PRESS BRIEFING BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF UNITED NATIONS POPULATION FUND

Press Briefing

PRESS BRIEFING BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF UNITED NATIONS POPULATION FUND

On a day that the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) should be celebrating the successful completion of 30 years of operation in 155 countries around the world, it was instead suffering from the incalculable effects of a four-year decline in donor contributions, UNFPA Executive Director Nafis Sadik told correspondents at a Headquarters press briefing this afternoon.

Dr. Sadik was introduced by the Director of the Information and External Relations Division of the UNFPA, Stirling Scruggs.

[A press release by the UNFPA, circulated to correspondents at the press conference recalled that the Fund was established in 1969 to support population programmes in developing countries. It was funded by voluntary contributions from donor governments. The 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) at Cairo had provided the Fund with a new operational framework, and led to a significant increase in contributions, enabling it to expand its programme response to countries' increasing reproductive health needs.]

Dr. Sadik said the UNFPA had been working in countries in widely different stages of development, which had represented a broad spectrum of cultures, faiths and political philosophies. Its work in promoting reproductive health, population and development strategies, and advocacy efforts had saved lives, built families and strengthened communities. Its work had empowered both women and men by encouraging equality and respect between them. The Fund "strikes at the roots of global poverty" through better health and education for all.

During the 30 years of operation of the Fund, the issue of population had moved from being a controversial and hotly debated topic into the mainstream of development, she said. Five years ago, the ICPD had reached a consensus which had responded to individual human rights, national needs, and the global imperative for slower population growth. The UNFPA was proud to have helped build the Cairo consensus, and prouder still that it had stood the test of time and experience.

It was therefore ironic and tragic that, as the world moved into what should be a new era of harmony and cooperation, a shortage of funds was "tying the hands" of the UNFPA, she went on. It had had three decades of proof that reproductive health and population programmes were effective, a global consensus that such efforts were essential to social development, and a clear plan of action that would save lives and protect human rights. Yet, its income in 1999 would be $248 million, or $29 million less than in 1998 and $42 million less than in 1997 -- a 14 per cent drop in two years. For 1999, available

Dr. Sadik Briefing - 2 - 26 October 1999

resources would cover only two thirds of the Fund's commitments to country programmes, owing to a $72 million shortfall.

Dr. Sadik said the decline in resources could not have come at a worse time. The ICPD approach had taken hold and generated considerable momentum: government policies had been changing and national programmes were being redesigned to reflect the Cairo Programme of Action. Just when those programmes were being implemented, "the brakes are being put on and resources are being cut", she said. That had led to a stop-and- go process that had impeded progress and prevented economies of scale, while at the same time, disrupting the efficient management of programmes and resources. It was not time for donors to cut back their support.

An assessment of the shortfall would indicate that more than 1 million people who might have used modern contraceptive methods would use less effective, traditional methods instead, she said, while 1.5 million people would continue to use no method of family planning at all. There would be 1.4 million additional unwanted pregnancies each year, and many of those would end in abortion and unwanted births. The cutbacks would be linked to more than 3,300 maternal deaths, more than 43,000 cases of serious illness after delivery, nearly 41,000 infant deaths and approximately 15,000 child deaths.

Continuing, she said the Fund was postponing training for midwives, putting off buying new obstetric equipment, and delaying the purchase of contraceptives. The AIDS programmes were being held up, just when countries were becoming convinced of the need for action. Wherever the Fund had worked, the momentum of Cairo had begun to slow. That was a matter of life and death for many women now. The amounts needed were trivial compared to what was spent each day on less essential things. The donations could be found, if there was the will to do so. They must be found, or everyone would pay the price.

Asked what had caused the "huge drop" in resources, Dr. Sadik said that immediately after the Cairo Conference, there had been an increase in donations, as well as specific commitments from several of them. One reason for the shortfall last year and this year had been the dollar value of the exchange rates, since most countries, especially in Europe, had contributed in local currency. Then, Japan the number one donor -- had maintained its level in yen, but again, in dollar terms, that had meant a decline. The United States had linked its contribution with the China programme, so instead of $25 million, the Fund had received $20 million.

[The China programme refers to the implementation in 32 counties of the UNFPA programme to promote voluntary and client-based reproductive health services based on the free choice of individuals.]

She said that many countries had, in fact, increased their contribution, but overall, there had been a decline. Many governments

Dr. Sadik Briefing - 3 - 26 October 1999

had agreed that, in 1999, the Fund's resources should total some $400 million. Although the UNFPA had not programmed in that amount, it had not expected a decline of approximately $28 million in resources. Also, the overall aid budgets had been declining, and many governments had indicated that the UNFPA was being favoured, yet it was still not getting the resources it required.

To a follow-up question about whether there was any prospect of getting the $25 million from the United States, Dr. Sadik said the statement by that delegation in the Second Committee (Economic and Financial) made during a discussion of the recommendations of the ICPD + 5 had been very encouraging as it was also concerned about the decline in resources and almost said they would come back in 1999 with the $25 million. She had intended to remind them of that statement.

Despite assurances from the United States Government, how confident was she that the effort proposed for the re-funding would actually pass in the current United States Congress? another correspondent asked.

She said that the funding for the UNFPA had passed both in the Appropriations Committee, the Authorizations Committee and the Foreign Aid Committee, and then in the full House. So, in fact, it had gone through all the processes. That might have been the first time in many years that the funding had been supported in all Committees, as well as at the House level. It had always been in the Senate-House compromise that the UNFPA had been re-funded, so that looked somewhat hopeful.

Another correspondent said the amount of United States funding named in the UNFPA press release had been some $20 million, yet Dr. Sadik had referred to the amount as $25 million. Clarifying, Dr. Sadik said $25 million had included the $5 million spent by the UNFPA on the China programme and withheld by the United States.

In a follow-up question, the correspondent asked if that withholding had referred specifically to the abortion issue.

Dr. Sadik said the United States knew that the UNFPA was not financing abortion. The new programme in China had been approved by the Executive Board, but that was compromise language to accommodate views in the United States Congress.

In a further question, the correspondent noted that there were still some Congressmen who retained the idea that the donations were funding abortion and that that must be stopped. Specifically, what was the UNFPA or Dr. Sadik doing to counter that perception? she asked.

Dr. Sadik said she had tried hard to work against that perception, and continued to try to explain the current programme in China. The Chinese Government and the UNFPA Executive Board had invited any member government to visit the programme, and in fact,

Dr. Sadik Briefing - 4 - 26 October 1999

several United States Congressional staff had recently done so. The Executive Board, which was a delegation of government members, was going to do so. The UNFPA had also encouraged the local missions in Beijing to also visit the programme site, unannounced, and learn about the programme. She, herself, had visited the China programme and had been pleased at the suspension of the one-child policy.

Everyone in those communities where UNFPA was present, she said, had understood that they could have as many children as they wanted. Even in many rural areas most women did not really want to have an unlimited number of children. The UNFPA was helping the Chinese Government improve the quality of related services, conduct more training, increase the variety of contraceptive choices, and ascertain the effect of the abortion levels on the country. Despite contraceptive services, there was still a very high dependence on abortion. The Fund had been able to show, even in a very short time, a reduction in abortion levels from some 50 per cent of pregnancies to 30 per cent. It was still high, but the tendency seemed to be declining.

The UNFPA had an agreement with the Chinese Government that if anyone reported any contravening of those agreed principles, then the UNFPA would suspend the programme and put in place an independent oversight mission. There was not much more that a United Nations programme could do. The programme would likely be very helpful in forging a policy change in that country.

* *** *