I'll just ask you to imagine that I'm Pierre La Ramée from the International Planned Parenthood Federation office in New York, which is the headquarters for our western hemisphere region.
Reading from his notes, I'd like to begin by telling you a little bit about my organization, the International Planned Parenthood Federation, or IPPF, which is a critical part of the global maternal and reproductive health architecture. IPPF provides an unparalleled network of health providers in 174 countries, delivering 67 million health services to 31 million women, men, and young people annually through over 8,400 clinics and 52,000 community-based health points and outreach services. IPPF has been delivering health services to communities for 60 years and is trusted by those communities. IPPF's comprehensive services complement those of governments and other primary health care providers by targeting the poor, marginalized, and most vulnerable who cannot otherwise access these life-saving services.
When it was announced initially, IPPF warmly welcomed the Government of Canada's initiative to champion maternal and child health as a host of the G-8 summit. And since the Government of Canada has supported IPPF's work for 50 years, we fully anticipated a comprehensive approach to saving women and children's lives that includes family planning and reproductive health, as well as safe abortion services. Indeed, there was no reason to think otherwise, since the G-8 had already agreed on what needs to be done to deliver comprehensive maternal and child health in an agreement that was endorsed by Canada at the 2009 G-8, an agreement including: comprehensive family planning advice, services, and supplies; skilled care for women and newborns during and after pregnancy and childbirth; safe abortion services, where abortion is legal; improved child nutrition, and prevention and treatment of major childhood diseases.
While full definition and clarity on the exact structure and content of the Canadian initiative are still to come, it does seem clear that it will be characterized by a so-called menu approach, with each government picking and choosing what aspects of maternal, newborn, and child health it will choose to fund. And while the status of family planning and contraception is vague, it has been made abundantly clear that the Canadian package will not include safe abortion services. It is therefore incumbent upon us to once again review the overwhelming evidence that including family planning as part of a comprehensive package of reproductive health services saves lives, and it is the rational choice in the context of the new international aid architecture and the MDGs.
What do we know about the impact of family planning and reproductive health? Maternal deaths in developing countries could be slashed by 70% and newborn deaths cut nearly in half if the world doubled investment in family planning and pregnancy-related care. The World Bank estimates that 40% of maternal deaths could be prevented by wider adoption of reliable, modern contraceptive methods. The UNFPA estimates that satisfying the unmet need for contraceptives would avert 52 million unintended pregnancies annually, saving over 1.5 million lives. Every $1 million invested in commodity support for contraceptives would save the lives of 670 women and 900 infants, prevent 12,000 additional deaths of children under five, while averting 500,000 unwanted pregnancies.
There is also global consensus on aid effectiveness, as agreed in the Paris Declaration, which strongly aligns development assistance to the specific needs of countries as outlined in their national development plans and with which Canada's proposed menu approach is distinctly at odds. The menu approach is at odds with principles of aid effectiveness because it cherry-picks issues that are apparently non-controversial but which do not address maternal or child health comprehensively and efficiently. The menu approach also risks leaving critical areas of women's health underfunded, undermining health systems in developing countries and putting women's lives at risk. And while the menu approach may produce some gains, do we really want to see a maternal health initiative that provides a woman with clean water or better nutrition only to fail to provide the help she needs to prevent an unwanted pregnancy or prevent a sexually transmitted infection, including HIV?
Looking more closely at the costs and benefits of a comprehensive versus a menu approach, services have to be comprehensive to ensure client choice and rights. IPPF's experience is that the menu approach does not work at the community level, in the clinic where real doctors and real nurses and real women, men, and young people are dealing with real problems. For example, suppose one donor country funds condoms, a second sterilizations, and a third safe abortion. The decision about what a client can access could depend on which donor still has funds remaining. While this may sound ludicrous, IPPF has before been in a position in which in the clinic we have had to ask clients whether they want the condom for pregnancy or for STI prevention. This was because the donor for the former was the European Community and the latter was the United States government. Not only is this invasive and confusing for clients, but it also precludes dual protection, if you run out of the family planning condoms.
What might this mean for a family planning clinic that is funded in whole or in part by CIDA dollars? Does it mean that they're simply not able to perform an abortion service, or does it mean they're also not able to treat a woman suffering from a post-abortion complication, or that they're not able to provide information and counselling, or that the clinicians in that clinic are not able to provide training to their peers on how to conduct safe abortion services?
The global gag rule during the Bush administration created precisely these types of circumstances and launched a wave of closed clinics, reduced programs, and falling levels of service in communities and countries across Africa and other parts of the world. Other restrictions, such as the anti-prostitution loyalty oath, have also had a chilling effect. In those cases, even if you could use other funds to carry out restricted, banned, or stigmatized activities, organizations simply declined to do so for fear of losing their funding.
Finally, I would like to close by saying a few words about the issue of IPPF's still pending application for renewal of its funding from CIDA, which has recently become the subject of political debate and media commentary in conjunction with the debate swirling around the G-8 maternal, newborn, and child health initiative. Currently, IPPF's funding agreement with Canada ended on December 31, 2009. IPPF has submitted a proposal to CIDA to renew its contract for $18 million over three years, $6 million per year. This was submitted in June 2009. To date, IPPF has yet to receive an indication of whether its funding agreement will be renewed.
It is worth noting that IPPF has been a partner of Canada continuously since the 1960s, regardless of the political party in power. This includes the current government, which renewed IPPF's funding three years ago. It is also worth noting that IPPF is politically neutral and non-party political. IPPF was not aware of and in no way solicited the call made by the Liberal Party of Canada for the current government to maintain its relationship with IPPF.
What exactly is at stake here? Very simply, by supporting IPPF, Canada invests in a unique network of reproductive health organizations with an unrivalled global reach and a strong voice able to advocate for commitment to achieving reproductive health for all, internationally, regionally, nationally, and at the community level. Funding IPPF has been and continues to be a wise investment for Canada, especially in the context of the G-8 maternal health initiative.
In 2008–09, IPPF's funding represented less than 0.1% of Canada's total international assistance expenditure and 1.35% of Canada's total ODA expenditure on population programs and reproductive health, a modest investment that has produced reliable results year after year.
Thank you again for the opportunity to read the statement from IPPF.