Official Development Assistance
In order to ensure participation in the ODA study for 2020, invitations were sent to 52 organizations that traditionally provide ongoing official development assistance in the health sector. Of these, only 11 organizations provided information about their projects in the health sector. We believe that this is due to the fact that during the pandemic period, many projects were frozen or official assistance was reallocated to fight the COVID-19 pandemic.
Figure 1. ODA projects or programs per donor, 2020
In terms of ODA allocated under bilateral and multilateral agreements, the United States of America (USAID) provided the most significant financial assistance to the Kyrgyz Republic. The United Nations World Food Program turned out to be the organization with the largest number of projects in 2020. The Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Swiss Embassy are in third place with 3 projects each.
As shown in Figure 2 below, only 15 percent of the USD 15,537,153 was disbursed as concessional loans, while 85 percent was provided as grants. Which respectively amounted to US$ 3,000,000 and US$ 12,537,153 respectively.
Figure 2. Total ODA by type
Regarding the distribution by funding category, the majority of funds in 2020 were allocated to Technical assistance (65.78%), 28.8% was allocated as Investments, and 5.4% for administrative costs related to the implementation of projects and programmes.
Figure 3. Total disbursements by funding category, 2020
Figure 4. Technical Assistance by components, 2020
Most Technical Assistance funds were allocated to capacity building, which was particularly relevant during the pandemic (47.6%). 27.8% of Technical Assistance funds were allocated to policy development, nearly 16.2 % were allocated to the development of guidelines and protocols, and 6.6 % to the development of legal and regulatory frameworks.
Figure 5. Investment funds by components, 2020
The investment component is distributed as follows: 3.1% was allocated to construction and refurbishment, while medical supplies and medical equipment accounted for 16.8% and 5.4%, respectively. 24. 1% was allocated to IT infrastructure development, which is much higher compared to previous years. The category with the most significant share of financing was "Other investments" - 50.6% of the total share of investment expenditures. One of the possible reasons for such a sharp increase in the share of other investments is the inclusion of a part of humanitarian aid in this component.
Figure 6. Disbursements by health system functions, 2020
Health service delivery was the main focus in 2020, with 60.8% of funds allocated there. According to the data presented, 24.3 % of the funds were allocated to resource generation, while 9.8 % were allocated to strategic leadership and governance of the health sector in 2020.
Figure 7. Distribution of health services delivery quota, 2020.
Regarding the distribution of the quota for the health service delivery, most of the funds in this category were allocated to the development of Primary Health Care - 58.5 percent. Development partners allocated 20.8% of funds to the development of hospital care. Public health services received slightly less - 20.0%.
Figure 8. Distribution of ODA according to priority health areas, 2020
Development partners have been active in promoting maternal and child health - 43.17% of funds were allocated to this priority area. Control of noncommunicable and communicable diseases received 10.3 per cent and 38.9 per cent respectively. Partners participating in the study allocated only 2.06 % to adolescent health in 2020, and 2.2 % to injury and violence prevention. If these figures are compared with those for 2018-2019, the emphasis has shifted in favour of maternal and child health (8.92% in 2018).There has been a strong decrease in the share of noncommunicable diseases prevention from 20.46% in 2018 to 11.9% in 2020. This is because the fight against coronavirus infection has shifted the focus in favour of communicable diseases. Funding for communicable diseases as a percentage of funding has decreased with traditional donors, but a huge proportion is reflected in the humanitarian aid section.
Comparison of aid flows with health sector policies, strategies and programmes is indicated in the table: almost all interviewed development partners implement their projects taking into account the goals set out in the national strategies: the 2026 Development Programme of the Kyrgyz Republic, as well as the the Programme of the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic on health protection and health system development “Healthy person – prosperous country” for 2019-2030.
Table: Alignment of partners' activities with national priorities.
Table: Contribution of partners to the Sustainable Development Goals in 2020
Figure 9 below shows the number of missions and analytical work undertaken by health sector donors in 2020.
Figure 9. Missions and analytical work
Despite the small amount of data, the data presented in this report reflects the commitments of 10 development partners who funded a total of 19 projects in the Kyrgyz health sector in 2020. The total amount of ODA committed by these development partners to the Kyrgyz health sector was $10,460,539.
More than 80% of ODA was allocated to health care delivery. In this area, the largest focus was on the hospital care (72.2% of total ODA paid in 2020). It is followed by primary health care (15.2%). Public health services receive only 12.7% of these funds.
Of the funds allocated for technical assistance, the largest portion was targeted at capacity building. In terms of priorities, the largest share of ODA focuses on other aspects not classified in this study
Alignment of partners with national programs and strategies
Strategies |
2015 |
2017 |
2018 - 2019 |
2020 |
General (National) Strategies |
||||
National Sustainable Development Strategy of the Kyrgyz Republic for 2013–2017 |
GIZ; KfW; Swiss Embassy – SDC; UNAIDS; UNFPA; WB; WFP; WHO |
KfW; Swiss Embassy – SDC; UNAIDS; UNFPA; WB; WFP; WHO, GIZ |
|
|
Den Sooluk National Health Reform Programme of the Kyrgyz Republic for 2012–2018 |
GIZ; KfW; Swiss Embassy – SDC; UNAIDS; UNFPA; UNICEF; USAID; WB; WFP; WHO |
KfW; Swiss Embassy – SDC; UNAIDS; UNFPA; UNICEF; USAID; WB; WFP; WHO |
|
|
The National Development Strategy of the Kyrgyz Republic for the period of 2018 - 2040 |
|
|
GIZ, JICA, KfW, SFD, UNAIDS, UNFPA, UNICEF, USAID, WHO |
|
"Den Sooluk" National Health Reform Programme of the Kyrgyz Republic for 2012 - 2018 8 |
|
|
GIZ, KfW, SDC, UNAIDS, UNFPA, UNICEF, USAID, WHO |
|
Programme of the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic on health protection and health system development “Healthy person – prosperous country” for 2019-2030 |
|
|
GAVI, GIZ, JICA, KfW, SFD, SDC, UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, USAID, WHO |
EFSD, GIZ, JICA, Swiss emb., WFP |
2026 Development Programme of the Kyrgyz Republic |
|
|
|
embIran, JICA, WFP |
Sub-sectorial Strategies |
||||
Strategy for the Protection and Promotion of Health of the Population of the Kyrgyz Republic until 2020 (Health–2020) |
KfW; Swiss Embassy – SDC; USAID; WB; WHO |
KfW; Swiss Embassy – SDC; USAID; WB; WHO |
|
|
Health Investment Strategy for 2016-2025 |
|
KfW; Swiss Embassy – SDC; WB |
KfW |
|
National Reproductive Health Strategy for 2006–2015 |
GIZ; Japanese Embassy – JICA; KfW; Swiss Embassy – SDC; WB; WHO |
|
|
|
Programme for the Improvement of Perinatal Care in the Kyrgyz Republic for 2008–2017 |
GIZ |
|
|
|
Tuberculosis 4 National Programme for 2013–2016 |
KfW; USAID; WB; WHO |
|
|
|
«Tuberculosis-V» National program for 2013-2016 |
|
KfW; USAID; WB |
|
|
«Tuberculosis-V» National program |
|
|
KfW; UNDP; USAID; WHO |
|
State Programme on the Stabilization of the HIV epidemic in the Kyrgyz Republic 2012–2016 |
KfW; UNAIDS; UNFPA; USAID; WB; WHO |
|
|
|
The State program on stabilization of the HIV epidemic in the Kyrgyz Republic for 2017-2021; |
|
KfW; UNAIDS; UNFPA; USAID; WB; WHO, GFATM |
KfW; UNAIDS; UNDP; UNFPA; UNICEF; USAID; WHO |
UNAIDS |
State programme on prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases in the Kyrgyz Republic for 2013–2020 |
KfW; Swiss Embassy – SDC; WB; WFP; WHO |
KfW; Swiss Embassy – SDC; WB; WFP; WHO |
KfW; Swiss Embassy – SDC; UNAIDS; UNFPA; UNICEF; WHO |
|
State Programme on Immunoprophylaxis for 2013–2017 |
WB; WHO |
WB; WHO |
|
|
Programme for prevention of reappearance of local malaria transmission in the Kyrgyz Republic for 2014–2018 |
WB; WHO |
WB; WHO |
|
|
State programme on the health protection of citizens of the Kyrgyz Republic against harmful tobacco impact for 2008–2015 |
WHO |
WHO |
|
|
Programme of the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic for Mental Health Protection for 2018-2030 |
|
|
WHO |
|
Programme of the state guarantees that ensures health care for the citizens of the Kyrgyz Republic |
KfW; Swiss Embassy – SDC; USAID; WB |
KfW; Swiss Embassy – SDC; USAID; WB |
|
GIZ, Swiss emb. |
State Guaranteed Benefits Programme to ensure health care for the citizens of the Kyrgyz Republic |
|
|
GAVI, KfW, UNFPA, USAID, WHO |
|
Kyrgyz Republic e-health programme for 2016–2020 |
USAID; WB; WHO |
USAID; WB; WHO |
|
|
Concept of creating an electronic database of drugs and medical products in the Kyrgyz Republic for 2016–2020 |
USAID; WB |
USAID; WB; WHO |
UNAID, UNFPA, USAID, WHO |
Swiss Embassy – SDC |
Kyrgyz Republic programme to develop the sphere of circulation of medicines in the Kyrgyz Republic for 2014–2020 |
WB; WHO |
WB; WHO |
UNAIDS, WHO |
|
Program for providing incentives for physicians working in health organizations of remote areas, small towns, and rural areas |
|
Swiss Embassy – SDC |
USAID |
Swiss Embassy – SDC |
Regulations on the sanitary protection of the territory of the Kyrgyz Republic and the Comprehensive Plan of Anti-Epidemic Measures for the sanitary protection of the territory of the Kyrgyz Republic against the importation and spread of quarantined, highly dangerous infectious diseases that pose a danger to public health and population health for 2018-2022. |
|
|
GAVI, USAID, WHO |