Euromapping 2017

Euromapping is an annual publication that analyses the latest updated data available (2015), tracking OECD DAC donors’ contributions to reproductive, maternal, newborn, child health (RMNCH) & family planning (FP), as part of their Official Development Aid (ODA). It thus highlights and ranks global efforts for sustainable development, and constitutes a transparency and accountability tool on donors’ development assistance in these crucial areas.

Euromapping 2017 looks at 30 OECD DAC donors’ data, including:

  • Donors’ yearly commitments to ODA, RMNCH & FP
  • Donors’ yearly disbursements to ODA, RMNCH & FP
  • Four-year performance on commitments to RMNCH & FP as a share of ODA
  • Four-year performance on disbursement to RMNCH & FP as a share of ODA

Main Findings on ODA, RMNCH and FP Commitments and Disbursements

In 2015, five donors (Canada, Germany, Japan, the UK and the US) accounted for over 75% of all RMNCH and over 80% of FP commitments and disbursements.

The US is the leading global donor. In 2015, as in previous years, US ODA, RMNCH, and FP commitments and disbursements were by far the largest among the 30 OECD DAC donors. However, in view of the recent decisions to re-enact the Global Gag Rule and withdraw funding from UNFPA, the US is likely to lose its champion position. In order to meet their own stated policy objectives related to the SDGs, many donors need to reassess their funding priorities for RMNCH and FP. Else, the evolving political situation in traditional RMNCH/FP champion donors will have detrimental consequences on the health and well-being of the world’s most vulnerable populations.

Canada increased massively its 2015 commitments to RMNCH and FP compared to previous years and is now tied with the UK for the second biggest donor on those areas. This surge of Canadian funding commitments towards RMNCH and FP is likely to continue considering the strong political commitment of the newly-elected current Canadian government.

There are four donors (EU Institutions, France, Germany, and Japan) that rank very high in total ODA, RMNCH and FP commitments and disbursements, but significantly lower when those amounts are assessed as a percentage of their ODA. The discrepancy in the rankings is particularly high in the case of EU institutions. More effort is possible and needed for these donors to increase their share of RMNCH and FP contributions of ODA and take on their fair share of the financing burden.

In 2015, EU (EU Institutions & Member-States) was a major player in ODA representing more than half of overall ODA: 55% of commitments, and 59% of total DAC disbursements. However, the EU is a much smaller actor in RMNCH only accounting for 30% of RMNCH and FP commitments, and less than 40% of disbursements.

There are 10 donors, all from the EU (Italy, EU Institutions, Austria, Spain, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Poland, Greece), whose RMNCH commitments represent less than 2% of their overall ODA commitments. With the exception of the European Institutions (2.58%), those donors showcased the same trend in their RMNCH disbursements.

Five donors (US, UK, Canada, Netherlands, and Norway) score in the top-10 in all rankings, having committed and disbursed large amounts for RMNCH and FP. The important share of RMNCH and FP out of their total ODA spending reflects the priority that the donors give to those issues in their development cooperation policy.

Luxembourg and Ireland have smaller economies relative to the other donors reviewed, and consequently smaller total ODA, RMNCH and FP commitments and disbursements. However, these countries spend a high proportion of their ODA on RMNCH and FP, reflecting the importance of these issues in their development cooperation policies, and scoring high in the respective rankings.