Press centre

FAQ: US Funding to UNICEF

1.         What is UNICEF's reaction to the Harvard study which concludes that the US government tries to influence the votes of non-permanent security council members through aid disbursements, particularly through UNICEF?

UNICEF has never been a channel through which any country can try to exercise influence over members of the Security Council. UNICEF has very strict funding rules for countries based on specific indicators of children’s health and wellbeing.

2.         Does UNICEF increase its funding to countries when they have a seat on the Security Council?

No. All contributions to UNICEF are divided into two categories. ‘Regular resources’ are funds donated for UNICEF’s country programmes, as approved by the UNICEF Executive Board.  ‘Other resources’ are earmarked by the donor for specific programme purposes.

UNICEF operates through a five-year Medium Term Strategic Plan.   For Regular resources, we submit multi-year country programmes to our Executive Board for approval, which is granted based on three criteria: the country’s under-five mortality rate, gross national product per capita and the absolute size of the child population. This is the basis for our funding to countries. A country programme is usually five years in length and planning is carried out with host governments up to a year in advance to ensure the best results for children. None of this is attached in any way to whether or not a country has a seat on the Security Council.

Other resources are generated for emergencies, for other developmental priorities in different countries, and for global development issues such as malaria, polio, or HIV/AIDS.

3.         Does the US increase its funding through UNICEF for countries that sit on the Security Council?

There is no pattern of US funding through UNICEF increasing for countries that sit on the Security Council. Looking at US contributions to UNICEF for countries on the Security Council, over the past three years some countries have received more funds while others has received less.

In 2005, for example, the US provided UNICEF a total of $233.8 million.  Of this total, roughly 110 million dollars was earmarked by the US government for specific purposes.  Of this amount, an estimated $44 million was earmarked by Congress through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention specifically for polio eradication. Another $31 million was for emergency responses around the world, such as the tsunami affected countries, and $9 million was from the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration for countries with refugee crises or where there was a large return of refugees to a country. The funding is very specific and countries have to meet specific congressional criteria in order to receive these funds. The criteria do not change every time members of the Security Council change.

Of the balance of roughly $ 26 million, the funds came primarily from the child survival account and this is earmarked by Congress, which has strict criteria as well for how to spend the funds based on basic health indicators and under 5 mortality. 

So, it is important not only to look at whether a country was on the Security Council that year, but what was going on in that country -- did the country receive US funds for polio because there was an outbreak?  Was there a drought or repatriation of refugees that made it eligible for emergency funds? Was a country coming out of conflict enabling UNICEF and the donor community to fund larger humanitarian and rebuilding programmes (DRC, Sri Lanka)?

4.         Is UNICEF saying the Harvard report has got its facts wrong?

The report looks at US aid spending both bilaterally, as well as through numerous organizations and international funds, so we can only comment on what funding we received from the US, which is very small in comparison. However, while the report asks a very valid question, we do not believe it looks at all possible reasons for why aid for a particular country increased while it held a Security Council seat. For example, US funding through UNICEF for the Democratic Republic of Congo more than doubled after between 2005 and 2006 (DRC has a seat on the SC in 2006/07). However, this was due to a 2003 peace accord which provided greater international access to a country already desperately needing help. As stability on the ground began to improve, UNICEF was able to increase its programme reach and required additional funding from the US, as well as numerous other governments, to meet these needs. This is not related to the DRC having a seat on the Security Council.