Approach to calculating high-level 2016-2020 resource estimation for UNFPA Supplies Approximate cost, 2016-2020 Cost bucket Calculation Contraceptives for 46 target countries Cost of commodities for maintaining existing users and adding incremental users, based on original FP2020 model % of commodities that are donor-funded, based on original FP2020 model assumptions % funded by UNFPA, based on average of 2011-2014 split of donor spend on commodities1 % co-financed by country versus UNFPA based on country categorization2 ~$717M ‘System inefficiency’ factor including wastage and leakage rates (Assumes 25%) The budget estimation reflects preliminary country categorization criteria and associated co-financing assumptions – as they are finalized, the budget calculation will need to be updated Other commodities for 46 target countries Based on 2015 split of spend on contraceptives vs. other commodities (incl. life-saving medicines, HIV medicines), which was 93% to 7% Total commodities for ‘other’ recipients Based on 2015 split of total commodity spend on 46 target countries vs. other recipients (incl. non-target countries, MSI central warehouse, humanitarian situations), which was 94% to 6% UNFPA procurement fee (%) ~$14M Based on procurement fee caps starting 2016 onwards; assumes minimum of ~$170M spent on commodities annually, resulting in ~2.2% blended procurement fee Capacity development for 46 target countries ~$321M Assumes commodity/capacity development split based on preliminary country categorization (80%/20% for long-term engagement, 70%/30% for transitioning, and 30%/70% for sustainable) HR ~$47M Based on 2015 total spend on HR, deducting spend on select PSB positions; assumes ~3% annual inflation rate Overhead (%) ~$77M Based on consistent fee, which includes key management positions Total ~$1.2B 1 10% was added to UNFPA split of donor spend, to account for year-over-year variability among key donors 2 Starting in 2017, UNFPA will gradually co-finance the following split of commodities spend by 2020: 90% for long-term engagement, 80% for transitioning, and 30% for sustainable SOURCE: GPRHCS Annual report 2014, Track20, GPRHCS monitoring framework for 2013-2020
McKinsey conducted a high-level analysis as well as extensive research to better understand ‘system inefficiency’ costs associated with commodities ‘High-level’ analysis Additional data points Assumption used Source McKinsey found that, on average, donors provide ~15% more commodities to countries than what is required by users of that country Their high-level analysis: For a set of 14 donor-dependent countries1, they calculated the total contraceptives provided by method by all major donors2 from 2010- 2013 They then translated contraceptives provided into potential users based on CYP conversions (for male condom CYP conversion, we incorporated an assumption that 30% of male condom users are truly using male condoms for birth control purposes) In each country, for each year from 2010-2013, they compared the total potential users supported by donors to the total actual users in that country (not including sterilized users) They then took the average from 2010-2013 across the 14 countries to arrive at a 1.15x difference between potential users supported by donors as compared to total actual users in country Wastage 4% for pills, 2% for implants 2011 USAID DELIVER companion guide for countries to develop commodity plans 5% for implants, oral contraceptives, injectables, and IUCDs, 10% for male condoms, 12% for female condoms Swaziland contraceptive supply planning report 5% across commodities Bangladesh contraceptive supply planning report 10% for all vaccines Standard UNICEF assumption Buffer stocks Buffer stocks from 2-10 months based on facility type Swaziland contraceptive supply planning report ~15-25% of prior year’s demand USAID global contraceptive procurement’s average buffer stock of cataloged contraceptives A number of additional costs contribute to ‘system inefficiencies’ such as leakages, humanitarian situations, and natural disasters 1 Analysis conducted for DRC, Ethipia, Kenya, Burundi, Chad, Nigeria, Malawi, Zambia, Congo, Guinea, Senegal, Benin, Chad, Cote d'Ivoire 2 UNFPA, DFID, The Global Fund, IPPF, KFW, MSI, PSI, USAID Source: Track20, Original FP2020 model, USAID Deliver, Swaziland and Bangladesh contraceptive reports, McKinsey Team analysis