Transcript Document

Review of different stakeholders
needs in relation to Joint
Assessment of National Strategies
and Plans (JANS)
Preliminary Findings
IHP+ Country Teams Meeting,
12 – 14th December 2012
Nairobi, Kenya
Introduction
• The objectives are:
– to identify the needs of the different stakeholder groups with regards to
assessment of a new strategy;
– Analyse the extent to which these needs are met by current JANS practice, and the
opportunities and constraints to achieving greater harmonisation of development
partner procedures for assessing national strategies and alignment of these to
country processes and needs;
– To set out preliminary suggestions on how to proceed based on this analysis
• Process
– Interviews with countries, development partners and CSOs
– Document review of lessons from existing JANS
• Preliminary findings only available as interviews incomplete
1.
2.
Lessons from document review
Lessons from interviews and questionnaires with development partners
Lessons from document review:
Evidence that the JANS influenced funding decisions
• Very limited evidence to date that health sector JANS has actually
contributed to funding decisions:
– bilaterals usually already involved in a SWAp in IHP+ countries
– GAVI: JANS necessary but insufficient for funding decisions and requires IRC
to confirm that weaknesses have been addressed
– GFATM: disease specific JANS were used for national strategy first wave
funding decisions. Intention was to continue for second wave and HSFP but
subsequent funding opportunities were postponed
• Some evidence that JANS impacted on the mode of funding that DPs use:
– a JANS approved plan can serve as one of several criteria that some DPs will
use in determining HOW they will channel resources to country
– but DPs will still require additional decision making processes
• Strong evidence that assessment of fiduciary arrangements is needed
alongside JANS - intention of JANS is to provide an overview on this
– some DPs will always need more rigorous financial management appraisal
than others but this process could be better harmonised
Preliminary lessons from DP questionnaires:
How development partners use JANS in funding decisions
Direct
Direct
Indirect
No decision
Replaced requirement Fed into existing
for existing assessment assessment process
and reduced elements
Additional assurance
for a funding decision
that would have been
taken anyway
Participated in JANS
but no immediate
impact on funding
decision
DFID Nepal, Ethiopia,
Malawi
German Development
Cooperation,
Malawi
World Bank Nepal
UNFPA Ethiopia
Many examples:
• German
Development
Cooperation
• World Bank
• Netherlands
• European
Commission
• UN agencies
GAVI Vietnam, Malawi
German Development
Cooperation
Rwanda
Preliminary lessons from DP interviews:
How DPs assess national health strategies
• Criteria for Assessing a Strategy
– Most DPs use generic guidance for assessing national health strategies
– DPs do not have health strategy specific criteria
– General DP view that scope of JANS is useful but not sufficient for
funding decisions – provides additional evidence and assurance of
quality of strategy
• Format of assessment
– Most DPs have a format for programme documentation that agency
staff complete
– No specific format for national strategy assessment (largely because
no formal guidance for national strategy assessment)
•
Who appraises?
– For most DPs, staff conduct appraisal (or consultants)
– Some have formal peer review requirement – e.g. World Bank
– Global Fund requires independence in appraisal
Preliminary findings from DP interviews:
JANS and other key elements of a funding decision
Scope of JANS
• Development partners broadly positive on scope
• Financial management assessment is required but outside scope and
intention of JANS
Level of detail
• Implementation arrangements and institutional capacity
– These are covered in JANS but some agencies require more detail because national
health strategy and JANS are high level and do not include operational plans
• Results focus is increasing significantly among most DPs
– All development partners under huge pressure to demonstrate results
– Some national health strategies and JANS assessment need more detail
– JANS tool covers results in a number of places – potential for clearer focus?
Process
• Political considerations are as important as technical
– particularly for bilateral donors who are increasingly sensitive to political risk
• Timing of DP funding decisions a out of sync with sector strategy/JANS
Preliminary lessons from DP interviews:
DPs use JANS in different ways
• Bilateral donors and multilateral development banks
– Usually have a resident advisor if they are in the sector and therefore
participate already in harmonised sector processes, JARs, MTRs, etc
– JANS used by development partners to provide reassurance of quality
strategy, to persuade headquarters of quality strategy, and if no country
presence to provide evidence and assurance of quality strategy
– marginal impact on transaction costs
• Global funds/initiatives
– Usually not resident and driven by global assessment processes
– Highly focused on particular results but increasingly aware that sector
approach is needed to deliver specific outcomes
– Potential for reduced transaction costs but need to balance local flexibility
and harmonisation with an expectation of global quality standards
• UN agencies
– Highly focused on results
– Still have their own budgeting timelines – eg WHO biannual budget
– May be more focused on other aid effectiveness priorities – UNDAF etc
How could DPs maximise use of JANS?
•
Options with direct impact on content and use of existing JANS:
– Clearer articulation of results required in national strategies and in JANS – for all
DPs
– Consistent quality and rigour of health strategies and JANS
– Shifting the timing of DP funding decisions to link with country strategy
development process
•
Options within a wider context that indirectly impacts on use of JANS:
– Increasing harmonisation of and shared responsibility for financial management
assessment, linked to JANS process
– Clearer links between health strategies and implementation plans and assessment
of capacity to deliver
– Specific focus on articulation of results of interest to global funds (HIV, malaria,
immunisation, MDG4/5)
• JANS are new – more and improved use could lead to greater confidence
in JANS and greater role informing decision making