"New" Donors: A New Resource for Family Planning and Reproductive Health Financing?

Malea Hoepf Young

While the past decades have seen a foreign aid field dominated by the world’s wealthy countries who are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and its Development Assistance Committee (DAC),[1] a new form a donorship has emerged, or more accurately, re-emerged. Aid funding from prosperous, yet still developing countries to other developing countries has drawn international attention, much of it from a critical perspective. A 2007 article in Foreign Policy labeled aid from China, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia as both “generous” and “toxic,”¹ while a recent cover of the Economist labeled China “The New Colonialists.”² However, an increase in global aid to the poorest countries, delivered with fresh perspectives and an intensified spirit of South-South cooperation has many potential benefits.

While some donors and international observers criticize non-DAC aid for being overly influenced by economic or political interests, these and other important concerns apply to many DAC countries as well. A major shortcoming of the DAC donor community is lack of commitment to family planning and reproductive health. Nearly all donors fall short of the financial commitments made at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, where they pledged funding for family planning and reproductive health. Reproductive health care encompasses a range of issues, including family planning; STI and HIV prevention, care and treatment; and maternal and child health. An intense focus on HIV in the donor community has occurred alongside a significant decline in support for the other facets of reproductive health. The U.S., which is by far the largest provider of funds for family planning and reproductive health, has significantly cut funding for family planning, child survival, and maternal health, while dramatically increasing its funding for HIV/AIDS, and when adjusted for inflation, U.S. bilateral funding for family planning and reproductive health in 2007 was 41 percent less than in 1995.³ With such significant shortfalls, and such a great need for services, engaging new donors is an important opportunity.

This commentary will examine the current debate on the rise of “new” bilateral donors, the perceived threats to international aid effectiveness efforts, and possible benefits for poverty reduction and economic development, focusing on two major non-DAC donors, India and China. Finally, the commentary will offer recommendations on increasing the effectiveness of aid in these countries, and given the shortfalls in funding from DAC donors for family planning and reproductive health, consider how funds from these “new” donors can help to support family planning and reproductive health in the developing world.

The Shape of International Aid

From the mid-1990s until the present, DAC countries have contributed at least 95 percent of overall international aid, with an average of 23 percent given through multilateral institutions.^{4 5}  The DAC acts as a forum for these countries in their roles as bilateral donors, and is meant to facilitate donor cooperation and sharing of best practices, as well as increasing aid effectiveness.⁶ DAC countries have developed the dominant definitions, guidelines, and tracking mechanisms for development assistance, including efforts to increase aid harmonization. However, the DAC member states have by no means been the only sources of bilateral aid, and have not always had their current level of dominance.

Prior to the 1990s, the donor field was significantly more diverse. The Soviet Union and Central European countries were active aid donors until the collapse of the USSR, when many became aid recipients themselves. Persian Gulf countries have administered large aid programs for decades, and at their height in 1978, Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) member contributions comprised 30 percent of all international aid. Further, many developing countries have contributed aid and technical assistance through a long history of South-South cooperation.⁷ For example, many Asian countries have provided development and humanitarian aid, particularly for their neighbors (e.g., India has long been a donor to neighboring Nepal and Bhutan), and technical assistance and training is commonly exchanged between developing countries.⁸ Many non-DAC donors participated in the Non-Aligned Movement in the 1950s which emphasized respect for sovereignty and non-interference, and are members of the G-77, which has criticized richer nations for using humanitarian assistance to further political ends.⁹ However, as some of these countries develop their own aid programs, many are facing the same criticisms.

Much like DAC members, non-DAC donors are a diverse group, with different geographical and thematic foci of aid giving, often reflecting political and economic interests or historical ties. The former Soviet Union provided aid to other communist nations (many of which, including Vietnam and Angola, still receive funding from former Soviet donor countries), frequently in the form of training and scholarships. Gulf States previously supported anti-Soviet countries and now focus on aid to predominantly Muslim developing countries in their own region and Africa. Giving is also influenced by security concerns, as China and South Korea give large amounts of aid to North Korea, Central European states have contributed to Balkan nations to support stability, and India has given significant aid to Nepal, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan to support regional stability and counter the influence of neighboring Pakistan.¹⁰ Venezuela is an important donor in the Caribbean and in some Latin American countries, while Brazil is active in the Lusophone commonwealth, including funding water programs in Angola.¹¹ The increased interest in foreign aid among non-DAC donors is particularly apparent in response to humanitarian crises: 16 countries pledged support for the Bosnian humanitarian crisis in 1994, while 92 pledged support to those affected by the Asian tsunami in 2005.¹² Just a few weeks after Tropical Cyclone Nargis struck Myanmar in May 2008, pledges of funding, in-kind donations, and response teams, came in from 22 non-DAC countries—the majority from Asia, but also from Eastern Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East.¹³

In contrast, there is less emphasis on social development in non-DAC donorship, and very little evidence of significant non-DAC bilateral or multilateral aid for family planning and reproductive health. Turkey is an exception, providing $4.26 million in 2006 for population and reproductive health activities, comprising 1.6 percent of their social infrastructure and services budget, and 0.67 percent of its overall bilateral assistance.¹⁴ South Korea—whose total 2007 official development aid (ODA) was US$680 million– provided training for personnel from various regions in family planning and reproductive health, and is implementing an adolescent pregnancy prevention program in the Dominican Republic, with total support for population and family planning at $541,000 from 2003 to 2006.^{15 16} 

Endnotes may be found on a separate page, located in the left navigation.