U.N. to Ask $169 Billion Maternal Health Question

By Amy Lieberman

WeNews correspondent

Monday, September 20, 2010

The U.N.'s $169 billion catch-up plan for global maternal health--the runt of the development-goal litter--faces a final checkup meeting in New York this week. As a maternal death clock tick-tocks in Times Square, the big question is money.

Page 2 of 2

Momentum Depends on Industrialized Nations

Steady momentum largely depends on the 22 industrialized countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that have fallen behind on pledges to each year give 0.7 percent of their gross national income to development assistance. In 2009 the total official delivery assistance was equivalent to 0.31 percent of developed countries' combined national income.

The World Health Organization's Partnership on Maternal, Newborn and Child Health--a 260-member global health partnership of U.N. agencies, nongovernmental organizations and foundations--estimates that the annual funding requirement could reach $42 billion by 2015.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be convening a gathering of female heads of state here this week, according to a U.S. official, and while the agenda isn't publicized, the maternal health goal may get some high-level notice there.

The question remains: Can the concerted efforts of advocacy groups such as Women Deliver and Amnesty International, U.N.-allied efforts such as EndPovery2015 and the 25 special summer sessions help drum up enough money to combat the problem?

A U.N. health official doubts it, saying the $7.3 billion committed to maternal health at the G-8 summit in June, a meeting of the world's eight most economically advanced countries, may be the biggest lump donation that comes in 2010.

The G-8 funding will be distributed over the next five years and is likely to be factored into the overall $169 billion needed from 2011 to 2015.

Minimal Impact Through Short-Lived Funding

Targeted funding that is short-lived could have a minimal long-term effect, says Pamela Gomez, international policy advisor for Oxfam International. She recently visited Sierra Leone, which started offering free health care to women this spring and will continue to do so for next four to five years.

"But it's uncertain what happens after that four to five years are up," Gomez said. "That isn't long enough to bring a country like Sierra Leone back on its feet."

The U.S. Agency for International Development unveiled a draft strategy for the U.S.'s role in helping to meet the Millennium Development Goals in July. That plan has been criticized as lacking specifics, especially on women's health. Maternal health is mentioned only twice in the document, reproductive health not at all.

"We're waiting for a revised strategy, because as it stands there is nothing here to really grab and say, this is an indicator that the U.S. is going to make the necessary financial and program commitments," said Serra Sippel, director of the Center for Health and Gender Equity, a Washington, D.C.-based organization that monitors U.S. health foreign policy and funding. "The question is if that is intentional, so there is no way to hold them accountable."

In a parallel, unilateral initiative, the Obama administration recently established a $63 billion framework for global health assistance that emphasizes maternal and child health, HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. The initiative launched in eight pilot countries--Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Mali, Malawi, Nepal, Bangladesh and Guatemala--in July, guided by country-owned and tailored approaches to programming.