and Italy 0.19% EU Inst. 0.25% Iceland. On the other hand, donors with higher Spain 0.29% Japan 0.31% budgets retain a lower position comparatively France 0.41% Switzerland 0.42% (Germany, France, Japan, and the EU Institutions). Germany 0.44% Belgium 0.50% Austria 0.56% New Zealand 0.56% Korea 0.60% Iceland 0.61% A number Ireland 0.69% Sweden 0.73% Finland 0.76% of European donors Denmark 0.83% Australia 0.83% with a medium or Canada 0.94% 0.96% “ Luxembourg Norway 0.98% even small volume Netherlands 1% UK 2.18% of commitments US 2.69% 0 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% score highly in this ranking.

35 While EU Member States and EU Institutions emerge as the largest donors in terms of ODA volume throughout the four years under analysis, a different ranking can be observed when assessing aggregate commitments to RMNCH and FP. The US are the largest con- tributors for both areas, representing approximately 50% of total aggregate commitments. EU Member States and the EU Institutions represent the second highest ranking.

FIGURE 11: FIGURE 12: AGGREGATE COMMITMENTS AGGREGATE COMMITMENTS OF RMNCH 2011 2014 Source: OECD DAC OF FP 2011 2014 Source: OECD DAC (In percentages) (In percentages) Other DAC donors Other 9.05% US DAC donors US 45.51% 13.42% 51.27% Other European Other DAC donors European 3.87% TOTAL DAC donors TOTAL 46.55 5.38% 7 billion USD billion USD

EU DAC EU DAC donors & donors & EU Institutions EU Institutions 35.69% 35.81% This graph refers to aggregate commitments. This graph refers to aggregate commitments. Other European DAC donors include: Iceland, Norway, Other European DAC donors include: Iceland, Norway, Switzerland. Other DAC donors include: Australia, Canada, Switzerland. Other DAC donors include: Australia, Japan, Korea, New Zealand Canada, Japan, Korea, New Zealand.

36 37 The US and the UK dominate the two highest “positions in the rankings of 29 RMNCH and FP donors; both countries are leading ODA donors.”

38 4. Donor Profiles

39 How Do The Donor Profiles Work? COUNTRY COUNTRYEUROMAPPING RANK AGGREGATE COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES 20112014 20112014 EUROMAPPING RANK (2011-2014): EUROMAPPING RANK (in millionAGGREGATE USD) COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES Donors are ranked according to: i) aggregate ODA commitments XX /29 Total ODA 20112014commitments to ODA; ii) aggregate commitments 20112014Spending AGGREGATERMNCH COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES (2011-2014)FP to RMNCH;RMNCH iii) commitments aggregate commitments XXto RMNCH/29 (in millionThis figure USD) shows a donor’s total volume of aggregate RMNCH and FP commitments, RMNCH commitments 3,803.34as if reported against158.97 the Muskoka methodology, and as part 21.33of total ODA volume over ODA commitmentsas a percentageas % of total of ODODAA commitments; XXiv)XX aggregate/29 Total ODA commitments to FP and (v) aggregate commitments theSpending four years. ItRMNCH also indicates as RMNCH what these total volumes for RMNCHFP as and FP represent as FP % of ODA % of ODA RMNCHto commitmentsFP asFP acommitments percentage of ODA commitments.XXXX These/29 percentage of ODA commitments during the same period. FP commitments RMNCHfinal commitments RMNCHas % of totaland ODFP Afigures result from XXapplying/29 the 3,803.34 4.18% 158.97 0.56% 21.33 as % ofMuskoka total OD methodologyA and the revisedXX FP Muskoka/29 Austria lists healthmethodology as one of toits donors’priorities commitments for development RMNCH as FP as (1) YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH AND FP AS % FPaid commitments but doesas a nottheoretical specifically exercise, refer evento RMNCH if theseXX or donors FP in/29 its & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014% of ODA OF ODA 20112014% of ODA policy statements. It considers gender equality a cross- FP commitments(2)do not report under that methodology. (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) ascutting % of issue. total ODA /29 4.18% 0.56% Austria’s 2014 RMNCH commitments were nearlyXX halved Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP YEARLY ODA, RMNCH & FP RMNCH & FP in size (28.2 million USD) compared to those in 2012 (54.4 1,600 10% 1500 5 COMMITMENTS (2011-2014) AS % OF ODA (2011-2014)

million USD), despite the increase in overall ODA com- 1,401.54 1,400YEARLYThis graphODA, provides RMNCH an annual This graph provides aRMNCH AND FP AS % mitments during the COUNTRY’Ssame period. POLITICAL As a result, Austria’s 1,303.3 1,231.23 breakdown of total volume 8%historical overview of donors’ 1200 4 RMNCH commitmentsPROFILE represented AND FINANCIAL only 2,17% PLEDGES: of its ODA 1,200& FP COMMITMENTS1,159.57 20112014 OF ODA 20112014 commitments inBrief 2014, description down from of 4,69%a donor’s in 2012. policies A similar (in millionof donors’USD, constantcommitments prices) to ODA, commitments as percentages(in percentages) trend can be observed in Austria’s FP commitments. 1,000 RMNCH and FP, the latter two of ODA towards both RMNCH that are relevant for RMNCAH and FP. 6% 900 3 4.69% Also indicates whether or not a donor 800 Total ODAas if reportedRMNCH against FPthe Muskoka and FP, as if reported againstRMNCH FP Pledges: methodology. the Muskoka methodology. has financially committed under one 1,600 4% 3.48% 10% 1500 5 Austria has not committed to an RMNCH 600 600 2 of the international initiatives or FP related initiative 2.38% 2.17% describedbetween pages 24 and 27. 4001,400 1,401.54

2%1,303.3

1,231.23 0.63% 300 1 200 0.47% 0.33% 8%0.28% 1200 4 54.41 1,159.57 42.91 33.38 28.27 5.80 7.27 4.61 1,200 3.66 The currency: All development finance statistics are measured0 here in constant prices with reference year 2014, as per OECD DAC.0 This allows for a closer idea 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 of volume of flows over time, as adjustments have been made1,000 to cover inflation and exchange rates between the donor’s currency and USD. The conversion rate 0 0 6% Source: OECD DAC 900 3 used in the profiles is the same as the one used at the moment of the pledge. 4.69% 800 40 4% 3.48% 600 600 2 2.38% 2.17% 400 2% 0.63% 300 1 200 0.47% 0.33% 0.28% 54.41 42.91 33.38 28.27 5.80 7.27 4.61 3.66 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0

Source: OECD DAC AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIAEUROMAPPING RANK AGGREGATE COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES 20112014 20112014 EUROMAPPING RANK (in millionAGGREGATE USD) COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES ODA commitments 11 /29 Total ODA 20112014 20112014Spending RMNCH FP RMNCH commitments 10 /29 (in million USD) RMNCH commitments 18,208.09 1,391.42 151.27 ODA commitmentsas % of total ODA 117 /29 Total ODA Spending RMNCH as RMNCH FP as FP % of ODA % of ODA RMNCH commitmentsFP commitments 1010 /29 FP commitments RMNCH commitmentsas % of total OD A 7 /29 18,208.09 7.64% 1,391.42 0.83% 151.27 as % of total ODA 7 /29 Australia prioritises global health in its development YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH as RMNCH & FP AS % FP as aidFP(13) commitments and has released a strategy on health and10 develop/29- & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014% of ODA OF ODA 20112014% of ODA ment for 2015-2020.(14) This strategy includes clear com- FP commitments (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) mitmentsas % of totalon MNCH OD andA FP. /29 7.64% 0.83% As part of EWEC, Australia committed to invest at least7 1.6 Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP billion AUD (approx. 1.50 billion USD) on MNCH between 6,000 10% 5000 10 2011 and 2015. This amount includes increased funding YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH8.16% & FP AS % for FP (58 million AUD or approximately 55 million USD) 5,000 4,878.83 7.68% 7.74%

4,541.47 8% 4000 8 4,405.38 under the FP2020 initiative over five years, resulting in & FP COMMITMENTS 201120144,382.41 7.00% OF ODA 20112014 doubling the annual FP contributions to 53 million AUD 4,000(in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) by 2016 (approx. 55.89 million USD). 6% 3000 6 In 2015, Australia renewed its political support for the 3,000 Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ Health. 6,000 4% 10% 5000 10 2,000 2000 4 8.16%

4,878.83 2% 1,0005,000 0.99% 7.68% 7.74% FINANCIAL PLEDGES: 0.81% 0.84% 0.69% 1000 2 4,541.47 8% 377.59 4000 8 357.58 338.14 318.12 4,405.38 FP2020. 4,382.41 7.00% 37.97 43.51 39.51 30.27 EWEC/Global Strategy for Women’s and Children’s 0 0 Health (2010-2015 and 2016-2030). 4,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0 6% Source: OECD DAC 3000 6 3,000 41 4% 2,000 2000 4

2% 1,000 0.99% 0.81% 0.84% 0.69% 1000 2 377.59 357.58 338.14 318.12 37.97 43.51 39.51 30.27 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0

Source: OECD DAC AUSTRIA AUSTRIAEUROMAPPING RANK AGGREGATE COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES 20112014 20112014 EUROMAPPING RANK (in millionAGGREGATE USD) COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES ODA commitments 19 /29 Total ODA 20112014 20112014Spending RMNCH FP RMNCH commitments 20 /29 (in million USD) RMNCH commitments 5,095.64 158.97 21.33 ODA commitmentsas % of total ODA 1914 /29 Total ODA Spending RMNCH as RMNCH FP as FP % of ODA % of ODA RMNCH commitmentsFP commitments 2020 /29 FP commitments RMNCH commitmentsas % of total OD A 15 /29 5,095.64 4.18% 158.97 0.56% 21.33 as % of total ODA 14 /29 Austria lists health as one of its priorities for development YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH as RMNCH & FP AS % FP as FPaid(15) commitments but does not specifically refer to RMNCH20 or FP/29 in & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014% of ODA OF ODA 20112014% of ODA its policy statements. It considers gender equality a cross- FP commitments(16) (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) ascutting % of issue. total ODA /29 4.18% 0.56% Austria’s 2014 RMNCH commitments were reduced15 by Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP nearly half (28.23 million USD), compared to those of 2012 1,600 10% 1500 5

(54.41 million USD), despite its overall ODA commitments 1,401.54 1,400YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH & FP AS % slightly increasing during this period. Commitments to 1,303.3

1,231.23 8% 1200 4 FP also more than halved between 2012 and 2014, repre- 1,200& FP COMMITMENTS1,159.57 20112014 OF ODA 20112014 senting 0.28% of ODA in 2014 (from 0.63% in 2012). (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) 1,000 6% 900 3 4.69% FINANCIAL PLEDGES: 800 Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP None. 1,600 4% 3.48% 10% 1500 5 600 600 2 2.38% 2.17% 4001,400 1,401.54

2%1,303.3

1,231.23 0.63% 300 1 200 0.47% 0.33% 8%0.28% 1200 4 54.41 1,159.57 42.91 33.38 28.27 5.80 7.27 4.61 1,200 3.66 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 1,000 0 0 6% Source: OECD DAC 900 3 4.69% 800 42 4% 3.48% 600 600 2 2.38% 2.17% 400 2% 0.63% 300 1 200 0.47% 0.33% 0.28% 54.41 42.91 33.38 28.27 5.80 7.27 4.61 3.66 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0

Source: OECD DAC BELGIUM BELGIUMEUROMAPPING RANK AGGREGATE COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES 20112014 20112014 EUROMAPPING RANK (in millionAGGREGATE USD) COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES ODA commitments 16 /29 Total ODA 20112014 20112014Spending RMNCH FP RMNCH commitments 15 /29 (in million USD) RMNCH commitments 10,959.76 479.61 55.20 ODA commitmentsas % of total ODA 1613 /29 Total ODA Spending RMNCH as RMNCH FP as FP % of ODA % of ODA RMNCH commitmentsFP commitments 1515 /29 FP commitments RMNCH commitmentsas % of total OD A 16 /29 10,959.76 4.38% 479.61 0.50% 55.20 as % of total ODA 13 /29 Belgium stresses the importance of SRHR for sustainable YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH as RMNCH & FP AS % FP as developmentFP commitments and prioritises reproductive health15 and the/29 & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014% of ODA OF ODA 20112014% of ODA fight against HIV/AIDS in its development law.(17) SRHR is FP commitments (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) alsoas % a priorityof total in BelgianODA operational policy documents /29on 4.38% 0.50% health in development, but there is no specific 16mention of Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP (18) MNCH. 3,500 10% 3000 6 Belgian commitments to RMNCH and FP almost doubled 2,944.36

YEARLY ODA, RMNCH 2,869.95 RMNCH & FP AS % from 2012 and 2013, both in terms of volume and percent- 3,000 2500 5 age of total ODA. & FP COMMITMENTS2,679.34 201120148% OF ODA 20112014 2,500 2,466.11 (in million USD, constant prices) 5.90% (in percentages) 2000 4 FINANCIAL PLEDGES: 2,000 6% None. Total ODA RMNCH FP 4.31% RMNCH FP 1500 3 1,500 3.51% 3.76% 3,500 4% 10% 3000 6 1,000 1000 2 2,944.36

3,000 2%2,869.95 500 0.70% 2500 5 2,679.34 0.45% 0.40% 8%0.46% 500 1 158.08 127.03 107.86 86.63 2,466.11 13.21 9.95 18.74 13.31 2,5000 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 5.90% 2000 0 4 6% 2,000 Source: OECD DAC 4.31% 43 1500 3 1,500 3.51% 3.76% 4%

1,000 1000 2 2% 500 0.70% 0.45% 0.40% 0.46% 500 1 158.08 127.03 107.86 86.63 13.21 9.95 18.74 13.31 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0

Source: OECD DAC CANADA CANADAEUROMAPPING RANK AGGREGATE COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES 20112014 20112014 EUROMAPPING RANK (in millionAGGREGATE USD) COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES ODA commitments 10 /29 Total ODA 20112014 20112014Spending RMNCH FP RMNCH commitments 4 /29 (in million USD) RMNCH commitments 18,831.46 2,171.93 176.62 ODA commitmentsas % of total ODA 102 /29 Total ODA Spending RMNCH as RMNCH FP as FP % of ODA % of ODA RMNCH commitmentsFP commitments 49 /29 FP commitments RMNCH commitmentsas % of total OD A 6 /29 18,831.4611.53% 2,171.93 0.94% 176.62 as % of total ODA 2 /29 Canada has included MNCH as a priority in its develop- YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH as RMNCH & FP AS % FP as FPment commitments aid policy.(19) In 2010, during its presidency9 of the/29 & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014% of ODA OF ODA 20112014% of ODA G8, the country made MNCH a priority for the G8 Muskoka FP commitments (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) asSummit, % of leading total ODto theA launch of the Muskoka Initiative./29 11.53% 0.94% In 2010, Canada pledged 1.1 billion CAD (approximately6 Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP 854 million USD) in new and additional funding for wom- 7,000 20% 6000 20 17.79% en’s and children’s health as part of the Muskoka Initiative, 18% 6,000YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH & FP AS % which was also counted under EWEC. Existing commit- 5,601.87 5000 ments of 1.75 billion CAD were continued, meaning a to- 16% & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014 OF ODA 20112014 15 tal commitment of 2.85 billion CAD (near 2.21 billion USD) 5,000 14% 4,477.48 4,443.38

(in million USD, constant prices)4,308.73 (in percentages) for MNCH between 2010 and 2015. 4000 4,000 12% Canada renewed its commitment to RMNCH in 2015, by 9.07 Total ODA RMNCH FP 10% 8.77% 8.80% RMNCH FP pledging a further 3.5 billion CAD (approx. 2.72 billion 3000 10 3,000 USD) to the Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and 7,000 8% 20% 6000 20 (20) 17.79% Adolescents’ Rights throughout 2015-2020. 6% 2,000 18% 2000 6,000 4%

996.73 5 1,000 5,601.87 1.82% 5000 FINANCIAL PLEDGES: 0.77% 16% 406.13 389.90 379.18 2% 0.53% 0.40% 1000

The Muskoka Initiative. 101.90 23.61 33.03 18.08 15 EWEC/Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s 5,0000 0 14% 4,477.48 4,443.38 and Adolescents’ Health (2016-2030). 2011 2012 2013 2014,308.73 4 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 4000 0 12% 4,000 Source: OECD DAC 9.07 10% 8.77% 8.80% 44 3000 10 3,000 8%

2,000 6% 2000 4%

996.73 5 1,000 1.82% 0.77% 406.13 389.90 379.18 2% 0.53% 0.40% 1000 101.90 23.61 33.03 18.08 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0

Source: OECD DAC CZECH REPUBLIC CZECHEUROMAPPING REPUBLIC RANK AGGREGATE COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES 20112014 20112014 EUROMAPPING RANK (in millionAGGREGATE USD) COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES ODA commitments 26 /29 Total ODA 20112014 20112014Spending RMNCH FP RMNCH commitments 24 /29 (in million USD) RMNCH commitments 923.55 7.91 1.12 ODA commitmentsas % of total ODA 2625 /29 Total ODA Spending RMNCH as RMNCH FP as FP % of ODA % of ODA RMNCH commitmentsFP commitments 2424 /29 FP commitments RMNCH commitmentsas % of total OD A 25 /29 923.55 0.86% 7.91 0.12% 1.12 as % of total ODA 25 /29 The priorities of Czech development aid include social YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH as RMNCH & FP AS % FP as development,FP commitments in particular improving access 24to health/29 & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014% of ODA OF ODA 20112014% of ODA services, but do not specifically refer to RMNCH or FP.(21) FP commitments (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) Theas % Czech of total Republic’s ODA commitments to RMNCH have/29 0.86% 0.12% ranged from 1.61 million USD (2012) to 2.23 million25 USD Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP (2014), representing less than 1% of its total ODA com- 300 1.0% 0.94% 250 1,0 0.88% mitments. FP commitments represent also only 0.12% of 0.85%

ODA commitments during the four-year period. YEARLY ODA, RMNCH245.84 RMNCH & FP AS % 250 236.4 0.75% The country is a relatively new member of the OECD De- 226.87 0.8% 200 0,8 & FP COMMITMENTS214.44 20112014 OF ODA 20112014 velopment Assistance Committee, having joined in 2013. 200(in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) 0.6% 150 0,6 FINANCIAL PLEDGES: 150 Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP None. 300 0.4% 1.0% 0.94% 250 1,0 100 0.88% 100 0,4 0.85% 0.14% 245.84 0.13% 0.2% 0.10% 0.11%

50 236.4 250 0.75% 50 0,2 226.87 0.8% 200 0,8 214.44 2.09 2.23 1.99 1.61 0.30 0.22 0.25 0.34 0 0 200 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0,0 0.6% Source: OECD DAC 150 0,6 150 45 0.4% 100 100 0,4

0.2% 0.13% 0.14% 50 0.10% 0.11% 50 0,2 2.09 2.23 1.99 1.61 0.30 0.22 0.25 0.34 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0,0

Source: OECD DAC DENMARK DENMARKEUROMAPPING RANK AGGREGATE COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES 20112014 20112014 EUROMAPPING RANK (in millionAGGREGATE USD) COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES ODA commitments 15 /29 Total ODA 20112014 20112014Spending RMNCH FP RMNCH commitments 12 /29 (in million USD) RMNCH commitments 11,209.23 614.82 93.10 ODA commitmentsas % of total ODA 1511 /29 Total ODA Spending RMNCH as RMNCH FP as FP % of ODA % of ODA RMNCH commitmentsFP commitments 1212 /29 FP commitments RMNCH commitmentsas % of total OD A 8 /29 11,209.23 5.48% 614.82 0.83% 93.10 as % of total ODA 11 /29 Denmark supports RMNCH and FP through its develop- YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH as RMNCH & FP AS % FP as mentFP commitments aid policy, focusing in particular on SRHR12 and the/29 & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014% of ODA OF ODA 20112014% of ODA fight against HIV/AIDS.(22) These priorities are further laid FP commitments (23) (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) outas %in itsof 2006 total strategy ODA paper on the promotion of SRHR./29 5.48% 0.83% Denmark reaffirmed its commitment to RMNCH8 and FP Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP (24) by co-founding AmplifyChange , a fund to promote 3,500 10% 3000 8 civil society advocacy for SRHR, and access to FP for mar-

2,948.21 7 ginalised and vulnerable groups. 3,000YEARLY2,832.99 ODA, RMNCH RMNCH & FP AS %

2,738.91 2500 In addition to existing funding programmes, in 2012, at 2,689.12 8% & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014 OF ODA 20112014 6 the launch of the FP2020 initiative Denmark committed 2,500 6.37% (in million USD, constant prices) (in5.95% percentages) 2000 to providing an additional 13 million USD between 2012 5.55% 5 2,000 6% and 2020 to FP. This commitment was also counted under Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP EWEC.(25) 4.05% 1500 4 1,500 3,500 4% 10% 3000 8 3 FINANCIAL PLEDGES: 1,000 1000 FP2020. 2,948.21 7 3,000 2,832.99 2% 0.95% 0.98% 2 2,738.91 2500 500 2,689.12 0.76% 0.63% 8%

171.42 175.37 500 157.15 110.87 21.47 29.01 25.43 17.18 1 6 2,5000 0 6.37% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 5.95% 5.55% 0 2000 0 6% 5 2,000 Source: OECD DAC

46 4.05% 1500 4 1,500 4% 3 1,000 1000

2% 0.95% 0.98% 2 500 0.76% 0.63%

171.42 175.37 500 157.15 110.87 21.47 29.01 25.43 17.18 1 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0

Source: OECD DAC EU INSTITUTIONS EU INSTITUTIONEUROMAPPINGS RANK AGGREGATE COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES 20112014 20112014 EUROMAPPING RANK (in millionAGGREGATE USD) COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES ODA commitments 2 /29 Total ODA 20112014 20112014Spending RMNCH FP RMNCH commitments 9 /29 (in million USD) RMNCH commitments 90,353.85 1,773.49 221.64 ODA commitmentsas % of total ODA 222 /29 Total ODA Spending RMNCH as RMNCH FP as FP % of ODA % of ODA RMNCH commitmentsFP commitments 97 /29 FP commitments RMNCH commitmentsas % of total OD A 22 /29 90,353.85 1.96% 1,773.49 0.25% 221.64 as % of total ODA 22 /29 The EU Institutions regularly commit to promoting YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH as RMNCH & FP AS % FP as globalFP commitments health and the importance of SRHR in its develop7 /29- & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014% of ODA OF ODA 20112014% of ODA ment aid.(26) In 2015, in the EU adopted an action plan to FP commitments (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) promoteas % of gendertotal OD equalityA in its external action, which /29in- 1.96% 0.25% cludes actions on RMNCH and FP.(27) 22 Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP The EC pledged 50 million EUR (70 million USD) in funding 35,000 5% 30000 3,0 for RMNCH between 2011 and 2013 under the Muskoka (28) 30,000YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH & FP AS % Initiative. Part of this pledge was covered by the EU’s 1 25000 2,5 (29) 26,237.01 4% billion EUR MDG Initiative (the purpose of which is to & FP COMMITMENTS25,355.37 20112014 OF ODA 20112014 support ACP countries), including for MNCH. In 2012, at the 25,000 (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) 20000 2,0 launch of the FP2020 initiative, the EC further committed 20,224.87 3% 2.57%

20,000 18,536.6 to an additional 28 million EUR to support FP services, later Total ODA RMNCH FP 2.26% RMNCH FP increased to 36.3 million EUR (approx. 36.7 million USD).(30) 15000 1,5 15,000 1.78% The EU Institutions are a key donor for RMNCH and FP, in 35,000 2% 5% 30000 3,0 absolute terms, even though these sectors represent a 10,000 10000 1,0 small share of its overall ODA. 0.97% 30,000 1% 5,000 0.36% 0.33% 25000 2,5

26,237.01 0.11% 4%0.12% 5000 0,5 25,355.37 675.4 572.38 329.64

FINANCIAL PLEDGES: 196.07 21.51 94.68 83.15 22.3 The Muskoka Initiative. 25,0000 0 FP2020. 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 20000 0,0 2,0 20,224.87 3% Source: OECD DAC 2.57% 20,000 18,536.6 2.26% 47 15000 1,5 15,000 1.78% 2%

10,000 0.97% 10000 1,0 1% 5,000 0.36% 0.33% 0.11% 0.12% 5000 0,5 675.4 572.38 329.64 196.07 21.51 94.68 83.15 22.3 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0,0

Source: OECD DAC FINLAND FINLANDEUROMAPPING RANK AGGREGATE COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES 20112014 20112014 EUROMAPPING RANK (in millionAGGREGATE USD) COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES ODA commitments 18 /29 Total ODA 20112014 20112014Spending RMNCH FP RMNCH commitments 18 /29 (in million USD) RMNCH commitments 6,664.4 275.62 50.54 ODA commitmentsas % of total ODA 1815 /29 Total ODA Spending RMNCH as RMNCH FP as FP % of ODA % of ODA RMNCH commitmentsFP commitments 1816 /29 FP commitments RMNCH commitmentsas % of total OD A 9 /29 6,664.4 4.14% 275.62 0.76% 50.54 as % of total ODA 15 /29 Finland launched a Government Report on Develop- YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH as RMNCH & FP AS % FP as mentFP commitments Policy in 2016 that prioritised the rights of16 girls and/29 & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014% of ODA OF ODA 20112014% of ODA women and with a strong emphasis on SRHR.(31) However, FP commitments (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) thereas % is of no total specific OD Amention of MNCH. /29 4.14% 0.76% Between 2011 and 2014 Finnish RMNCH and FP commit9 - Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP ments have been steadily rising. In 2014 Finland became 3,000 15% 2500 12 a champion donor to UNFPA with a commitment of over YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH & FP AS % 160 million USD (to be disbursed over the subsequent 2,500 11.39% 10 2-3 years). As a result, RMNCH represented over 11.39% & FP COMMITMENTS2,264.62 20112014 OF ODA 201120142000 of Finnish ODA commitments in 2014, compared to 2% 2,000(in million USD, constant prices) 10% (in percentages) in 2013. This increase was also reflected over FP commit- 8 1,621.85 1,612.05 1500 ments (from 0.29% in 2013 to 2.27% in 2014). 1,500 Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP In 2015, Finland confirmed political support to the Global 6 Strategy for Women’s, and Children’s and Adolescents’ 3,000 1,165.88 15% 2500 12 1000 Health. 1,000 5% 4 2.48% 1.87% 5002,500 2.27% 11.39% 10 FINANCIAL PLEDGES: 1.29% 500 2,264.62

183.55 2000 2 0.43% 42.24 36.66

None. 28.92

20.91 0.29% 4.98 6.51 2.40 0.15% 0 0 2,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 10201% 4 0 0 8 1,621.85 1,612.05 Source: OECD DAC 1500 1,500 48 6 1,165.88 1000 1,000 5% 4 2.48% 1.87% 500 2.27% 1.29% 500

183.55 2 0.43% 42.24 36.66 28.92

20.91 0.29% 4.98 6.51 2.40 0.15% 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0

Source: OECD DAC FRANCE FRANCEEUROMAPPING RANK AGGREGATE COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES 20112014 20112014 EUROMAPPING RANK (in millionAGGREGATE USD) COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES ODA commitments 5 /29 Total ODA 20112014 20112014Spending RMNCH FP RMNCH commitments 8 /29 (in million USD) RMNCH commitments 58,624.09 1,840.01 240.09 ODA commitmentsas % of total ODA 185 /29 Total ODA Spending RMNCH as RMNCH FP as FP % of ODA % of ODA RMNCH commitmentsFP commitments 85 /29 FP commitments RMNCH commitmentsas % of total OD A 19 /29 58,624.09 3.14% 1,840.01 0.41% 240.09 as % of total ODA 18 /29 France lists RMNCH and FP as specific priorities for its de- YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH as RMNCH & FP AS % FP as velopmentFP commitments aid policy.(32) In its external relations, France5 fol/29- & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014% of ODA OF ODA 20112014% of ODA lows the principles set out in its Gender and Development FP commitments(33) (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) Strategyas % of 2013-2017 total ODA, and strategy for international health/29 3.14% 0.41% cooperation.(34) Moreover, the French Ministry of Foreign19 Af- Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP fairs has adopted a strategy on external action on population 20,000 5% 20000 5 and SRHR for 2016-2020.(35) France reaffirmed its commit- 4.42% ment to FP by co-founding the Ouagadougou Partnership. YEARLY ODA,16,819.88 RMNCH RMNCH & FP AS % 4% 4 At the launch of the Muskoka Initiative in 2010, France pledged 14,920.98 15,000& FP14,163.82 COMMITMENTS 20112014 OF3.35% ODA 2011201415000 an additional 500 million EUR (approx. 614.5 million USD) be- (in million USD, constant prices)12,719.41 (in percentages) 2.77% tween 2011 and 2015 on top of its existing funding of 340 3% (36) 3 million EUR per year for MNCH (near 417.86 million USD). 2.29% 10,000 Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP In 2011, France pledged to spend one fifth of this fund- 10000 ing (100 million EUR or 122.29 million USD) on FP in 20,000 2% 20000 5 5% 2 nine countries in francophone Africa by 2015 (under 4.42% 5,000 the Ouagadougou Partnership). The above pledges are 16,819.88 0.81% 1% 5000 also reported under FP2020 and EWEC.(37) 0.44% 0.22% 0.24% 4% 1 4 14,920.98 562.67 499.79 391.69 385.86 14,163.82 102.92 66.06 15,000 31.27 39.84 3.35% 15000 FINANCIAL PLEDGES: 0 0 2011 2012 2013 20112,719.41 4 2011 2012 2013 2014 The Muskoka Initiative. 2.77% 0 0 3% The Ouagadougou Partnership. Source: OECD DAC 3 2.29% 10,000 49 10000 2% 2

5,000 0.81% 1% 5000 0.44% 0.22% 0.24% 1 562.67 499.79 391.69 385.86 102.92 66.06 31.27 39.84 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0

Source: OECD DAC GERMANY GERMANYEUROMAPPING RANK AGGREGATE COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES 20112014 20112014 EUROMAPPING RANK (in millionAGGREGATE USD) COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES ODA commitments 3 /29 Total ODA 20112014 20112014Spending RMNCH FP RMNCH commitments 3 /29 (in million USD) RMNCH commitments 82,819.49 2,495.87 362.33 ODA commitmentsas % of total ODA 193 /29 Total ODA Spending RMNCH as RMNCH FP as FP % of ODA % of ODA RMNCH commitmentsFP commitments 33 /29 FP commitments RMNCH commitmentsas % of total OD A 17 /29 82,819.49 3.01% 2,495.87 0.44% 362.33 as % of total ODA 19 /29 Germany’s policy on SRHR is based on a policy document YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH as RMNCH & FP AS % FP as fromFP commitments 2008.(38) In 2011, Germany launched an Initiative3 /29on & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014% of ODA OF ODA 20112014% of ODA Rights-Based Family Planning and Maternal Health as part FP commitments (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) ofas an % additional of total 400 OD millionA EUR (approx. 491.6 million USD)/29 3.01% 0.44% in commitments to the Muskoka Initiative.(39) A 17quarter of Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP this amount was also pledged to FP (near 122.29 million 30,000 5% 25000 3,5 USD) at the London FP Summit in 2012.(40)

YEARLY ODA, RMNCH 24,873.25 RMNCH & FP AS % Germany’s commitment to RMNCH, through the above- 25,000 3,0 4% 20000 mentioned Initiative, was extended and increased from & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014 3.43% OF ODA 20112014 20,399.99 80 million EUR to 100 million EUR annually between 2015 19,807.71 3.03% 2,5 (41) 20,000(in million USD, constant prices) 2.92% (in percentages) and 2019. In total, Germany committed at least 514 mil- 17,738.54 2.74% 3% 15000 lion EUR up to 2019 to rights-based FP and RH, a quarter of 2,0 15,000 Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP which is likely to be dedicated specifically to FP, depending on partner countries’ priorities.(42) This is part of the coun- 30,000 2% 5% 25000 1,5 3,5 10000 try’s renewed support to the Global Strategy for Women’s, 10,000 and Children’s and Adolescents’ Health, which will amount 1,0 (43) 1%24,873.25 3,0 to 1.23 billion EUR. 5,00025,000 0.45% 0.50% 0.41% 0.39% 4% 5000 20000 0,5 682.49 698.78 577.53 537.08 3.43% 88.86 68.61 102.95 101.91

0 20,399.99 FINANCIAL PLEDGES: 19,807.71 0 2,5 20,000 3.03% The Muskoka Initiative. 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 2.92% 0 0,0 17,738.54 3% 2.74% FP2020. Source: OECD DAC 15000 2,0 EWEC/Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and 15,000 50 Adolescents’ Health (2016-2030). 2% 1,5 10,000 10000 1,0 1% 5,000 0.50% 0.45% 0.39% 0.41% 5000 0,5 682.49 698.78 577.53 537.08 88.86 68.61 102.95 101.91 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0,0

Source: OECD DAC GREECE GREECEEUROMAPPING RANK AGGREGATE COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES 20112014 20112014 EUROMAPPING RANK (in millionAGGREGATE USD) COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES ODA commitments 25 /29 Total ODA 20112014 20112014Spending RMNCH FP RMNCH commitments 26 /29 (in million USD) RMNCH commitments 1,238.08 4.24 0.74 ODA commitmentsas % of total ODA 2527 /29 Total ODA Spending RMNCH as RMNCH FP as FP % of ODA % of ODA RMNCH commitmentsFP commitments 2626 /29 FP commitments RMNCH commitmentsas % of total OD A 27 /29 1,238.08 0.34% 4.24 0.06% 0.74 as % of total ODA 27 /29 Greece prioritises gender equality, education and health YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH as RMNCH & FP AS % FP as inFP its commitments development aid policy; RMNCH and FP26 are not/29 & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014% of ODA OF ODA 20112014% of ODA specifically mentioned.(44) FP commitments (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) Whileas % overallof total ODA OD commitmentsA dropped from 2011 /29to 0.34% 0.06% 2014 due to the economic crisis, the decrease27 was even Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP more pronounced for already-low RMNCH commitments, 500 1.0% 400 0,40 from 1.47 million USD in 2011 to 0.69 million USD in 2014. RMNCH commitments represented 0.34% of total ODA YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH & FP35 0AS % 0,35 commitments for this period, and FP commitments 0.06%. 400 385.62 0.8% & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014 OF ODA 20112014300 0,30

(in million USD, 321.54 constant prices) (in percentages)

FINANCIAL PLEDGES: 300 283.48 0.6% 250 0,25

None. Total ODA RMNCH FP 247.44 RMNCH FP 0.38% 200 0,20 0.35% 200 500 0.4% 0.34% 1.0% 400 0,40 0.28% 150 0,15 350 0,35 100 0.2% 100 0,10

400 385.62 0.06% 0.05% 0.07% 0.8%0.06% 50 0,05 1.47 1.00 1.08 0.23 0.69 0.21 0.14 0.16 300 0,30 0 0 321.54 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0,00

300 283.48 0.6% 250 0,25 Source: OECD DAC 247.44 0.38% 51 200 0,20 0.35% 200 0.4% 0.34% 0.28% 150 0,15

100 0.2% 100 0,10 0.06% 0.05% 0.07% 0.06% 50 0,05 1.47 1.00 1.08 0.23 0.69 0.21 0.14 0.16 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0,00

Source: OECD DAC ICELAND ICELANDEUROMAPPING RANK AGGREGATE COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES 20112014 20112014 EUROMAPPING RANK (in millionAGGREGATE USD) COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES ODA commitments 29 /29 Total ODA 20112014 20112014Spending RMNCH FP RMNCH commitments 25 /29 (in million USD) RMNCH commitments 130.83 7.47 0.80 ODA commitmentsas % of total ODA 2910 /29 Total ODA Spending RMNCH as RMNCH FP as FP % of ODA % of ODA RMNCH commitmentsFP commitments 2525 /29 FP commitments RMNCH commitmentsas % of total OD A 12 /29 130.83 5.71% 7.47 0.61% 0.80 as % of total ODA 10 /29 The priorities of Icelandic development aid include YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH as RMNCH & FP AS % FP as healthFP commitments and education as a basis for building25 human/29 & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014% of ODA OF ODA 20112014% of ODA capital, but do not specifically refer to RMNCH or FP(45); FP commitments (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) genderas % of equality total ODis a Across-cutting theme. Iceland’s ODA/29 5.71% 0.61% budget is the smallest among all 29 DAC donors12 due to Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP the consequences of the economic crisis and the size of 50 10% 40 8 its economy. While its RMNCH aggregate commitments are small (7.47 million USD), they continuously represent YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH & FP35 AS % 7

over 5% of Iceland’s ODA. 40 38 8% & FP COMMITMENTS 2011201435.38 OF ODA 2011201430 6 Iceland joined the OECD DAC in 2013. 6.15% 5.96% (in million USD, constant prices) 5.70% (in percentages) 29.65

30 27.8 6% 5.10% 25 5 FINANCIAL PLEDGES: Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP None. 20 4 20 50 4% 10% 40 8 15 3 35 7 10 2% 10 2 0.85% 0.59% 40 38 0.60% 8%0.45% 2.27 1.81 1.71 1.69

35.38 1 0.18 0.23 0.16 5 0.24 30 6 0 0 6.15% 5.96% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 5.70% 0 0 29.65

30 27.8 6% 25 5 Source: OECD DAC 5.10%

52 20 4 20 4% 15 3

10 2% 10 2 0.85% 0.60% 0.59% 0.45% 2.27 1.81 1.71 1.69 1 0.18 0.23 0.16 5 0.24 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0

Source: OECD DAC IRELAND IRELANDEUROMAPPING RANK AGGREGATE COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES 20112014 20112014 EUROMAPPING RANK (in millionAGGREGATE USD) COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES ODA commitments 20 /29 Total ODA 20112014 20112014Spending RMNCH FP RMNCH commitments 17 /29 (in million USD) RMNCH commitments 3,393.22 287.46 23.25 ODA commitmentsas % of total ODA 205 /29 Total ODA Spending RMNCH as RMNCH FP as FP % of ODA % of ODA RMNCH commitmentsFP commitments 1719 /29 FP commitments RMNCH commitmentsas % of total OD A 11 /29 3,393.22 8.47% 287.46 0.69% 23.25 as % of total ODA 5 /29 Ireland’s political and financial commitments to RMNCH YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH as RMNCH & FP AS % FP as FPand commitments FP have recently become more prominent19 in /29its & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014% of ODA OF ODA 20112014% of ODA development aid policy. Its 2013 development strategy FP commitments (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) asaims % to of reduce total maternal ODA and infant mortality and promote/29 8.47% 0.69% universal access to reproductive healthcare, including11 FP.(46) Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP The strategy further mentions gender equality under the 1,000 10% 9.23% 1000 10 8.83% priority area of human rights and accountability. Despite a 885.9 845.41 846.13 8.09% decrease in overall ODA between 2011 and 2014 due to the YEARLY ODA, RMNCH 815.78 7.80% RMNCH & FP AS % economic crisis, Irish RMNCH commitments have increased 800& FP COMMITMENTS 201120148% OF ODA 20112014800 8 in this period, bringing Ireland into the top ten of donors (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) to RMNCH as a percentage of ODA (8.47% over four years). 600 6% 600 6 Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP FINANCIAL PLEDGES: 4001,000 4% 10% 9.23% 1000 10 None. 400 8.83% 4 885.9 845.41 846.13 8.09%

200 2%815.78 7.80% 0.67% 0.69% 0.71% 0.67% 200 2 74.71 75.29 800 69.07 68.39 8% 800 8 5.97 5.81 5.99 5.47 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0 600 6% Source: OECD DAC 600 6

53 400 4% 400 4

200 2% 0.67% 0.69% 0.71% 0.67% 200 2 74.71 75.29 69.07 68.39 5.97 5.81 5.99 5.47 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0

Source: OECD DAC ITALY ITALY EUROMAPPING RANK AGGREGATE COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES 20112014 20112014 EUROMAPPING RANK (in millionAGGREGATE USD) COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES ODA commitments 12 /29 Total ODA 20112014 20112014Spending RMNCH FP RMNCH commitments 19 /29 (in million USD) RMNCH commitments 16,477.2 249.25 30.65 ODA commitmentsas % of total ODA 1223 /29 Total ODA Spending RMNCH as RMNCH FP as FP % of ODA % of ODA RMNCH commitmentsFP commitments 1918 /29 FP commitments RMNCH commitmentsas % of total OD A 23 /29 16,477.2 1.51% 249.25 0.19% 30.65 as % of total ODA 23 /29 Italy refers to the importance of global health and YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH as RMNCH & FP AS % FP as FPRMNCH commitments and FP as essential components of its 182014 legal/29 & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014% of ODA OF ODA 20112014% of ODA framework on development aid.(47) Gender equality FP commitments (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) asis a % cross-cutting of total OD theme.A Italy pledged 75 million USD/29 1.51% 0.19% between 2011 and 2015 for RMNCH under the23 Muskoka Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP (48) 1.90% Initiative, in addition to existing commitments. 6,000 2,0% 5000 2,0 Italy’s total RMNCH and FP commitments have only YEARLY ODA, RMNCH 1,8% 1.69% RMNCH & FP AS % moderately increased over 2013-2014. However, RMNCH 5,000 4,869.52 1,6% 4000

and FP commitments as a share of total ODA increased 4,359.87 & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014 1.33% OF ODA 20112014 1,5

significantly. Nevertheless, they were still relatively low 3,986.53 1,4% 4,000(in million USD, constant prices) 1.15% (in percentages) in 2014, representing 1.90% and 0.24% of Italian ODA, 1,2% 3,261.28 3000 respectively. 3,000 Total ODA RMNCH FP 1,0% RMNCH FP 1,0 1.90% 6,000 0,8% 2,0% 5000 2,0 FINANCIAL PLEDGES: 2,000 2000 0,6% The Muskoka Initiative. 1,8% 1.69%

4,869.52 0,4% 0.24% 0,5 1,0005,000 0.22% 0.13% 0.17% 1000 0,2% 1,6% 4000 4,359.87 82.66 67.41 55.77 43.40 6.17 5.43 8.78 10.26 1.33% 1,5

0 3,986.53 0 1,4% 4,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 1.15% 0 0,0 1,2% 3,261.28 Source: OECD DAC 3000 3,000 1,0% 54 1,0 0,8% 2,000 2000 0,6% 0,4% 0.24% 1,000 0.22% 0,5 0.13% 0.17% 1000 0,2% 82.66 67.41 55.77 43.40 6.17 5.43 8.78 10.26 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0,0

Source: OECD DAC JAPAN JAPANEUROMAPPING RANK AGGREGATE COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES 20112014 20112014 EUROMAPPING RANK (in millionAGGREGATE USD) COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES ODA commitments 4 /29 Total ODA 20112014 20112014Spending RMNCH FP RMNCH commitments 5 /29 (in million USD) RMNCH commitments 75,946.39 2,075.41 232.80 ODA commitmentsas % of total ODA 204 /29 Total ODA Spending RMNCH as RMNCH FP as FP % of ODA % of ODA RMNCH commitmentsFP commitments 56 /29 FP commitments RMNCH commitmentsas % of total OD A 20 /29 75,946.39 2.73% 2,075.41 0.31% 232.80 as % of total ODA 20 /29 Japan lists health, education, gender and women’s YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH as RMNCH & FP AS % FP as empowerment,FP commitments including through access to medical6 /29 & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014% of ODA OF ODA 20112014% of ODA services, as priorities for its development aid policy.(49) FP commitments (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) Inas 2010, % of Japan total committed ODA to an additional 50 billion JPY/29 2.73% 0.31% (approx. 500 million USD) in funding for RMNCH20 between Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP 2011 and 2015 as part of the Muskoka Initiative. In 2012, 30,000 5% 25000 4,0 under the FP2020 initiative, Japan committed a one-off 36 (50) YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH & FP AS % 3,5 million USD to FP. 25,000

23,111.39 3.70% As the analysis shows, Japan’s FP commitments in 2013 4% 20000 & FP COMMITMENTS 2011201421,289.04 OF ODA 20112014 3,0 declined almost to 2011 levels, before rising again in 2014. 20,000(in million USD, constant prices) (in2.89% percentages) Japan more than doubled its RMNCH commitments in 3% 2,5 16,396.51 2.41% 15000 2012 compared to 2011 and maintained funding at this 15,149.45 15,000 Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP level in 2014. 1.95% 2,0 In 2015, Japan made a political commitment to the Global 30,000 2% 5% 25000 4,0 10000 Strategy for Women’s Children’s and Adolescents’ Health.(51) 10,000 1,5 3,5 1% 1,0 5,00025,000 0.45% 0.34% 23,111.39 5000 FINANCIAL PLEDGES: 0.28% 0.19% 4% 3.70% 20000 607.32 615.08 557.67 21,289.04 The Muskoka Initiative. 295.34 0,5 41.95 73.52 44.39 72.94 3,0 FP2020. 0 0 20,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 2.89% 0,0 3% 2,5 16,396.51 Source: OECD DAC 2.41% 15000 15,149.45 15,000 1.95% 55 2,0 2% 10,000 10000 1,5

1% 1,0 5,000 0.45% 0.34% 0.28% 0.19% 5000 607.32 615.08 557.67

295.34 0,5 41.95 73.52 44.39 72.94 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0,0

Source: OECD DAC KOREA KOREAEUROMAPPING RANK AGGREGATE COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES 20112014 20112014 EUROMAPPING RANK (in millionAGGREGATE USD) COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES ODA commitments 17 /29 Total ODA 20112014 20112014Spending RMNCH FP RMNCH commitments 14 /29 (in million USD) RMNCH commitments 10,017.05 516.18 60.24 ODA commitmentsas % of total ODA 1712 /29 Total ODA Spending RMNCH as RMNCH FP as FP % of ODA % of ODA RMNCH commitmentsFP commitments 1414 /29 FP commitments RMNCH commitmentsas % of total OD A 13 /29 10,017.05 5.15% 516.18 0.60% 60.24 as % of total ODA 12 /29 Korea lists health, and in particular RMNCH and FP, as YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH as RMNCH & FP AS % FP as oneFP commitments of its development aid priorities. Gender is 14listed as/29 a & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014% of ODA OF ODA 20112014% of ODA cross-cutting issue.(52) FP commitments (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) Asas part% of of total FP2020, OD KoreaA pledged to raise its support /29to 5.15% 0.60% RMNCH and FP from 5.4 million USD in 2010 13to at least Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP (53) 10.8 million USD a year beginning in 2013. Korea has 3,000 10% 3000 8

(54) 2,766.79 also contributed financially to the Muskoka Initiative. 2,688.41

(55) YEARLY ODA,2,490.38 RMNCH RMNCH & FP AS % 7 In 2015, Korea launched the ‘Better Life for Girls’ 2,500 2500 initiative, with a focus on improving girls’ right to health 8% & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014 6.76% OF ODA 20112014 6 and education and a budget of 200 million USD for 2016- 2,071.47 2,000(in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) 2000 2020. This initiative was announced in the context of new 6% 5 commitment to the Global Strategy in 2015.(56) 4.88% 1,500 Total ODA RMNCH FP 4.38% RMNCH4.35% FP 1500 4 FINANCIAL PLEDGES: 3,000 4% 10% 3000 8 1,000 2,766.79 3 The Muskoka Initiative. 2,688.41 1000

2,490.38 7 FP2020. 2% 500 2 2,500 0.68% 0.77% 2500 EWEC/Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s 0.42% 8%0.50% 186.95 500 116.92 121.63 and Adolescents’ Health (2016-2030). 90.69 21.31 13.44

16.84 1 8.65 6.76% 6 0 2,071.47 0 2,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 2000 0 6% 5 Source: OECD DAC 4.88% 1,500 4.38% 4.35% 56 1500 4 4% 1,000 3 1000 2% 500 2 0.68% 0.77% 0.42% 0.50% 186.95 500 116.92 121.63 90.69 21.31 13.44

16.84 1 8.65 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0

Source: OECD DAC LUXEMBOURG LUXEMBOUREUROMAPPINGG RANK AGGREGATE COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES 20112014 20112014 EUROMAPPING RANK (in millionAGGREGATE USD) COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES ODA commitments 24 /29 Total ODA 20112014 20112014Spending RMNCH FP RMNCH commitments 21 /29 (in million USD) RMNCH commitments 1,711.72 134.07 16.51 ODA commitmentsas % of total ODA 246 /29 Total ODA Spending RMNCH as RMNCH FP as FP % of ODA % of ODA RMNCH commitmentsFP commitments 2121 /29 FP commitments RMNCH commitmentsas % of total OD A 5 /29 1,711.72 7.83% 134.07 0.96% 16.51 as % of total ODA 6 /29 Luxembourg includes health and education in its YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH as RMNCH & FP AS % FP as developmentFP commitments aid priorities, with a cross-cutting21 focus /29on & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014% of ODA OF ODA 20112014% of ODA gender. However, it does not specifically refer to RMNCH FP commitments(57) (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) oras FP. % of total ODA /29 7.83% 0.96% Despite its relatively small ODA budget, it is 5one of Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP the few DAC donors that meet the commitment to 500 10% 500 10 allocate 0.7% of GNI for ODA (please refer to page 15). 435.79 428.64 424.07 423.22 8.14% YEARLY ODA, RMNCH 7.76% 7.93% RMNCH & FP AS % Luxembourg is also a significant supporter of RMNCH 7.50% and FP in terms of the share of its ODA commitments 400& FP COMMITMENTS 201120148% OF ODA 20112014400 8 dedicated to these areas, being placed among the top (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) ten donors. 300 6% 300 6 Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP FINANCIAL PLEDGES: 200 500 4% 10% 500 10 None. 200 4 435.79 428.64 424.07 423.22 8.14% 100 2% 7.93% 0.89% 1.06% 1.01% 7.76% 0.89% 7.50% 100 2 34.46 32.9 400 34.58 32.13 8% 400 8 3.79 4.61 4.3 3.82 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0 300 6% Source: OECD DAC 300 6

57 200 4% 200 4

100 2% 0.89% 1.06% 1.01% 0.89% 100 2 34.46 32.9 34.58 32.13 3.79 4.61 4.3 3.82 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0

Source: OECD DAC NETHERLANDS NETHERLANDSEUROMAPPING RANK AGGREGATE COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES 20112014 20112014 EUROMAPPING RANK (in millionAGGREGATE USD) COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES ODA commitments 7 /29 Total ODA 20112014 20112014Spending RMNCH FP RMNCH commitments 7 /29 (in million USD) RMNCH commitments 24,973.78 1,842.23 249.96 ODA commitmentsas % of total ODA 78 /29 Total ODA Spending RMNCH as RMNCH FP as FP % of ODA % of ODA RMNCH commitmentsFP commitments 74 /29 FP commitments RMNCH commitmentsas % of total OD A 3 /29 24,973.78 7.38% 1,842.23 1.00% 249.96 as % of total ODA 8 /29 The Netherlands’ development strategy includes SRHR YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH as RMNCH & FP AS % FP as FPas a commitments priority goal, to which all activities should contribute.4 /29 & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014% of ODA OF ODA 20112014% of ODA Within this strategy, gender is a cross-cutting theme.(58) FP commitments (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) asThe % Netherlands of total OD reaffirmedA its commitment to SRHR/29 by 7.38% 1.00% co-founding AmplifyChange,(59) a fund to promote3 civil Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP society advocacy for SRHR and access to FP. 10,000 12% 8000 12 10.73% In 2012, as part of the FP2020 initiative, the Netherlands 8,000 committed to increasing funding for SRHR, including HIV/ YEARLY ODA, RMNCH 7,533.82 RMNCH & FP7000 AS %

7,133.31 10% 10 AIDS and health, from 370 million EUR in 2012 to 413 6,000& FP COMMITMENTS 20112014 OF ODA 20112014 (60) 6000

million EUR (approx. 507.58 million USD) in 2015. The 5,926.29 (in million USD, constant prices) 8% (in percentages) 5,000 8 country has also contributed to the Muskoka Initiative. 6.57% 6.31% 5000 Most of the efforts undertaken were in line with the 4,000 Total ODA RMNCH FP4,380.36 6% RMNCH FP Global Strategy for Women’s and Children’s Health. 4.84% 4000 6 8000 12 In 2015, the country pledged 290 million EUR over 2015- 3,00010,000 12% 2020 for youth and sexual and reproductive rights under 4% 10.73%3000 4 the renewed Global Strategy.(61) 2,0008,000

7,533.82 7000 1.67% 2000 1.10% 7,133.31 2% 10% 10

1,000 765.16 0.64%

475.33 0.34% 2 389.57 212.17

6,000 118.83 82.9 28 FINANCIAL PLEDGES: 20.23 1000 6000 (62) 0 0

The Muskoka Initiative. 5,926.29 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 8%2014 FP2020. 5,000 0 0 8 6.57% 6.31% 5000 EWEC/Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s Source: OECD DAC

and Adolescents’ Health (2016-2030). 4,380.36 4,000 6% 58 4.84% 4000 6 3,000 4% 3000 4 2,000 1.67% 2000 2% 1.10%

1,000 765.16 0.64%

475.33 0.34% 2 389.57 212.17 118.83 82.9 28

20.23 1000 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0

Source: OECD DAC NEW ZEALAND NEW ZEALANDEUROMAPPING RANK AGGREGATE COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES 20112014 20112014 EUROMAPPING RANK (in millionAGGREGATE USD) COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES ODA commitments 22 /29 Total ODA 20112014 20112014Spending RMNCH FP RMNCH commitments 22 /29 (in million USD) RMNCH commitments 2,250.07 90.14 12.69 ODA commitmentsas % of total ODA 2216 /29 Total ODA Spending RMNCH as RMNCH FP as FP % of ODA % of ODA RMNCH commitmentsFP commitments 2222 /29 FP commitments RMNCH commitmentsas % of total OD A 14 /29 2,250.07 4.01% 90.14 0.56% 12.69 as % of total ODA 16 /29 New Zealand lists health and education as priorities of YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH as RMNCH & FP AS % FP as itsFP development commitments aid policy, with a particular focus22 on RM/29- & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014% of ODA OF ODA 20112014% of ODA NCH and FP.(63) FP commitments (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) Inas 2010, % of New total Zealand ODA demonstrated its support14 towards/29 4.01% 0.56% RMNCH by endorsing the Muskoka Initiative. While it did Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP not make an individual pledge, New Zealand committed 800 5% 800 5 4.44% to providing 2.3 billion USD by 2015 jointly with other do- (64) YEARLY ODA, RMNCH 674.98 RMNCH & FP70 0AS % nors. 646.15 3.86% 3.88% 3.92% 4% 4 600& FP COMMITMENTS 20112014 OF ODA 20112014600 FINANCIAL PLEDGES: (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) 474.1 The Muskoka Initiative. 454.84 3% 500 3 400 Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP 400 800 2% 800 5 5% 2 300 4.44% 200 674.98 700 646.15 1% 0.57% 0.51% 0.58% 0.58% 3.86% 3.88% 200 3.92% 4% 1 4 26.49 24.95 21.07 600 17.64 2.33 3.70 2.73 3.94 100 600 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0 474.1 454.84 3% 500 Source: OECD DAC 3 400 59 400 2% 2 300 200 1% 0.57% 0.51% 0.58% 0.58% 200 1 26.49 24.95 21.07 17.64 2.33 3.70 2.73

3.94 100 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0

Source: OECD DAC NORWAY NORWAYEUROMAPPING RANK AGGREGATE COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES 20112014 20112014 EUROMAPPING RANK (in millionAGGREGATE USD) COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES ODA commitments 8 /29 Total ODA 20112014 20112014Spending RMNCH FP RMNCH commitments 6 /29 (in million USD) RMNCH commitments 20,699.06 1,930.23 202.24 ODA commitmentsas % of total ODA 84 /29 Total ODA Spending RMNCH as RMNCH FP as FP % of ODA % of ODA RMNCH commitmentsFP commitments 68 /29 FP commitments RMNCH commitmentsas % of total OD A 4 /29 20,699.06 9.33% 1,930.23 0.98% 202.24 as % of total ODA 4 /29 Norway supports global health in its development aid YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH as RMNCH & FP AS % FP as FPpolicy, commitments which includes SRHR and MNCH as key8 areas/29 & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014% of ODA OF ODA 20112014% of ODA for action.(65) Women’s rights and gender equality are FP commitments (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) asconsidered % of total overarching ODA guiding principles of its external4 /29 9.33% 0.98% policies. Norway is active within the ‘Saving Mothers, Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP 8,000 6000 20 Giving Life’ public-private partnership launched under the 20% 18.05% US Global Health Initiative, which aims to reduce maternal (66) YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH & FP AS % mortality in lower income countries. 5000 5,924.82 In 2010, Norway committed 500 million USD throughout 6,000& FP COMMITMENTS 2011201415% OF ODA 20112014 15 the period of 2011-2020 to RMNCH under the Muskoka Ini- 5,060.96 4,857.17 (in million USD, 4,856.11 constant prices) (in percentages) 4000 tiative,(67) also counted under EWEC. From this amount, Nor- way committed to provide an additional 200 million USD up 4,000 Total ODA RMNCH FP 10% RMNCH8.95% FP to the year 2020 under FP2020.(68) 3000 10 Support to the Global Strategy was renewed in 2015(69) 8,000 20% 6000 20 5.27% 5.28% 18.05% with Norway being one of the lead donors in launching 2000 the Global Financing Facility (GFF).(70) 2,000 5% 5

876.53 5000 1.07% 1.29%

530.36 0.89% 5,924.82 0.66% 1000 267.32 256.01

6,000 51.9 65.1 52.97 FINANCIAL PLEDGES: 32.27 15% 15 The Muskoka Initiative. 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2015,060.96 4 2011 2012 2013 2014 4,857.17 FP2020. 4,856.11 0 4000 0

EWEC/Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s Source: OECD DAC and Adolescents’ Health (2016-2030). 4,000 10% 8.95% 60 3000 10

5.27% 5.28% 2000 2,000 5% 5

876.53 1.07% 1.29% 530.36 0.66% 0.89% 1000 267.32 256.01 51.9 65.1 52.97 32.27 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0

Source: OECD DAC POLAND POLANDEUROMAPPING RANK AGGREGATE COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES 20112014 20132014 EUROMAPPING RANK (in millionAGGREGATE USD) COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES ODA commitments 23 /29 Total ODA 20112014 20132014Spending RMNCH FP RMNCH commitments 27 /29 (in million USD) RMNCH commitments 1,166.78 3.56 0.56 ODA commitmentsas % of total ODA 2328 /29 Total ODA Total ODASpending RMNCH as RMNCH FP as FP FP commitments 27 /29 Spending % of ODA % of ODA RMNCH commitments 27 /29 (2011-2014) FP commitments RMNCH commitmentsas % of total OD A 28 /29 2,035.071,166.78 0.30% 3.56 0.05% 0.56 as % of total ODA 28 /29 The priorities of Polish development aid include improving YEARLYTotal ODA, ODA RMNCH RMNCH as RMNCH & FP AS % FP as healthcareFP commitments quality, in particular access to health27 care /29for & FP COMMITMENTSSpending 20112014% of ODA OF ODA 20132014% of ODA mothers and children, but do not specifically refer to RH or (2011-2014) FP(71) commitments (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) Fas P. % of total ODA /29 2,035.07 0.30% 0.05% Poland joined the OECD DAC in 2013. While it is28 possible Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP to collect data on ODA amounts prior to this date, detailed 800 0.5% 800 0,5 information on allocated funds per sector is only available 731,4 0.41% after that year. Consequently, it is only possible to have a YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH & FP70 0AS % quantitative analysis of recent years. 0.4% 0,4 600& FP COMMITMENTS 20112014 OF ODA 20132014600 (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages)

456,11 500 FINANCIAL PLEDGES: 435,38 0.3% 0,3 412,18 0.24% None. 400 Total ODA RMNCH FP no data RMNCH FP available 400 800 0.2% 800 0,5 0.5% 0,2 731,4 300 200 0.41% 700 0.1% 0.05% 200 0.4%0.04% 0,1 0,4 600

1,8 1.76 100 no data available no data available no data available no data available 0.24 0.33 600 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0,0

456,11 500

435,38 0.3% Source: OECD DAC 0,3 412,18 0.24% 400 no data available61 400 0.2% 0,2 300 200 0.1% 0.05% 200 0.04% 0,1

1,8 1.76 100 no data available no data available no data available no data available 0.24 0.33 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0,0

Source: OECD DAC PORTUGAL PORTUGALEUROMAPPING RANK AGGREGATE COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES 20112014 20112014 EUROMAPPING RANK (in millionAGGREGATE USD) COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES ODA commitments 21 /29 Total ODA 20112014 20112014Spending RMNCH FP RMNCH commitments 23 /29 (in million USD) RMNCH commitments 2,404.44 31.33 4.03 ODA commitmentsas % of total ODA 2124 /29 Total ODA Spending RMNCH as RMNCH FP as FP % of ODA % of ODA RMNCH commitmentsFP commitments 2323 /29 FP commitments RMNCH commitmentsas % of total OD A 24 /29 2,404.44 1.30% 31.33 0.17% 4.03 as % of total ODA 24 /29 Portugal prioritises education and health in its YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH as RMNCH & FP AS % FP as developmentFP commitments aid policy. The Portuguese aid23 agency’s/29 & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014% of ODA OF ODA 20112014% of ODA health strategy policy paper(72) lists SRHR and FP as FP commitments (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) importantas % of total areas ODof interventionA with regards to global/29 1.30% 0.17% health. The legislative basis of Portuguese development24 Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP (73) aid highlights the importance of promoting SRH 800 2,0% 800 2,0 under the objectives of gender equality and health, with 687.31 YEARLY ODA,676.62 RMNCH RMNCH1.65% & FP70 0AS % a focus on addressing MNCH. 1.52% Portugal’s ODA commitments have been decreasing 600& FP COMMITMENTS 201120141,5% OF ODA 20112014 552.23 600 1,5 since 2011, partially as a result of the financial crisis. 1.22%

(in million USD, constant prices) 488.28 (in percentages) Nonetheless, the percentages of ODA funds allocated to 500 RMNCH and FP have increased since 2012. 0.96% 400 Total ODA RMNCH FP 1,0% RMNCH FP 400 1,0 800 800 2,0 FINANCIAL PLEDGES: 2,0% 300 None. 200 687.31 676.62 0,5% 1.65% 700 0.21% 0.21% 200 1.52% 0,5 0.16% 0.12%

600 8.37 6.48 8.4 8.08 1.1 0.79 1.14 1 1,5% 100 552.23 600 1,5 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 1.22% 488.28 0 0,0 500 Source: OECD DAC 0.96% 400 1,0% 62 400 1,0

300 200 0,5% 0.21% 0.21% 200 0,5 0.16% 0.12% 8.37 6.48 8.4 8.08

1.1 0.79 1.14 1 100 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0,0

Source: OECD DAC SLOVAK REPUBLIC SLOVAKEUROMAPPING REPUBLIC RANK AGGREGATE COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES 20112014 20132014 EUROMAPPING RANK (in millionAGGREGATE USD) COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES ODA commitments 27 /29 Total ODA 20112014 20132014Spending RMNCH FP RMNCH commitments 29 /29 (in million USD) RMNCH commitments 174.36 0.46 0.08 ODA commitmentsas % of total ODA 2729 /29 Total ODA Total ODASpending RMNCH as RMNCH FP as FP FP commitments 29 /29 Spending % of ODA % of ODA RMNCH commitments 29 /29 (2011-2014) FP commitments RMNCH commitmentsas % of total OD A 29 /29 340.4174.36 0.26% 0.46 0.05% 0.08 as % of total ODA 29 /29 The Slovak Republic lists spending on healthcare as YEARLYTotal ODA, ODA RMNCH RMNCH as RMNCH & FP AS % FP as oneFP commitments of its development aid priorities; while29 some /29of & FP COMMITMENTSSpending 20112014% of ODA OF ODA 20132014% of ODA its country-specific programmes focus in particular on (2011-2014) FP commitments (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) improvingas % of total the health ODA of children and mothers, they /29do 340.4 0.26% 0.05% not specifically refer to RH or FP. 29 Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP The Slovak Republic joined the OECD DAC in 2013. While 100 0.30% 100 0,30

91.73 0.27% it is possible to collect data on ODA amounts prior to this 0.26% 83.46 YEARLY ODA,82.57 RMNCH82.63 RMNCH & FP AS % date, detailed information on allocated funds per sector 0,25 0.25% 80 is only available after that year. Consequently, it is only 75& FP COMMITMENTS 20112014 OF ODA 20132014 possible to have a quantitative analysis of recent years. (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) 0,20 0.20% 60 FINANCIAL PLEDGES: 50 Total ODA RMNCH FP no data RMNCH FP available None. 0,15 100 0.15% 0.30% 100 0,30 40 91.73 0.27% 0,10 25 0.26% 83.46 82.57 82.63 0.10% 0.05% 0.05% 20 0,25 0.25% 80 0,05 75 0.26 0.05 0.27 0.05 no data available no data available no data available no data available 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0,00 0,20 0.20% Source: OECD DAC 60 50 no data available63 0,15 0.15% 40 0,10 25 0.10% 0.05% 0.05% 20 0,05 0.26 0.05 0.27 0.05 no data available no data available no data available no data available 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0,00

Source: OECD DAC SLOVENIA SLOVENIAEUROMAPPING RANK AGGREGATE COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES 20112014 20122014 EUROMAPPING RANK (in millionAGGREGATE USD) COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES ODA commitments 28 /29 Total ODA 20112014 20122014Spending RMNCH FP RMNCH commitments 28 /29 (in million USD) RMNCH commitments 255.71 1.83 0.25 ODA commitmentsas % of total ODA 2826 /29 Total ODA Spending RMNCH as RMNCH FP as FP % of ODA % of ODA RMNCH commitmentsFP commitments 2828 /29 FP commitments RMNCH commitmentsas % of total OD A 26 /29 255.71 0.72% 1.83 0.10% 0.25 as % of total ODA 26 /29 The priorities of Slovenian development aid policy in- YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH as RMNCH & FP AS % FP as cludeFP commitments health and education,(74) ensuring respect28 for the/29 & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014% of ODA OF ODA 20122014% of ODA human rights of women and children and promoting FP commitments (75) (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) women’sas % of empowerment,total ODA but do not specifically refer/29 0.72% 0.10% to RMNCH or FP. 26 Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP Slovenia joined the OECD DAC in 2013. While it is possible 200 2% 150 2,0 to collect data on allocated funds per sector prior to this date, detailed information on ODA amounts is only YEARLY ODA, RMNCH 1.61% RMNCH & FP AS % available starting in 2012. Consequently, it is only possible 120 150& FP COMMITMENTS142.72 20112014 OF ODA 20122014 1,5 to have a quantitative analysis of recent years. (in million USD, constant prices) 1,5% (in percentages) 90 FINANCIAL PLEDGES: 100 Total ODA RMNCH FP no data RMNCH FP available None. 1,0 200 2%0.69% 150 2,0

62.09 60 0,5% 50.9 0.41% 50 1.61% 0.2% 0,5 0.12% 30 0.05% 120

150 142.72 0.76 0.13 0.82 0.1 0.59 0.07 0.43 0.08 no data available 1,5 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 1,5%2014 0 0,0

Source: OECD DAC 90 100 no data 64 available 1,0 0.69%

62.09 60 0,5% 50.9 50 0.41% 0.2% 0,5 0.12% 30 0.05% 0.76 0.13 0.82 0.1 0.59 0.07 0.43 0.08 no data available 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0,0

Source: OECD DAC SPAIN SPAINEUROMAPPING RANK AGGREGATE COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES 20112014 20112014 EUROMAPPING RANK (in millionAGGREGATE USD) COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES ODA commitments 14 /29 Total ODA 20112014 20112014Spending RMNCH FP RMNCH commitments 16 /29 (in million USD) RMNCH commitments 12,103.90 295.12 35.47 ODA commitmentsas % of total ODA 1421 /29 Total ODA Spending RMNCH as RMNCH FP as FP % of ODA % of ODA RMNCH commitmentsFP commitments 1617 /29 FP commitments RMNCH commitmentsas % of total OD A 21 /29 12,103.90 2.44% 295.12 0.29% 35.47 as % of total ODA 21 /29 Spain prioritises maternal and newborn health and YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH as RMNCH & FP AS % FP as focusesFP commitments on gender and SRHR in its development17 aid policy/29 & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014% of ODA OF ODA 20112014% of ODA plan for 2013-2016. The plan does not specifically refer to FP(76) commitments (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) Fas P. % of total ODA /29 2.44% 0.29% n 2010, Spain announced a financial contribution21 to the Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP Muskoka Initiative: while it did not make an individual 6,000 3,5% 5000 3,5 3.14% pledge, the country committed to providing 2.3 billion YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH & FP AS % USD by 2015 jointly with other donors. 5,000 3,0% 3,0 Spanish ODA has more than halved between 2011 and & FP4,522.97 COMMITMENTS 20112014 OF2.56% ODA 201120144000 2014 (dropping from over 4.52 billion USD to less than 2,5% 2,5 4,000(in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) 2.30 billion USD). The same trend can also be observed 1.90% 2,0% 1.70% 3000 in commitments to RMNCH and FP, as the analysis 3,014.94 2,0 3,000 Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP demonstrates. 2,295.44

2,270.55 1,5% 6,000 3,5% 5000 1,5 3,5 2,000 3.14% 2000 FINANCIAL PLEDGES: 1,0% The Muskoka Initiative. 3,0% 1,0 3,0 1,0005,000 0.35% 0,5% 0.26% 0.24% 0.26% 1000 4,522.97 2.56% 4000 0,5 141.98 51.14 43.24 58.76 16 7.95 5.46 6.05 0 0 2,5% 2,5 4,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0,0 1.90% Source:2,0% OECD DAC 1.70% 3000

3,014.94 2,0 3,000 65 2,295.44

2,270.55 1,5% 1,5 2,000 2000 1,0% 1,0 1,000 0.35% 0,5% 0.26% 0.24% 0.26% 1000 0,5 141.98 51.14 43.24 58.76 16 7.95 5.46 6.05 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0,0

Source: OECD DAC SWEDEN SWEDENEUROMAPPING RANK AGGREGATE COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES 20112014 20112014 EUROMAPPING RANK (in millionAGGREGATE USD) COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES ODA commitments 9 /29 Total ODA 20112014 20112014Spending RMNCH FP RMNCH commitments 11 /29 (in million USD) RMNCH commitments 19,908.44 1,159.79 146.08 ODA commitmentsas % of total ODA 99 /29 Total ODA Spending RMNCH as RMNCH FP as FP % of ODA % of ODA RMNCH commitmentsFP commitments 1111 /29 FP commitments RMNCH commitmentsas % of total OD A 10 /29 19,908.44 5.83% 1,159.79 0.73% 146.08 as % of total ODA 9 /29 Sweden prioritises the health of women and children, with a YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH as RMNCH & FP AS % FP as specialFP commitments focus on SRHR and prenatal care in its development11 /29aid & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014% of ODA OF ODA 20112014% of ODA policy.(77) Sweden has specific international policy strategies for FP commitments(78) (79) (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) SRHR,as % of the total promotion ODA of gender equality and for combat/29- 5.83% 0.73% ting HIV/AIDS.(80) 10 Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP As part of the FP2020 initiative, Sweden committed to increase 6,000 8% 6000 8

spending on contraceptives from its 2010 level of annual 32 mil- 5,424.07

5,072.42 5,077.12 6.55% 7 lion USD to 40 million USD. This has been reported under the YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH6.16% & FP AS % 5,000 5.84% 5000

Global Strategy for Women’s and Children’s Health. The country 4,334.83 & FP COMMITMENTS 201120146% OF ODA 20112014 6 favours a holistic approach to SRHR and never reports against 4,000 (in million USD, constant prices) 4.54% (in percentages) 4000 the OECD CRS code for FP. Therefore this publication might not 5 fully reflect some of the country’s efforts on RMNCH and FP. 3,000 Total ODA RMNCH FP 4% RMNCH FP In 2015, the country initiated a new SRHR strategy for Sub-Sa- 3000 4 haran Africa(81) with a budget of 200 million USD for 2015-2019 6,000 8% 6000 8 (82) 2,000 3 and launched a campaign called #midwifes4all. Sweden fur- 5,424.07 2000

ther committed to allocating a total of 21 billion SEK (approx. 5,072.42 5,077.12 2% 6.55% 7 0.86% 6.16% 2 2.5 billion USD) between 2015 and 2020 under the renewed 1,0005,000 0.60% 0.74% 0.74% 5.84% 5000 334.08 332.42 1000 Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ health. 296.49 196.8 4,334.83 43.66 32.05 40.02 30.34 6% 1 6 0 0 4,000 FINANCIAL PLEDGES: 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 4.54% 4000 0 5 FP2020. Source: OECD DAC EWEC/Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s 3,000 4% 66 and Adolescents’ Health (2016-2030). 3000 4

2,000 3 2000 2% 0.86% 2 1,000 0.60% 0.74% 0.74% 334.08 332.42 1000 296.49 196.8 43.66 32.05 40.02 30.34 1 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0

Source: OECD DAC SWITZERLAND SWITZERLANDEUROMAPPING RANK AGGREGATE COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES 20112014 20112014 EUROMAPPING RANK (in millionAGGREGATE USD) COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES ODA commitments 13 /29 Total ODA 20112014 20112014Spending RMNCH FP RMNCH commitments 13 /29 (in million USD) RMNCH commitments 16,261.67 568.78 67.53 ODA commitmentsas % of total ODA 1317 /29 Total ODA Spending RMNCH as RMNCH FP as FP % of ODA % of ODA RMNCH commitmentsFP commitments 1313 /29 FP commitments RMNCH commitmentsas % of total OD A 18 /29 16,261.67 3.50% 568.78 0.42% 67.53 as % of total ODA 17 /29 Switzerland is a strong supporter of RMNCH and FP in its YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH as RMNCH & FP AS % FP as developmentFP commitments aid policy. Combatting HIV/AIDS, 13improving/29 & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014% of ODA OF ODA 20112014% of ODA MNCH and promoting SRHR are its priorities for global FP commitments (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) health,as % of as totaloutlined OD inA its Strategic Framework on Global/29 3.50% 0.42% Health for 2015-2019.(83) Gender equality is a cross-cutting18 Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP (84) theme for Swiss development aid. 6,000 5% 6000 5 In 2010, Switzerland announced a financial contribution to (85) YEARLY ODA, RMNCH 5,096.59 RMNCH4.01% & FP AS % the Muskoka Initiative as part of broader efforts. 5,000 5000

4,540 3.66% Swiss ODA commitments increased throughout 2013- & FP COMMITMENTS 201120144% OF ODA 20112014 4 3.24% 2014, and the same trend was observed in contributions

4,000(in million3,705.51 USD, constant prices) (in percentages) 4000 to RMNCH and FP: as the analysis shows, commitments to 2.80% 3% 3 these areas doubled between 2011 and 2014. 3,000 Total ODA RMNCH2,919.57 FP RMNCH FP 3000 6,000 2% 5% 6000 5 FINANCIAL PLEDGES: 2,000 2 The Muskoka Inititative. 2000 5,096.59 4.01% 1% 1,0005,000 0.54% 5000 0.31% 0.39% 0.38% 1 4,540 4% 1000 3.66% 4 204.16 166.34 103.65 94.62 11.51 11.37 17.28 27.37 3.24% 0 0

4,000 3,705.51 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 2.80% 0 4000 0 3% Source: OECD DAC 3

3,000 2,919.57 67 3000 2% 2,000 2 2000 1% 1,000 0.54% 0.31% 0.39% 0.38% 1 1000 204.16 166.34 103.65 94.62 11.51 11.37 17.28 27.37 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0

Source: OECD DAC UK UK EUROMAPPING RANK AGGREGATE COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES 20112014 20112014 EUROMAPPING RANK (in millionAGGREGATE USD) COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES ODA commitments 6 /29 Total ODA 20112014 20112014Spending RMNCH FP RMNCH commitments 2 /29 (in million USD) RMNCH commitments 43,698.69 4,956.14 953.23 ODA commitmentsas % of total ODA 63 /29 Total ODA Spending RMNCH as RMNCH FP as FP % of ODA % of ODA RMNCH commitmentsFP commitments 22 /29 FP commitments RMNCH commitmentsas % of total OD A 2 /29 43,698.6911.34% 4,956.14 2.18% 953.23 as % of total ODA 3 /29 The UK’s 2015 development policy prioritises MNCH and YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH as RMNCH & FP AS % FP as FP ascommitments key prerequisites for sustainable development.2 /29(86) & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014% of ODA OF ODA 20112014% of ODA Already from 2010, the country set out an action plan for FP commitments (87) (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) improvingas % of total RMNCH OD throughA its development aid. /29 11.34% 2.18% Under the Muskoka Initiative, the UK committed2 to Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP spending 740 million GBP (approx. 1.1 billion USD) for 15,000 25% 15000 25 MNCH as an annual average from 2010 to 2015. This would 13,916.35 represent an overall addition of 2.1 billion GBP (approx. 3.4 YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH20.05% & FP AS %

billion USD) spending on MNCH in that period. 12,000& FP COMMITMENTS11,274.18 2011201420% OF ODA 2011201412000 20 10,467.88 The UK also initiated the London Family Planning Summit (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) in 2012, and committed to spending 516 million GBP 9,000 15% 8,040.28 9000 15 (approx. 800 million USD) on FP between 2012 and 2020. Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP (88) Both pledges are counted as contributions to EWEC. 9.51% In 2015, the UK renewed its political commitment to the 6,00015,000 10% 25% 15000 25

13,916.35 6000 10 Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ 6.49% 5.15% 4.73% Health. 3,000 2790.57 5% 20.05% 3000 5 1072.59 12,000 11,274.18 1.04% 0.76% 1.17% 20% 12000 20 679.09 658.41 413.89 131.45 FINANCIAL PLEDGES: 83.77 79.61 10,467.88 The Muskoka Initiative. 0 0 FP2020. 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0 9,000 15% 8,040.28 Source: OECD DAC 9000 15

68 9.51% 6,000 10% 6.49% 6000 10 5.15% 4.73% 3,000 2790.57 5% 3000 5 1072.59 1.04% 0.76% 1.17% 679.09 658.41 413.89 131.45 83.77 79.61 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0

Source: OECD DAC US US EUROMAPPING RANK AGGREGATE COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES 20112014 20112014 EUROMAPPING RANK (in millionAGGREGATE USD) COMMITMENTS IN CONSTANT PRICES ODA commitments 1 /29 Total ODA 20112014 20112014Spending RMNCH FP RMNCH commitments 1 /29 (in million USD) RMNCH commitments 133,268.81 21,187.80 3,588.54 ODA commitmentsas % of total ODA 11 /29 Total ODA Spending RMNCH as RMNCH FP as FP % of ODA % of ODA RMNCH commitmentsFP commitments 11 /29 FP commitments RMNCH commitmentsas % of total OD A 1 /29 133,268.8115.90% 21,187.80 2.69% 3,588.54 as % of total ODA 1 /29 The US is committed to supporting RMNCH(89) and FP.(90) YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH as RMNCH & FP AS % FP as ThisFP commitments is evidenced by its announcement in 2009 of a1 Global/29 & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014% of ODA OF ODA 20112014% of ODA HealthFP commitments Initiative 2010-2015 focused on combatting HIV/ (in million USD, constant prices) (in percentages) AIDSas % and of totalending OD preventableA child and maternal 1deaths,/29 15.90% 2.69% with the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS (PEPFAR) Total ODA RMNCH FP RMNCH FP as a central component. The US further reaffirmed its 50,000 20% 35000 20 commitment to MNCH by launching the Ouagadougou 16.82% (91) YEARLY ODA, RMNCH RMNCH15.83% & FP AS % Partnership and the FP2020 initiative. 15.74% 15.28% 30000 40,000 In 2010 the US committed to provide 980 million USD, & FP COMMITMENTS 20112014 OF ODA 20112014

34,902.25 15% 15 33,962 later revised to 1.346 billion USD, in additional funding 33,323.25 25000 (in million USD, 31,081.31 constant prices) (in percentages) for programming directly related to MNCH in the fiscal 30,000 years 2010-2011. This was pledged under the Muskoka 20000 Total ODA RMNCH FP 10% RMNCH FP Initiative, a commitment also counted under EWEC.(92) 10 20 In 2015, the US renewed its political commitment to the 20,00050,000 20% 15000 35000 Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ 5% 16.82% Health. 3.21% 2.70% 10000 15.83% 10,000 2.59% 2.31% 15.74% 15.28% 30000 5 54,92.74 53,77.71 52,26.72 40,000 50,90.63 5000 999.17 902.82 917.59 768.96

FINANCIAL PLEDGES: 34,902.25 15% 15 33,962 The Muskoka Initiative. 0 33,323.25 0 25000 2011 2012 31,081.31 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0 30,000 Source: OECD DAC 20000 10% 69 10 20,000 15000

5% 3.21% 10000 10,000 2.59% 2.31% 2.70% 5 54,92.74 53,77.71 52,26.72 50,90.63 5000 999.17 902.82 917.59 768.96 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 0

Source: OECD DAC Overview of Pledges AUSTRALIAAustralia CANADACanada DDENMARKenmark EUEU INSTITUTIONFRANCEFrance S GERMANYGermany Italy Japan Korea Netherlands Norway Sweden UK US to International Institutions Initiatives: Are Muskoka EUROMAPPINGX 1.1EUROMAPPING billion CAD RANKEUROMAPPINGX RANK50EUROMAPPING million AGGREGATEEUR RANK500EUROMAPPING millionAGGREGATE EUR RANKCOMMITMENTS400EUROMAPPING millionAGGREGATE EUR RANKCOMMITMENTSAGGREGATE IN CONSTANTRANKCOMMITMENTSAGGREGATE75 millionIN COMMITMENTS CONSTANTEUR PRICESAGGREGATE IN COMMITMENTS50 billionCONSTANT PRICES JPY J IN CONSTANT COMMITMENTS oint PRICESpledge IN CONSTANTJoint PRICES pledge IN 50 CONSTANT0 millionPRICES USD X PRICES To provide an annual Pledged Initiative 20112014additional 20112014 funding 20112014 (70 20112014 million U 20112014SD) (approx. 20112014 614.5 million 20112014 USD) (491.6 20112014 million 20112014 USD) 20112014(approx. 20112014 92 million USD) 20112014(approx. 500 million USD) to raise and to raise and additional average of 740 million 1.346 billion USD Donors Fulfilling? (854 million USD), for 2011-2013. during 2011-2015 for 2011-2015 on during 2011-2015 during 2011-2015 additional 2.3 additional 2.3 for 2011-2020 GBP (1.1 billion USD) for for the †scal years totalling overall (in millionon top USD) of existing(in million t opUSD) of 300 million(in million a USD)(in million USD)(indditional million funding USD). (in millionadditional fundingUSD). billion during billion during (Norway de†ned MNCH from 2010 to 2015. 2010 and 2011. The following table offers an ODA commitmentscontributionODA commitments of 2.85 ODA11 commitments/29 ODA commitments10 /29fundingTotalODA 340 ODA million commitments15 EUR Total/29 EUR ODA (368.7 millioncommitments2 /29 Total ODA5 /29Total ODA 3 Total/29 ODA Total ODA 2011-2015 2011-2015 the initiative This is an additional 2.1 overview of whether donors CAD (2.21 billion USD) perSpending year as in 2008 SpendingUSRMNCHD) existing SpendingRMNCH SpendingRMNCH SpendingRMNCHFP Spending wRMNCHFP ith otherRMNCH donorsFP . with otherFP donors. to last longer).FP FP billion GBP on MNCH. seem to be on track on their RMNCH commitmentsbetwRMNCHeen 2010 and commitments 2015. RMNCH 10 commitments/29 RMNCH 4commitments/29(417RMNCH million USD)12 commitments. a/29nnualRMNCH commitments9 commitments/29. 8 /29 3 /29

pledges. It is important to note FP 2020 ToRMNCH double annual commitments XRMNCH P commitmentsRMNCHledged commitments36.3RMNCH million EUR 18,208.09commitments 100RMNCH million EUR 18,831.46 commitments 1001,391.42RMNCH million EUR11,209.23 commitments 2,171.9390,353.85 614.8258,624.09X 1,773.49151.27One82,819.49- o• 361,840.01 176.62million USD To 2,495.87inc93.10rease To rise221.64 support 200 million240.09 USD To increase362.33 spending 516 million GBP X as % of total ODasA % of total ODAas % of total/29 ODas A% of total/29 ODasA % of total OD/29Aas % of total/29 ODA /29 /29 however that the following contributions in 13 million USD7 (approx. 36.7 2 (122.29 million US11D) (122.29 million22 USD) 18 19 disbursement spending for SRHR, incl. out of the 500 on contraceptives (800 million USD) RMNCH as RMNCH as RMNCH as RMNCHFP as as RMNCHFP as as RMNCHFP as as FP as FP as FP as reading is based on aggregated order to reach on top of million USD). until 2015 (part of out of 400 million to UNFPA & IPPF 5.4 million USD HIV and health from million USD from 2010 level (32 over 8 years towards FP commitmentsFP commitments FP commitments10 /29 FP commitments9 /29 FP commitments12 /29 FP% of commitments ODA7 /29 % of ODA5 /29 % of ODA3 /29 %% ofof ODAODA % of ODA % of ODA % of ODA % of ODA % of ODA commitments – whereas pled- 53 million AUD existing funding Muskoka pledge) EUR committed pledged in London 2012. in 2010 381million EUR in pledged under million USD) to 40 the Summit goal. FP(55.89 commitments million FP commitments over FP 2012-2020. commitments FP commitments to 9 AfrFPican commitments countries t FPo RMNCH. commitments to 10.8 million 2013 to 413 million Muskoka. million USD per ges are based on disbursements USasD) % annually of total ODasA % of total ODAas % of7 total/29 ODas A% ( of total6 /29 ODOuagadougouasA % of total 8 OD/29Aas7.64% %22 of total/29 OD11.53%A 19 /29 5.48%17 /29 1.96%0.83% 3.14%0.94%USD in0.83%3.01% 2013. EUR0.25% in 2015. 0.41% year in0.44% 2015. – and throughout the period for as of 2016. partnership). which information is publicly EWEC available (up to 2014, although 1.6 billion AUD Muskoka pledge FP2020 pledge X YEARLYBoth pledges ODA,YEARLY RMNCHBoth ODA, pledgesYEARLY RMNCHYEARLY ODA, RMNCH ODA,YEARLYX RMNCHRMNCH ODA,YEARLY Both RMNCH pledges&RMNCH FP ODA, AS % FP2020 RMNCH& FPRMNCH pledge AS %FP2020 RMNCH & pledge FP ASBoth &%RMNCH pl FPedges AS %FP2020 & FP RMNCHpledge AS B % &oth pledgesFP AS X % (1.5 billion USD) reported under reported under & FP rCOMMITMENTSeported under& FP COMMITMENTSreported under& FP 20112014 COMMITMENTS& FP 20112014 COMMITMENTS& FP 20112014 COMMITMENTSOF &ODA 20112014FPrepo rtCOMMITMENTS ed 20112014OF under ODA 20112014re 20112014portedOF under ODA r 20112014eporOF ted 20112014 under ODA repor 20112014OFted under ODA re po 20112014rtedOF under ODAre po 20112014rted under some of the pledges are to be until 2015 to MNCH. GS/EWEC. GS/EWEC. GS/EWEC. GS/EWEC. GS/EWEC. GS/EWEC. GS/EWEC. GS/EWEC. GS/EWEC. GS/EWEC. honoured by 2015 or 2020). (in million USD,(in constant million prices) USD, constant(in million prices) USD,(in constantmillion USD, prices)(in constant million prices) USD,(in percentagesconstant(in million prices))(in USD, percentages constant )prices)(in percentages(in) percentages)(in percentages) (in percentages) Result On track On track. N/A due to lack Pledges On track for FP2020/ On track. N/A due to lack of N/A due to lack of baseline. On track. N/A, given that the On track. On track. On track. Pledge for EWEC. As per of baseline. Den- honoured.Total OuagadougoODA RMNCHu. MoTotalre ODAFP AnalysedRMNCH Totalb ODAFP RMNCHTotal ODA FPRMNCHaselineTotal. ODAItaly FPhas RMNCHRMNCHJapanTotal has ODAhoweverFPFP RMNCH con†rmedRMNCH FPFPAnalysedRMNCH NetherlandsFPRMNCH has FP AnalysedRMNCH FPAnalysedRMNCH AFP nalysed honoured, This table hence aims at pro- Needs more commitments mark has none- 6,000 e ort is needed7,000 during3,500 4 35,000 nonetheless20,000 been steadily10% 30,000 making the one20-o•% payment commitments10% committed5% sectors 5000commitments5% c6000ommitments5% 3000commitments30000 as per US20000 10 2500020 8 3,0 5 3,5 viding mainly an indication on e orts for FP2020, during 4 years, theless been in- for Muskoka, years have increasing its RMNCH under FP2020. In addition,17.79 % during 4 that go beyond during 4 during 4 4.42% during 4 report to Muskoka whether pledges are on track where commit- it has almost creasing FP commit- based on analysed surpassed and FP commitments Japan has signi†cantly in- years have the methodology years have years have years have (prior to this 2,948.21 18%

16,819.88 8.16%

24,873.25 7 2,832.99 6,000 4,878.83 3,000 30,000 3,0 ments have achieved ments throughout RMNCH commitments 5,601.87 the target. (both were double creased7.68% RMNCH7.74% commitments surpassed of this publication. surpassed surpassed surpassed publication by the timeline of reporting of 5,000 2,738.91 25,000 5000 2500 25000 2,5 2,689.12 4,541.47

26,237.01 8% 16% 8% 4% 4% 4% 8 4 been decreasing. 5 years target. the analysed period. of 2011-2014. in 2014 than 2012). over the analysed period. the target. 14,920.98 4000the target. the target. the target. timeline). 20000 4,405.38 4,382.41

25,355.37 7.00% this publication. 15,000 14,163.82 3.35% 3.43% 15000 15 6 5,000 2,500 25,000 20,399.99 6.37% 1419,807.71 % 2,5 4,477.48 12,719.41 4,000 4,443.38 20,000 5.95% 3.03% 4,308.73 4000 2.92%2000 20000 2,0 17,738.54 5.55% 2.77% 20,224.87 2.74% 6% 12% 6% 3% 2.57%3% 3% 5

4,000 2,000 20,000 18,536.6 3000 6 15000 3 9.07 2.26% 2.29% 2,0 3,000 10,000 15,000 10% 8.77% 8.80% 70 4.05% 3000 1500 15000 10000 10 4 1,5 3,000 1,500 15,000 1.78% 4% 8% 4% 2% 2% 2% 1,5 4 2 2,000 10,000 2000 10000 3 6% 2,000 1,000 10,000 0.97% 2000 1000 10000 1,0 5,000 0.81% 1,0 2% 4% 2% 1% 1% 1% 996.73 0.99% 0.95% 0.98% 0.50% 5000 5 2 1,000 1,000 500 5,000 0.81% 1.82%0.84% 0.76% 0.36% 0.45% 0.39%0.44% 0.41% 5,000 0.69% 10000.63% 0.22%0.33% 0.24% 2 5000 1

377.59 0.77% 357.58 406.13 338.14 318.12 389.90 379.18 0.53% 0.12% 0,5 171.42 2%175.37 0.11% 1000 500 5000 157.15 0.40% 110.87

562.67 0,5 499.79 682.49 698.78 391.69 385.86 577.53 537.08 675.4 101.90 572.38 21.47 29.01 25.43 17.18 37.97 43.51 39.51 30.27 329.64 1 23.61 33.03 102.92 88.86 68.61 102.95 101.91 66.06 196.07 31.27 39.84 18.08 21.51 94.68 83.15 22.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2011 20120121 20120132012 1 20120120142013 12 2012012014 231 2011 2012012012013420122 12012011 3201201201432012012 24 201132012014 2012013 242011201032012014220120142011 30 2012012 4 20131 0 20124 20103 2014 0 0 0 0 0 0,0 0 0,0

Source: OECD DAC Source: OECD DAC Source: OECD DAC Source: OECD DAC Source: OECD DAC Source: OECD DAC Australia Canada Denmark EU France Germany ITALYItaly JAPANJapan KOREAKorea NetherlandsNETHERLANDS NORWAYNorway SWEDENSweden UKUK USUS Institutions

Muskoka X 1.1 billion CAD X 50 million EUR 500 million EUR 400 million EUR 75EUROMAPPING million EUR 50EUROMAPPING billion JPYRANK JointEUROMAPPING pledge RANKAGGREGATEJointEUROMAPPING pledge RANK500EUROMAPPING million AGGREGATECOMMITMENTS USD X RANKEUROMAPPING AGGREGATE COMMITMENTS RANKTo IN pEUROMAPPINGrovide CONSTANTAGGREGATE an annual COMMITMENTS RANK EUROMAPPINGPledgedAGGREGATE IN PRICES CONSTANT COMMITMENTS RANK AGGREGATE IN COMMITMENTS RANKCONSTANT PRICESAGGREGATE IN COMMITMENTSCONSTANT PRICESAGGREGATE IN CONSTANTCOMMITMENTS PRICES IN COMMITMENTS CONSTANT PRICES IN CONSTANT PRICES IN CONSTANT PRICES PRICES Initiative additional funding (70 million USD) (approx. 614.5 million USD) (491.6 million USD) (approx. 20112014 92 million USD) (approx. 20112014 500 million USD) t 20112014o raise and 20112014to 20112014 raise and a 20112014dditional 20112014 20112014 20112014average 20112014 of 20112014 740 million 1.346 20112014 billion 20112014 USD 20112014 20112014 20112014 (854 million USD), for 2011-2013. during 2011-2015 for 2011-2015 on during 2011-2015 during 2011-2015 additional 2.3 additional 2.3 for 2011-2020 GBP (1.1 billion USD) for for the †scal years totalling overall on top of existing top of 300 million additional funding. additional funding. billion during (inbillion million during USD) (Norway(in de†ned million USD) M(in millionNCH USD) from(in 2010 million to 2015. USD)2010 and(in 2011. million USD)(in million USD)(in million USD)(in million USD) contribution of 2.85 funding 340 million EUR EUR (368.7 million ODA commitments ODA commitments122011-2015ODA/29 commitments ODA2011-2015Total commitments4 /29ODA theODA initiative commitments17 Total/29 ODAODA T commitments7 /29Totalhis ODAis anODA additional commitments8 /29 2.1Total ODAODA commitments9 /29Total ODA 6 /29Total ODA 1 /29Total ODA Total ODA CAD (2.21 billion USD) per year as in 2008 USD) existing with other donors. with other Spendingdonors. to last longer). RMNCHSpending SpendingbillionRMNCH GBP on MNCH.Spending RMNCH FPSpendingRMNCH SpendingRMNCHFP SpendingRMNCHFP SpendingRMNCHFP RMNCHFP FP FP FP between 2010 and 2015. (417 million USD). annual commitments. RMNCH commitmentsRMNCH commitments19RMNCH/29 commitmentsRMNCH5 commitments/29 RMNCH 14 commitments/29 RMNCH7 commitments/29 RMNCH 6 commitments/29 RMNCH 11 commitments/29 2 /29 1 /29

FP 2020 To double annual X Pledged 36.3 million EUR 100 million EUR 100 million EUR RMNCHX commitmentsOne- o•RMNCH 36 million USDcommitments ToRMNCH incre ase commitmentsToRMNCH rise16,477.2 suppor tcommitments 200RMNCH million 75,946.39USD commitments 249.25To increRMNCHase spending 10,017.05 commitments 5 2,075.41RMNCH16 million24,973.78 GBP commitments RMNCH516.18X 20,699.06 30.65 commitments1,842.23 19,908.44232.801,930.2343,698.691,159.7960.24133,268.81249.964,956.14 202.2421,187.80 146.08 953.23 3,588.54 as % of total ODA as % of total ODA as/29 % of total ODasA % of total/29 ODasA % of total/29 ODAas % of total/29 ODasA % of total/29 ODAas % of total/29 ODA /29 /29 contributions in 13 million USD (approx. 36.7 (122.29 million USD) (122.29 million USD) disbursement 23spending for SRHR,20 incl. out of the 50012 on contraceptives8 (800 million4 USD) 9 3 1 RMNCH as RMNCH as RMNCH asFP as RMNCH as RMNCHFP as as RMNCHFP as as RMNCHFP as as RMNCHFP as as FP as FP as FP as order to reach on top of million USD). until 2015 (part of out of 400 million to UNFPA & IPPF 5.4 million USD HIV and health from million USD f% ofr omODA 2010 level (32 o%ver of 8 years ODA towards % of ODA% of ODA% of ODA % %of ofODA ODA %% of of ODA ODA %% of of ODA ODA % %of ofODA ODA % of ODA % of ODA % of ODA 53 million AUD existing funding Muskoka pledge) EUR committed FP commitments pledgedFP in Lcommitmentsondon 2012. 18FPin/29 2010commitments 381millionFP commitments EUR6 in/29 pledgeFP dcommitments under14 /29millionFP USD) commitments to 440 /29 theFP Summit commitments8 goal./29 FP commitments 11 /29 2 /29 1 /29 (55.89 million over 2012-2020. to 9 African countries to RMNCH. FP commitments FP commitments toFP 10.8 commitments million 2013FP to 413commitments million FPMuskok commitmentsa. millionFP USD commitments per FP commitments FP commitments USD) annually (Ouagadougou as % of total ODA as % U of total OD23A asSD/29 in% 2013. of total E ODasURA in%20 2015. of total /29 ODasA % of13 total1.51%/29 ODyearAas in %2015. of 3 total/29 OD2.73%asA % of4 total/29 ODAas5.15% % 10of 0.19%total/29 OD7.38%A 2 /290.31%9.33%1 /29 0.60%5.83% 1.00%11.34% 0.98%15.90% 0.73% 2.18% 2.69% as of 2016. partnership).

EWEC 1.6 billion AUD Muskoka pledge FP2020 pledge X Both pledges Both pledges X Both pledges FP2020 pledge YEARLYFP2020 pledge ODA,Both plYEARLYedges RMNCH FP2020 ODA, pledgeYEARLY B RMNCHoth ODA,pledgesYEARLY X RMNCH ODA,YEARLY RMNCH RMNCH ODA,YEARLY & FP RMNCH RMNCHAS ODA,%YEARLY & RMNCH FPRMNCH ODA, ASYEARLY % RMNCH &RMNCH FP ODA, AS % RMNCH&RMNCH FP AS % & RMNCHFP AS % & RMNCH FP AS % & RMNCH FP AS % & FP AS % (1.5 billion USD) reported under reported under reported under reported under reported under reported under r&epor FPted underCOMMITMENTS reported& under FP COMMITMENTSrepo rt 20112014ed under& FP COMMITMENTSreported& under 20112014FP COMMITMENTS& FPOF 20112014 COMMITMENTS ODA& 20112014 FP 20112014 COMMITMENTSOF ODA& FP 20112014 20112014COMMITMENTSOF& ODA FP 20112014 COMMITMENTS 20112014OF ODA 20112014 20112014OF ODA 20112014 20112014OF ODA 20112014OF ODA 20112014OF ODA 20112014 until 2015 to MNCH. GS/EWEC. GS/EWEC. GS/EWEC. GS/EWEC. GS/EWEC. GS/EWEC. GS/EWEC. GS/EWEC. GS/EWEC. GS/EWEC. (in million USD, constant(in prices)million USD, constant(in million prices) USD,(in constant million prices) USD,(in constant million(in percentages prices) USD, constant(in) million prices)(in USD, percentages(in constant million) prices) USD,(in percentages(in constant million prices)) (inUSD, percentages constant )prices)(in percentages) (in percentages)(in percentages) (in percentages) Result On track On track. N/A due to lack Pledges On track for FP2020/ On track. N/A due to lack of N/A due to lack of baseline. On track. N/A, given that the On track. On track. On track. Pledge for EWEC. As per of baseline. Den- honoured. Ouagadougou. More Analysed baseline. Italy has Japan has however con†rmed Analysed NTotaletherlands ODA has RMNCH AnalysedTotalFP ODA AnalysedRMNCH ATotal ODAFP nalysedRMNCHTotal ODAFP honouredRMNCHTotal, RMNCH ODAFP RMNCHFPTotal ODAFPRMNCHRMNCHTotalFP ODAFP RMNCHRMNCHTotal ODAFPFP RMNCHRMNCH FPFPRMNCH FP RMNCH FP RMNCH FP RMNCH FP 1.90% Needs more commitments mark has none- e ort is needed during 4 nonetheless been steadily making the one-o• payment commitments c6,000ommitted sectors commitments30,000 commitments3,000 commitments10,000 as per8,000 US2,0% 6,000 5% 15,000 10%50,000 125000% 20% 25000 8% 3000 25% 8000 20% 2,06000 60004,0 15000 8 3500012 20 8 25 20

13,916.35 18.05% e orts for FP2020, during 4 years, theless been in- for Muskoka, years have increasing its RMNCH under FP2020. In addition, during 4 that go beyond during 4 during 4 during 4 report to Muskoka 2,766.79 10.73% 5,424.07 2,688.41 where commit- it has almost creasing FP commit- based on analysed surpassed and FP commitments Japan has signi†cantly in- years have the methodology years have years have years have (prior to this1,8% 1.69% 16.82% 5,072.42 5,077.12 6.55%

8,000 2,490.38 7,533.82 7000 20.05% 3,5 15.83% 7 7 ments have achieved ments throughout RMNCH commitments the target. (both were double creased RMNCH commitments surpassed of this publication.4,869.52 surpassed surpassed surpassed publication 6.16% 15.74% 15.28% 30000 5,000 25,000 2,500 7,133.31 5,000 10% 2500 5000 5000 10

23,111.39 3.70% 5.84%

1,6% 4% 12,000 8%40,000 11,274.18 20% 20 been decreasing. 5 years target. the analysed period. of 2011-2014. in 2014 than 2012). over the analysed period. the target. the target. the target. the target. timeline). 5,924.82 4000 20000 12000 4,359.87 4,334.83

6,000 6,000 21,289.04 6.76% 34,902.25 10,467.88 15% 6% 15% 1,5 3,0 6 15 6 15 2,071.47 1.33% 6000 33,962 3,986.53 33,323.25

5,926.29 1,4% 25000

Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland, Norway, Spain, Gates Foundation and UN Foundations pledged jointly to raise an additional 2.3 billion USD during 2011-2015. 5,060.96

4,000 20,000 2,000 4,000 8% 31,081.31 4,857.17 4,856.11 2.89% 5,000 1.15% 2000 4.54% 4000 4000 8 1,2% 3% 9,000 6%30,000 6.57% 6.31% 15% 5000 2,5 5 5 16,396.51 3,261.28 8,040.28 2.41% 30004.88% 15000 9000 15 15,149.45 20000 3,000 15,000 1,500 4,000 4,0001,0% 3,000 4,380.36 4.38% 6% 104.35%% 4% 8.95% 10% 71 1.95% 4.84% 1500 4000 1,030009.51% 30002,0 4 6 10 4 10 0,8% 2% 6,000 4%20,000 10% 15000 3,000 2000 10000 6000 10 2,000 10,000 1,000 2,000 4% 5.27% 5.28% 3000 6.49% 1,5 3 3 0,6% 1000 5.15% 2000 4.73% 2000 4 2,000 2,000 5% 2% 5%

2790.57 3.21% 10000 0,4% 1% 3,0000.24% 2%10,000 1.67% 5% 2000 0,52.59% 2.31%1,0 2.70% 2 5 2 5 1,000 5,000 500 1,000 0.22% 0.45% 2% 1.10% 0.86% 0.74% 0.74% 876.53 54,92.74 0.17% 53,77.71 52,26.72 0.13% 0.34%10000.68% 0.77% 5000 50,90.63 0.60%1.29% 3000 5 1,000 765.16 0.28% 0.50% 0.64% 1.07% 1072.59 1.17% 0.42% 530.36 0.89% 1.04% 186.95 0.19% 0.66% 334.08

332.42 0.76% 475.33 0.34% 1000 1000 2

296.49 500

0,2% 679.09 389.57 658.41 116.92 121.63 267.32 256.01 196.8 90.69 413.89 212.17 5000 999.17 607.32 615.08 902.82 917.59 557.67 768.96 118.83 82.9 82.66 67.41 295.34 51.9 65.1 52.97 43.66 32.05 40.02 131.45 30.34 55.77 43.40 21.31 13.44 83.77 79.61 32.27 16.84 0,5 1 1 28

20.23 1000 8.65 41.95 73.52 44.39 72.94 6.17 5.43 8.78 10.26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2011 2012 2011 2013 20122012011 4 201320120121 20142012012012011321 2012 20120120120143201232011 1 201420120120142012320121 20120131 2012012014201201342012012011 32012012012014320122 4201201103 201201420123 4 20120113 02012012014 24 2012011 03 2012012 40,0201201103 2012012 4 2010,030 2014 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Source: OECD DAC Source: OECD DAC Source: OECD DAC Source: OECD DAC Source: OECD DAC Source: OECD DAC Source: OECD DAC Source: OECD DAC Annex 1: Footnotes on Donor Reporting

Australia health and healthcare’: http://diplomatie. (23) See the Strategy on the promotion of Finland (13) See Overview of Australia’s commit- belgium.be/sites/default/files/down- SRHR, http://www.danida-publikationer. (31) See Finnish Government Report on ments to health, http://dfat.gov.au/aid/ loads/policy_note_healthcare.pdf and dk/publikationer/publikationsdetaljer. Development Policy 2016, http://formin. topics/investment-priorities/education- policy paper on Belgian Development aspx?PId=71c533d1-e02a-401f-872c- finland.fi/Public/default.aspx?contentid= health/health/Pages/health.aspx and Cooperation in the Field of Sexual and 8098345ddf67 341918&nodeid=49540&contentlan=2&c health aid fact sheet, https://dfat.gov.au/ Reproductive Health and Rights: http:// (24) See Amplifying Change, https://ampli- ulture=en-US about-us/publications/Documents/aid- diplomatie.belgium.be/sites/default/files/ fychange.org/ fact-sheet-health.pdf downloads/policy_paper_sexual_and_ (25) See Denmark’s commitment to EWEC, France (14) See Australia’s strategy on health reproductive_health.pdf http://www.everywomaneverychild. (32) See Reference sheet: France and and development for 2015-2020, http:// org/commitments/all-commitments/ sexual and reproductive health, http:// dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/ Canada denmark www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/IMG/pdf/ Pages/health-for-development-strate- (19) See Canada and the world: Improv- FR_sante_sexuelle_et_reproductive_GB_ gy-2015-2020.aspx ing the health and rights of women and EU Institutions cle46dd11.pdf children http://international.gc.ca/world- (26) See EU Consensus on Development, (33) See France’s Gender and Develop- Austria monde/development-developpement/ http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex- ment Strategy 2013-2017; http://www. (15) See Austria’s 2016-2018 develop- mnch-smne/improving-amelioration. UriServ.do?uri=OJ%3AC%3A2006%3A04 diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/photos-publica- ment policy programme, http://www. aspx?lang=eng 6%3A0001%3A0019%3AEN%3APDF (to tions-and-graphics/publications/article/ entwicklung.at/fileadmin/user_upload/ (20) See Canada’s commitment to EWEC, be revised in 2016-2017) gender-and-development-strategy Dokumente/Publikationen/3_JP/ http://www.everywomaneverychild.org/ (27) See the Council’s Conclusions on (34) See France’s strategy for international Englisch/2016-2018_3-YP.pdf commitments/all-commitments/canada Gender in Development http://www. health cooperation, http://www.diplo- (16) See Austrian Development Agency, consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press- matie.gouv.fr/fr/IMG/pdf/France_s_strat- Gender Equality, http://www.entwick- CZECH REPUBLIC releases/2015/10/26-fac-conclusions- egy_for_international_health_coopera- lung.at/en/themes/gender-equality/ (21) See the Development Cooperation gender-development/ tion_cle85a144.pdf strategy of the Czech Republic 2010- (28) See the European Commission’s (35) See France’s strategy on external BELGIUM 2017: http://www.mzv.cz/file/762314/FI- answer to a Parliamentary Question action on population and SRHR for 2016- (17) See Loi relative à la Coopération Belge NAL__Development_Cooperation_Strat- on the Muskoka Initiative: http://www. 2020, http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/ au Développement, 2013, http://www. egy_2010_2017.pdf europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc. IMG/pdf/dssr_en_cle0c141a.pdf ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi_loi/change_lg.p do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+WQ+P-2011- (36) See ‘France’s contribution in the area l?language=fr&la=F&cn=2013031906&ta Denmark 003729+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN of reproductive, maternal, newborn and ble_name=loi (22) See strategy for Denmark’s develop- (29) About the MDG initiative: http:// child health’, http://www.diplomatie. (18) See Belgian Ministry of Foreign Af- ment cooperation, http://um.dk/en/ ec.europa.eu/europeaid/regions/africa/ gouv.fr/en/french-foreign-policy/health- fairs, Foreign Trade and Development danida-en/goals/strategy and priorities africa-eu-millennium-development- education-gender/health/article/france- Cooperation policy documents on for the Danish development coop- goals-initiative_en s-contribution-in-the-area-of-reproduc- health, http://diplomatie.belgium.be/ eration 2015-2018, http://um.dk/en/ (30) See the European Commission’s tive-maternal-newborn-and-child en/policy/development_cooperation/ danida-en/goals/government-priorities- Official Report to FP2020, http://www. (37) See France’s commitments, http:// what_we_do/themes/social_develop- --danish-development-assistance/priori- familyplanning2020.org/entities/199 www.everywomaneverychild.org/com- ment/health; ‘Policy Note: The right to ties-2015-2018 mitments/all-commitments/france

72 Annex 1: Footnotes on Donor Reporting

Germany ICeland Commitment-2012.pdf NETHERLANDS (38) See BMZ policy paper ‘Sexual and (45) See Icelandic Development Coop- (51) See Japan’s renewed commitment (58) See the Government of the Neth- Reproductive Health and Rights, and eration: Emphasis and Priority Sectors, to the Global Strategy, http://www. erlands Development Cooperation: Population Dynamics’ https://www. https://www.mfa.is/foreign-policy/ everywomaneverychild.org/commit- Sexual and reproductive health and bmz.de/en/publications/archiv/ development-cooperation/icelandic- ments/all-commitments/japan rights, https://www.government.nl/ type_of_publication/strategies/spezi- development-cooperation/emphasis- topics/development-cooperation/con- al149pdf.pdf and-priority-sectors/ Korea tents/the-development-policy-of-the- (39) See BMZ Initiative on Rights-based (52) See Korea International Cooperation netherlands/sexual-and-reproductive- Family Planning and Maternal Health, Ireland Agency, Sector: Health, http://www. health-and-rights http://health.bmz.de/what_we_do/ (46) See Ireland’s Policy for International koica.go.kr/english/aid/sector_health/ (59) Idem, footnote 24 Reproductive-maternal-and-child- Development, https://www.irishaid. index.html (60) See the Netherlands’ commitment health/policies_and_concepts/Sexu- ie/about-us/policy-for-international- (53) See FP2020, Korea Financial Com- to FP2020, http://www.familyplan- al_and_Reproductive_Health_and_ development/ mitments, http://www.familyplan- ning2020.org/commitments?entity_ Rights_and_Population_Dynamics/ ning2020.org/entities/110 id[]=110&entity_id[]=192 BMZ_Initiative_on_Rights-based_Fam- Italy (54) Korea did not make an individual (61) See Netherlands commitment ily_Planning_and_Maternal_Health.pdf (47) See Disciplina Generale sulla coop- pledge to the Muskoka Initiative but letter to EWEC, http://www.every- (40) See ‘Government of Germany An- erazione internazionale per lo sviluppo, committed to providing 2.3 billion womaneverychild.org/commitments/ nounces New FP2020 Commitment’, 2014, http://www.cooperazioneal- USD by 2015 jointly with other donors all-commitments/netherlands http://www.familyplanning2020.org/ losviluppo.esteri.it/pdgcs/download/ (Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, (62) The Netherlands did not make articles/14458 legge%2011%20agosto%202014%20 New Zealand, BMGF and UN Founda- an individual pledge to the Muskoka (41) See BMZ Initiative on Rights-based n.%20125%20-.pdf tion). Initiative but committed to providing Family Planning and Maternal Health, (48) See Italy’s commitment to the (55) See Republic of Korea Ministry of 2.3 billion USD (1.7 billion EUR) by 2015 http://health.bmz.de/what_we_do/Re- Muskoka Initiative, http://iif.un.org/ Foreign Affairs, Better Life for Girls, jointly with other donors. productive-maternal-and-child-health/ content/maternal-newborn-and-child- 2015, http://www.koica.go.kr/down- policies_and_concepts/BMZ_Initiative_ health-muskoka-initiative-italy load/2015/better_life_girls.pdf NEW ZEALAND FP_MH/BMZ-Initiative-FP-MH-ENG.pdf (56) See Korea’s EWEC commitment (63) New Zealand Aid Programme In- (42) See Germany’s commitment to JAPAN letter, http://www.everywomanevery- vestment Priorities 2015-2019, https:// EWEC, http://www.everywomanevery- (49) See Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ja- child.org/images/Republic_of_Korea_ www.mfat.govt.nz/assets/_secured- child.org/commitments/all-commit- pan FY2016 Priority Policy for Develop- Commitment_Letter2015.pdf files/Aid-Prog-docs/Aid-Investment- ments/germany ment Cooperation, http://www.mofa. Priorities-2015-19-web.pdf (43) Idem, footnote 42 go.jp/policy/oda/page23e_000434. Luxembourg (64) New Zealand did not make an indi- html (57) See Luxembourg’s Development vidual pledge to the Muskoka Initiative Greece (50) See Japan’s commitment to FP2020 Cooperation, Stratégies et orienta- but committed to providing 2.3 billion (44) See OECD profile of Greece, http://ec2-54-210-230-186.compute-1. tions, http://cooperation.mae.lu/en/ USD (1.7 billion EUR) by 2015 jointly https://www.oecd.org/dac/Greece_ amazonaws.com/wp-content/up- Politique-de-Cooperation-et-d-Action- with other donors DCR2012_21jan13_Part10.pdf loads/2016/10/Govt.-of-Japan-FP2020- humanitaire/Strategies-et-orientations

73 Annex 1: Footnotes on Donor Reporting

NORWAY SLOVENIA (79) See SIDA, Our Fields of Work, UK (65) See Norad, Thematic areas: Global (74) Resolution on International Devel- Gender Equality, http://www.sida.se/ (86) UK aid: tackling global challenges in health, https://www.norad.no/en/front/ opment Cooperation of the Republic English/how-we-work/our-fields-of- the national interest, 2015, https://www. thematic-areas/global-health/ of Slovenia until 2015, 2008, http:// work/gender-equality/ gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ (66) See Norad, Saving Mothers, Giving www.mzz.gov.si/fileadmin/pageup- (80) See SIDA, Our Fields of Work, uploads/attachment_data/file/478834/ Life, https://www.norad.no/en/front/ loads/Zunanja_politika/ZDH/Zakoni_ Health, HIV/AIDS, http://www.sida.se/ ODA_strategy_final_web_0905.pdf thematic-areas/global-health/saving- in_dokumenti/Resolucija_MRS_EN.pdf English/how-we-work/our-fields-of- (87) DFID, Choices for women: planned mothers-giving-lives/ (unofficial translation) work/health/hiv-aids/ pregnancies, safe births and healthy new- (67) Norway was the only country pledg- (75) Ministry of Foreign Affairs, (81) See Sweden’s strategy for sexual borns. The UK’s Framework for Results for ing until 2020, to align commitments International Development Coop- and reproductive health and rights improving reproductive, maternal and with FP2020 eration Priorities of the Republic of (SRHR) in Sub-Saharan Africa, http:// newborn health in the developing world, (68) See Norway’s commitments to EWEC, Slovenia, http://www.mzz.gov.si/en/ www.government.se/country-and-re- https://www.gov.uk/government/up- http://www.everywomaneverychild.org/ foreign_policy_and_international_law/ gional-strategies/2015/09/strategy-for- loads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ commitments/all-commitments/norway international_development_coopera- sexual-and-reproductive-health-and- file/67640/RMNH-framework-for-results. (69) Idem, footnote 68 tion_and_humanitarian_assistance/ rights-srhr-sub-saharan-africa-in/ pdf (70) For more information on the GFF, international_development_coopera- (82) See Midwives4All, http://midwive- (88) See the UK’s commitment to EWEC, please consult: http://www.worldbank. tion_of_slovenia/international_devel- s4all.org/ http://www.everywomaneverychild.org/ org/en/news/press-release/2015/07/13/ opment_cooperation_priorities_of_ commitments/all-commitments/united- global-financing-facility-launched-with- the_republic_of_slovenia/ SWITZERLAND kingdom billions-already-mobilized-to-end-mater- (83) See strategic Framework 2015- nal-and-child-mortality-by-2030 SPAIN 2019, SDC Global Programme US (76) Plan Director de Cooperacion Espa- Health, https://www.shareweb.ch/ (89) See USAID: What we do: Maternal Poland nola 2013-2016, http://www.aecid.es/ site/Health/publiclibrary/Public%20 and child health, https://www.usaid.gov/ (71) See Wieloletni program współpracy Centro-Documentacion/Documentos/ Library/Strategic%20Framework%20 what-we-do/global-health/maternal- rozwojowej na lata 2016-2020, https:// Planificaci%C3%B3n/PD%202013-2016. 2015%E2%80%932019%20SDC%20 and-child-health www.polskapomoc.gov.pl/down- pdf Global%20Programme%20Health.pdf (90) See USAID: What we do: Family plan- load/files/Dokumenty_i_Publikacje/ (84) SDC, Gender Equality, https://www. ning and reproductive health, https:// Program_wieloletni_2016-2020/Pro- SWEDEN eda.admin.ch/deza/en/home/themes- www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/global- gram_2016-2020.pdf (77) See SIDA, Our Fields of Work, sdc/gender-equality.html health/family-planning Health, http://www.sida.se/English/ (85) Switzerland did not make an indi- (91) See http://partenariatouaga.org/en/ Portugal how-we-work/our-fields-of-work/ vidual pledge to the Muskoka Initiative the-partnership/ (72) See http://www.instituto-camoes.pt/ health/ but committed to providing 2.3 billion (92) See the United States’ commit- images/cooperacao/estrategia_coopera- (78) See SIDA, Our Fields of Work, USD by 2015 jointly with other donors ment to the Muskoka Initiative, cao_saude.pdf Health, Sexual and reproductive rights, (with South Korea, New Zealand and http://www.who.int/pmnch/media/ (73 See http://www.instituto-camoes.pt/ http://www.sida.se/English/how-we- the Netherlands). press/2011/20110518_pmnch_g8_me- images/cooperacao/rcm_17_2014.pdf work/our-fields-of-work/health/Sexual- diaalert/en/ and-reproductive-rights/

74 Annex 2: Methodology

The Muskoka Methodology relies on data of the OECD’s CRS. It applies percentages BILATERAL (OECD CRS) to funding reported to the OECD under certain purpose codes or to selected 12110 Health policy & administrative management 40% 12181 Medical education/training 40% multilateral organisations. The percentages applied vary depending on the 12191 Medical services 40% intended target group of the respective donor activity. Activities targeting entirely 12220 Basic health care 40% 12230 Basic health infrastructure 40% or mostly women of reproductive age and/or children under five are assigned 100%; 12240 Basic nutrition 100% activities targeting the general population are counted at 40%. Disease-specific 12250 Infectious disease control 40% interventions are attributed at 18.5% for tuberculosis, 46.1% for HIV/AIDS and 12261 Health education 40% 12262 Malaria control 88.50% (93) 88.5% for malaria. Basic drinking water supply and sanitation is counted at 15%. 12263 Tuberculosis control 18.50% Originally developped in order to track the G8 Muskoka pledges to MNCH, it is still 12281 Health personnel development 40% 13010 Population policy & administrative management 40% a widely credible tracking methodology, used by the PMNCH in its Accountability 13020 Reproductive health care 100% Reports.(94) Efforts to update it, in order to better track the ‘Adolescent’ component 13030 Family planning 100% of the RMNCAH concept, are still ongoing. 13040 STD control including HIV/AIDS 46.10% 13081 Personnel development for population & reproductive health 100% Furthermore, in this Euromapping, donors’ commitments to FP were analysed 14030 Basic drinking water supply and basic sanitation 15% 14031 Basic drinking water supply 15% using a revised version of the below Muskoka Methodology, developped during 14032 Basic sanitation 15% London Family Planning Summit in 2012. This revised version uses part of the 51010 General budget support-related aid 4% original Muskoka OECD CRS codes and multilateral organisations, with the MULTILATERAL (OECD Members' total use of the multilateral system - core contributions) difference that the applied percentages are lower. GAVI 100% Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria 46% African Development Bank Fund 3% Asian Development Bank Fund 2% (93) See http://www.who.int/pmnch/activities/accountability/reports/en/ Inter-American Development Bank Fund for Special Operations 1% (94) For further information on the Muskoka methodology, please go to http://www.g8.utoronto. UNFPA 67% ca/summit/2010muskoka/methodology.html’ and refer to the PMNCH Accountability Report UNICEF 55% (http://www.who.int/pmnch/knowledge/publications/2015_pmnch_report/en/)

75 Annex 3: Donor Data Overview

Annual ODA Annual RMNCH Annual FP (million USD) (million USD) (million USD) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 Australia 4,405.38 4,878.83 4,541.47 4,382.41 338.14 377.59 318.12 357.58 43.51 39.51 37.97 30.27 Austria 1,231.23 1,159.57 1,401.54 1,303.30 42.91 54.41 33.38 28.27 5.80 7.27 4.61 3.66 Belgium 2,944.36 2,466.11 2,679.34 2,869.95 127.03 86.63 158.08 107.86 13.21 9.95 18.74 13.31 Canada 5,601.87 4,443.38 4,308.73 4,477.48 996.73 389.9 379.18 406.13 101.90 23.61 33.03 18.08 Czech Rep. 226.87 214.44 245.84 236.40 1.99 1.61 2.09 2.23 0.3 0.22 0.34 0.25 Denmark 2,832.99 2,689.12 2,738.91 2,948.21 157.15 171.42 110.87 175.37 21.47 25.43 17.18 29.01 EU Inst. 20,224.87 26,237.01 25,355.37 18,536.60 196.07 675.40 572.38 329.63 21.51 94.68 83.15 22.29 Finland 1,621.85 1,165.88 2,264.62 1,612.05 20.91 28.92 42.24 183.55 2.4 4.98 6.51 36.66 France 14,163.82 16,819.88 12,719.41 14,920.98 391.69 385.86 562.67 499.79 31.27 39.84 102.92 66.06 Germany 19,807.71 17,738.54 20,399.99 24,873.25 577.53 537.08 698.78 682.49 88.86 68.61 102.95 101.91 Greece 385.62 321.54 283.48 247.44 1.47 1.08 1 0.69 0.23 0.16 0.21 0.14 Iceland 27.80 29.65 38 35.38 1.71 1.69 2.27 1.81 0.24 0.18 0,.3 0.16 Ireland 885.90 845.41 846.13 815.78 69.07 68.39 74.71 75.29 5.97 5.81 5.99 5.47 Italy 4,869.52 3,261.28 3,986.53 4,359.87 55.77 43.40 67.41 82.66 6.17 5.43 8.78 10.26 Japan 15,149.45 16,396.51 23,111.39 21,289.04 295.34 607.32 557.67 615.08 41.95 73.52 44.39 72.94 Korea 2,071.47 2,490.38 2,766.79 2,688.41 90.69 121.63 186.94 116.92 8.64 16.84 21.31 13.44 Luxembourg 424.07 428.64 435.79 423.22 32.90 32.13 34.58 34.46 3.79 3.82 4.61 4.29 Netherlands 5,926.29 7,133.31 4,380.36 7,533.82 389.57 765.16 212.17 475.32 20.23 118.83 28 82.90 New Zealand 646.15 454.84 474.10 674.98 24.95 17.64 21.07 26.49 3.7 2.33 2.73 3.94 Norway 4,857.17 4,856.11 5,060.96 5,924.82 256.01 876.53 267.32 530.36 32.27 51.9 65.10 52.97 Poland 412.18 456.11 435.38 731.4 n/a n/a 1.80 1.76 n/a n/a 0.24 0.33 Portugal 687.31 676.62 552.23 488.28 8.37 6.48 8.40 8.08 1.1 0.79 1.14 1 Slovak Rep. 83.46 82.57 82.63 91.73 n/a n/a 0.21 0.25 n/a n/a 0.04 0.04 Slovenia n/a 50.90 142.72 62.09 0.76 0.82 0.59 0.43 0.13 0.10 0.07 0.08 Spain 4,522.97 3,014.94 2,270.55 2,295.44 141.98 51.14 43.24 58.76 16 7.95 5.46 6.05 Sweden 5,072.42 5,077.12 4,334.83 5,424.07 332.42 296.49 196.81 334.08 30.34 43.66 32.05 40.02 Switzerland 3,705.51 2,919.57 4,540 5,096.59 103.65 94.62 166.34 204.16 11.51 11.37 17.28 27.37 UK 8,040.28 10,467.88 11,274.18 13,916.35 413.89 679.09 1,072.58 2,790.57 83.77 79.61 131.45 658.41 US 34,902.25 31,081.31 33,323.25 33,962 5,492.74 5,226.72 5,090.63 5,377.71 902.82 999.17 768.96 917.59 EU MS + EU Inst. 165,730.77 100,306.87 96,829.83 103,690.23 2,961.46 3,885.52 3,893.99 5,871.54 352.56 517.14 554.43 1,082.15 All DAC donors 94,363.72 268,164.32 174,994.52 182,221.34 10,561.42 11,599.15 10,883.52 13,507.78 1,499.11 1,735.56 1,545.43 2,218.91

76 Total ODA Total RMNCH RMNCH Total FP FP (million USD) (million USD) as % of total ODA (million USD) as % of total ODA # # # # # 1 US 133,268.81 1 US 21,187.80 1 US 15.90% 1 US 3,588.54 1 US 2.69% 2 EU Inst. 90,353.85 2 UK 4,956.14 2 Canada 11.53% 2 UK 953.23 2 UK 2.18% 3 Germany 82,819.49 3 Germany 2,495.87 3 UK 11.34% 3 Germany 362.33 3 Netherlands 1% 4 Japan 75,946.39 4 Canada 2,171.93 4 Norway 9.33% 4 Netherlands 249.96 4 Norway 0.98% 5 France 58,624.09 5 Japan 2,075.41 5 Ireland 8.47% 5 France 240.09 5 Luxembourg 0.96% 6 UK 43,698.69 6 Norway 1,930.23 6 Luxembourg 7.83% 6 Japan 232.80 6 Canada 0.94% 7 Netherlands 24,973.78 7 Netherlands 1,842.23 7 Australia 7.64% 7 EU Inst. 221.64 7 Australia 0.83% 8 Norway 20,699.06 8 France 1,840.01 8 Netherlands 7.38% 8 Norway 202.24 8 Denmark 0.83% 9 Sweden 19,908.44 9 EU Inst. 1,773.49 9 Sweden 5.83% 9 Canada 176.62 9 Finland 0.76% 10 Canada 18,831.46 10 Australia 1,391.42 10 Iceland 5.71% 10 Australia 151.27 10 Sweden 0.73% 11 Australia 18,208.09 11 Sweden 1,159.79 11 Denmark 5.48% 11 Sweden 146.08 11 Ireland 0.69% 12 Italy 16,477.2 12 Denmark 614.82 12 Korea 5.15% 12 Denmark 93.10 12 Iceland 0.61% 13 Switzerland 16,261.67 13 Switzerland 568.78 13 Belgium 4.38% 13 Switzerland 67.53 13 Korea 0.60% 14 Spain 12,103.9 14 Korea 516.18 14 Austria 4.18% 14 Korea 60.24 14 New Zealand 0.56% 15 Denmark 11,209.23 15 Belgium 479.61 15 Finland 4.14% 15 Belgium 55.20 15 Austria 0.56% 16 Belgium 10,959.76 16 Spain 295.12 16 New Zealand 4.01% 16 Finland 50.54 16 Belgium 0.50% 17 Korea 10,017.05 17 Ireland 287.46 17 Switzerland 3.50% 17 Spain 35.47 17 Germany 0.44% 18 Finland 6,664.4 18 Finland 275.62 18 France 3.14% 18 Italy 30.65 18 Switzerland 0.42% 19 Austria 5,095.64 19 Italy 249.25 19 Germany 3.01% 19 Ireland 23.25 19 France 0.41% 20 Ireland 3,393.22 20 Austria 158.97 20 Japan 2.73% 20 Austria 21.33 20 Japan 0.31% 21 Portugal 2,404.44 21 Luxembourg 134.07 21 Spain 2.44% 21 Luxembourg 16.51 21 Spain 0.29% 22 New Zealand 2,250.07 22 New Zealand 90.14 22 EU Inst. 1.96% 22 New Zealand 12.69 22 EU Inst. 0.25% 23 Poland 2,035.07 23 Portugal 31.33 23 Italy 1.51% 23 Portugal 4.03 23 Italy 0.19% 24 Luxembourg 1,711.72 24 Czech Rep. 7.91 24 Portugal 1.30% 24 Czech Rep. 1.12 24 Portugal 0.17% 25 Greece 1,238.08 25 Iceland 7.47 25 Czech Rep. 0.86% 25 Iceland 0.80 25 Czech Rep. 0.12% 26 Czech Rep. 923.55 26 Greece 4.24 26 Slovenia 0.72% 26 Greece 0.74 26 Slovenia 0.10% 27 Slovak Rep. 340.39 27 Poland 3.56 27 Greece 0.34% 27 Poland 0.56 27 Greece 0.06% 28 Slovenia 255.71 28 Slovenia 2.59 28 Poland 0.30% 28 Slovenia 0.38 28 Poland 0.05% 29 Iceland 130.83 29 Slovak Rep. 0.46 29 Slovak Rep. 0.26% 29 Slovak Rep. 0.08 29 Slovak Rep. 0.05% EU MS + EU Inst. 395,190.65 EU MS + EU Inst. 17,181.29 EU MS + EU Inst. 4.35% EU MS + EU Inst. 2,506.27 EU MS + EU Inst. 0.63% All DAC Donors 690,804.08 All DAC Donors 46,551.87 All DAC Donors 6.74% All DAC Donors 6,999 All DAC Donors 1.01% The analysis for Poland, Slovak Republic and Slovenia includes only those years for which there is publicly available data. For more information, please refer to respective country profiles.

77 Annex 4: Definitions(taken from the OECD DAC glossary of key terms and concepts)

Commitments – A firm obligation, expressed in Development Assistance Committee gross (the total amount disbursed over a given writing and backed by the necessary funds, under- (DAC) – The committee of the OECD which accounting period) or net (the gross amount less taken by an official donor to provide specified as- deals with development co-operation matters. any repayments of loan principal or recoveries on sistance to a recipient country or a multilateral or- Currently there are 29 members of the DAC: grants received during the same period). It can ganisation. Bilateral commitments are recorded in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech take several years to disburse a commitment. the full amount of expected transfer, irrespective of Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the time required for the completion of disburse- Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Donors – For Euromapping 2016, donors refer ments. Commitments to multilateral organisations Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, to the 29 members of the OECD DAC. are reported as the sum of (i) any disbursements Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slo- in the year reported on which have not previously venia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, the Official Development Assistance (ODA) been notified as commitments and (ii) expected US and the EU Institutions. – Grants or loans to countries and territories disbursements in the following year. on the DAC List of ODA Recipients (developing Disbursements – The release of funds to or countries) and to multilateral agencies which Constant Dollars – In DAC publications, flow the purchase of goods or services for a recipient; are: (a) undertaken by the official sector; (b) data are expressed in USD. To give a truer idea of by extension, the amount thus spent. Disburse- with promotion of economic development the volume of flows over time, data can be pre- ments record the actual international transfer of and welfare as the main objective; (c) at conces- sented in constant prices and exchange rates, with financial resources, or of goods or services valued sional financial terms (if a loan, having a grant a reference year specified. This means that adjust- at the cost to the donor. In the case of activities element of at least 25%). In addition to financial ment has been made to cover both inflation in the carried out in donor countries, such as training, flows, technical co-operation is included in aid. donor’s currency between the year in question administration or public awareness programmes, Grants, loans and credits for military purposes and the reference year, and changes in the ex- disbursement is taken to have occurred when are excluded. Transfer payments to private indi- change rate between that currency and the USD the funds have been transferred to the service viduals (e.g. pensions, reparations or insurance over the same period. provider or the recipient. They may be recorded payouts) are in general not counted.

78 dsw.org

epfweb.org