ABOUT THE REPORT CARD

This "report card" assigns letter grades to countries on a scale of "A" to "F" for their performance as population donors, based on the following indicators:

• the generosity of each donor’s overall development aid program in relation to the size of that country’s economy;

• the proportion of development assistance funds allocated to population-related programs;

• the distance each donor has to go to reach its "fair share" of the ICPD year 2000 goal from 1996 population spending levels; and

• the extent to which each donor has developed an official statement of its international population and reproductive health assistance policy.

The emphasis of this grading system is on financial and policy commitments to population assistance, rather than on the quality and type of programs supported. The weighting reflects the focus of this report on financial resources and on the funding environment for population assistance following the Cairo conference. Without significant resources, quality programs will not have an impact on global reproductive health status.

The grading system does not include a measure of program effectiveness, primarily because of the difficulty in identifying simple, objective indicators of program quality. Moreover, any such indicators would almost inevitably favor one approach to programming funds over another. While some donors commit significant resources to building technical capacity in reproductive health within bilateral aid agencies, others contribute most of their funds through multilateral organizations and international NGOs. Even if both types of donors are strongly committed to population assistance, they would likely score very differently on any conceivable programmatic measure.

The grading system allocates 25 points to each of the four indicators, for a maximum potential score of 100. Points are allocated on a relative scale–donors are compared to each other rather than to an objective standard. To minimize bias resulting from a wide distribution of values, the scores for each of the three quantitative indicators were capped at a certain level. The grading system was applied to the 20 member countries of the OECD/DAC, excluding Luxembourg, which is not included among the individual donor profiles, and the European Commission, to which most of the indicators used to score individual donor countries do not apply.

The volume of overall development assistance relative to gross national product (GNP) reflects the generosity of each donor country relative to the size of its economy. This indicator represents each nation’s commitment to the developing world. It also reflects donor investments in broader economic and social development that may ultimately benefit population and reproductive health through increased income, education, well-being and smaller family size. Total aid volume also influences the availability of funds for population assistance.

Countries are scored on the average of their development assistance to GNP ratio for the three-year period 1994 to 1996, and their performance relative to each other. The ratio was capped at 1 percent, with all scores above 1 percent receiving the full 25 points, and all scores below receiving points on a proportional basis. Over this period, the 20 donor countries averaged a development assistance to GNP ratio of 0.42 percent–significantly lower than the UN goal of a 0.7 percent annual contribution from each country. However, Denmark far exceeded this goal, leading the donor community by giving over 1 percent of GNP in development aid between 1994 and 1996. Only three other countries met or exceeded the UN goal of 0.7 percent–Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands. Apart from France, which had an aid to GNP ratio of 0.5 percent, all other countries gave less than the 0.4 percent donor average. Two of the largest donors in total aid volume, the United States and Japan, allocated only 0.12 and 0.25 percent of GNP respectively to development aid.

Indicator #2: Population Assistance as a Share of Development Assistance

The share of overall development assistance allocated to population assistance reflects the level of importance each donor nation assigns to population and reproductive health issues within its foreign aid program. This measure gives credit to donors that have demonstrated a financial commitment to population assistance whether they do so through the bilateral, multilateral or NGO channels. A 1989 international meeting in Amsterdam recommended that donor countries allocate four percent of development assistance to population and family planning. The Netherlands has adopted a four percent target for reproductive health spending as national policy.

Countries are scored on the percentage of development aid they allocated to population assistance, again averaged over the three-year period 1994 to 1996. The percentages were capped at 5, with all scores above 5 percent receiving the full 25 points and those below receiving points on a proportional basis. The United States ranks highest on this measure, allocating an average of close to 7 percent of its development aid budget to population related programs between 1994 and 1996. Finland and Norway follow at some distance, giving 4.4 and 3.6 percent of their development aid to population respectively. Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom all gave between 2 and 3 percent of their aid budgets to population assistance during this period.

Although Japan is a large population donor in terms of total volume, it gave only 0.75 percent of its development budget on average to population assistance in the period studied. Other major development assistance donors contributed very limited funds to population activities–for example, France gave on average less than one-twentieth of a percent of its overall development assistance during this period, while Italy gave only one-third of one percent.

Indicator #3: Multiplier Required To Reach ICPD Year 2000 Funding Goals

Resources remain central to the challenge of improving reproductive health status and slowing population growth worldwide. The extent to which donors have progressed toward meeting the financial goals for the year 2000 established at the ICPD reflects their commitment to these goals and to population and reproductive health programs.

Each donor’s respective share of the $5.7 billion ICPD goal for donor contributions in the year 2000 (unadjusted for inflation) was estimated based on its proportional share of aggregate GNP for the donor community. Scores were assigned to each country based on the multiplier required to increase 1996 funding levels to achieve that country’s year 2000 goal. The multipliers were capped at 25, with all multipliers above that receiving zero points. Since a low multiplier warranted a higher point score, scores were calculated by subtracting the multiplier from 25.

Four countries have met or are very close to meeting their respective year 2000 goals: the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Another five countries need to increase their current levels of assistance two to four times by the year 2000: the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and Finland. A few large population donors lag further behind their goals–Germany needs to increase its 1996 level of assistance six times to reach its goal, while Japan needs to increase its assistance thirteen-fold. France needs to increase its funding twenty-four-fold. Portugal and Italy are furthest from their year 2000 targets, needing to increase their assistance 110 times and 87 times respectively.

Indicator #4: Formulation of a Reproductive Health and Population Policy

Donor nations committed to population assistance are more likely to have articulated a reproductive health and population policy. The existence of such a policy reflects the importance governments assign to these issues and time invested by aid officials in dialogue and debate on international population policy issues. Population assistance policies developed in response to the ICPD are also likely be responsive to the goals and recommendations of the conference.

The scoring system gives full credit to those donor countries that have published official reproductive health and population policies or strategies. To account for differences in the policy forumulation process among donors, the scoring system gives partial credit to donors having health or development policies that substantively address reproductive health and population issues. It also gives partial credit to countries that at the time of writing were reported to be developing population and reproductive health policies.

Of the 20 donors evaluated, 8 countries–Denmark, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States–have all published documents reflecting current government policy on international population and reproductive health assistance. Aid officials in Switzerland and Australia report that their governments are currently developing such policies. Canada, Belgium and Finland have development policies that make reference to population and reproductive health. The other countries do not appear to have formal policies on assistance in the area of population and reproductive health.

Donor Grades

Denmark and Norway receive the highest scores and a grade of "A." Sweden and the Netherlands following at some distance with a grade of A-. All four countries receive close to the maximum scores in every category except the share of overall aid allocated to population assistance.

The United States, the United Kingdom and Finland all follow with grades in the "B" range. All three countries lose points for their lack of overall generosity in development cooperation. The United Kingdom also loses points for the low proportion of development aid funds allocated to population compared to some other donors. On this indicator, the United States sets the standard, receiving the maximum score for the share of total development assistance allocated to population and reproductive health.

Australia, Germany, Switzerland and Canada all perform in the middle range rating a grade of "C." All lose points for their low aid to GNP ratios and the low priority they give to population assistance within their overall foreign aid programs. Japan earns a C- for its relatively poor performance on all three financial indicators.

Belgium and New Zealand receive grades in the "D" range, gaining some points based on their relative proximity to their year 2000 goals. Belgium’s score reflects the recent adoption of a policy statement on population and reproductive health in its overall development cooperation policy.

France, Ireland, Spain, Austria, Portugal and Italy score relatively low in all categories, receiving a grade of "F."

In summary, only a handful of countries have performed at a satisfactory level as population donors in the years following the ICPD.