Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
WHO Financing
Dialogue Evaluation
Annexes
Annex 1 - Financing dialogue process
WHO Financing Dialogue Evaluation - Annexes
PwC 23
Annex 1 - Financing dialogue process
Governance of the financing dialogue
The below governance structure steered the delivery of the 2013 financing dialogue process.
Leadership on the conceptualisation of the financing dialogue and its key principles came from the WHO
Secretariat senior leadership team.
In particular oversight on the development of the process came from the Global Policy Group composed of
the Director-General (DG), the Deputy Director General (DDG) and WHO’s 6 Regional Directors; and senior
advisors from the Director General Office.
The DDG played a leading role advancing the agenda of reform on aspects of financing and resource
mobilisation. The first report presented by the DG to the Executive Board 128th session, ‘The future of financing
for WHO’, marked the starting point to the process for developing the concept of the financing dialogue.
Externally, Member States such as Sweden and other major donors took the lead to support the Secretariat in
framing the concept and agenda of the financing dialogue process. Sweden was highly engaged and contributed
as an important Member States change agent.
Project management capacity for the financing dialogue initially was initially part of the DGO and eventually
transition with PRP, with the on-boarding of a Financing dialogue Project Manager in its Department in
June 2013. The role of the Manager was to coordinate the process and launch of the financing dialogue.
A Global Financing dialogue Project Team was also set-up at the request of the Global Policy group
(GPG) during its meeting following the 66th session of the WHA in May 2013 with the aim to support the
preparations of the financing dialogue for the 24 June 2013 launch and to fast track operational planning in
advance of the November 2013 meeting. The DDG and its senior advisors were lead forces behind the financing
dialogue process from then on, providing vision and guidance to the PRP and the global financing dialogue
project team in charge of execution.
The global financing dialogue project team was project-bound and composed of 11 senior staff involved in
resource mobilisation activities from all three levels of the organisation with representation from HQ and all
regions. The main activities the project team was responsible for included to:
Refine the meeting objectives under guidance of the GPG
Coordinate meeting content and reporting and manage internal communication across the three levels of
the Organization
Prepare briefing material for senior management in preparation of the meetings
Support the preparation of Regional Directors in advance of Regional Committee meetings
Organize the bilateral meetings in advance of the November meeting as well as the briefings with Geneva-
based missions.
Annex 1 - Financing dialogue process
WHO Financing Dialogue Evaluation - Annexes
PwC 24
Objectives of the financing dialogue
Addressing WHO’s financing challenges has been at the core of discussions aimed at reforming the
Organization. In 2010, in the midst of the global financial crisis, the Director-General convened an informal
consultation on the future financing of the WHO. The need to address WHO’s financing came in response to
Member States concerns on how WHO could better align its objectives to available funding and how it could
secure funding in the future.
Following this consultation, the Secretariat issued a report presented by the Director-General to the Executive
Board 128th session, ‘The future of financing for WHO’. This report marked the starting point to the process for
developing the concept of the Financing dialogue.
Discussions with contributors then followed in August 2012 when the Director-General appointed a Special
Envoy on the Financing dialogue, Dr. Thomas Zeltner, who held consultations with a number of contributors to
obtain their views on WHO financing in advance of the PBAC session of in November 2012. These consultations
helped understand the needs and expectations of major donors and to shape the framing of the Financing
dialogue process.
The Secretariat thereafter presented proposals to improve WHO’s financing17 in December 2012 at an
extraordinary meeting of the PBAC of the Executive Board. It is then that the idea to ‘establish a structured and
transparent financing dialogue’ was officially proposed to WHO’s governing bodies. In this meeting, the PBAC
agreed on five proposals designed to address the alignment, predictability and transparency of WHO’s funding,
one of which was the establishment of the financing dialogue. These were subsequently endorsed by the
Executive Board at its 132nd session in January 2013.
Member States at the WHA’s 66th session decided to establish a financing dialogue on the financing of the
Programme Budget (decision WHA66(8)). They endorsed a new financing mechanism that includes a new
three-phased approach to financing WHO that includes:
the approval of the Programme Budget in its entirety by Member States
the financing dialogue to discuss alignment of funding with WHO’ s priorities as presented in the PB
the mobilisation of resources to fully fund the Programme Budget.
The adoption by Member States in May 2013 of the PB 2014-15 in its entirety was a critical step that made for a
stronger responsibility on behalf of the governments. The PB is now considered to be a financial tool that will
enable the mobilisation and allocation of resources across all three levels of the Organization. It also provides
clarity on what Member States can expect WHO to deliver on and builds a stronger framework for
accountability.
The financing dialogue was therefore designed to facilitate, for the first time, a dialogue with and among
Member States and other funders of WHO, and to identify concrete solutions to WHO’s financing challenges.
The financing dialogue aims to ensure a match between WHO’s results and deliverables as agreed in the
Member-State approved Programme Budget, and the resources available to finance them, with the ultimate
objective of enhancing the quality and effectiveness of WHO’s work. The financing dialogue was not to be a
pledging conference.
It was set up as a mechanism to ultimately improve the alignment, predictability and flexibility of funding,
while reducing WHO’s vulnerability from its dependence on 20 major donors and largely earmarked voluntary
contributions. The financing dialogue process was underpinned by five core principles as set-out below:
17 Proposals to improve WHO’s financing, PBAC of the Executive Committee, Second extraordinary meeting, EBPBAC/EXO2/2, 23 November 2012.
Annex 1 - Financing dialogue process
WHO Financing Dialogue Evaluation - Annexes
PwC 25
Alignment: Member States and other funders to commit to allocating funding in a way that is fully aligned
with the approved Programme Budget.
Predictability and Flexibility: Member States and other funders to commit to striving for increased
predictability and flexibility of their funding, to enhance the quality and effectiveness of operational
planning.
Transparency: Member States and other funders to commit to making public their funding allocations, to
allow for a shared understanding of available income against budget category, programme and major office.
Vulnerability: Member States and other funders to commit to reducing WHO’s dependency on a few
number of major donors to the Organization and broadening its contributor’s base.
The financing dialogue was a new learning experience for the WHO, its Member States and the Secretariat
alike.
The financing dialogue events
The financing dialogue can be considered as an integrated process that included:
The two financing dialogue meetings of 24June and 25-26 November 2013.
The bilateral meetings between the Secretariat and 19 Member States and non-State contributors between the June and November meetings.
The mission briefings convening Geneva-based missions to ensure a better understanding of the financing dialogue’s objectives for Member States.
The discussions at Regional Committee meetings.
The following section provides a description of each of these elements.
Two financing dialogue meetings of June and November 2013
There were two milestones financing dialogue meetings in June and November 2013 with participation from
Member States and non-state actors providing more than 1 million USD in contributions, which included
foundations, philanthropists, UN agencies, and partnerships.
June 24 meeting. The objective of the June meeting was to provide participants with information on the
funding needs of the organization. The June meeting was attended by 256 participants from 87 Member
States, 6 other United Nations agencies and 14 non-State partner organizations, participated in the meeting
in person or via webcast18. From this meeting, there was strong commitment from Member States to
respect the priorities set by the WHO and support to the five principles of the financing dialogue.
November 25-26 meeting. The November meeting aims were to 1) review progress made since the June
meeting, 2) identify areas of underfunding in view of expressed financing commitments and 3) identify
concrete solutions to address remaining funding gaps. The November was attended by 266 participants
from 92 Member States and 14 non-State partner organizations participated in the meeting in person or via
webcast19. In terms of major outcome, 18 Member States and other contributors shared firm funding
projections totalling US$ 935 million.
18 WHO, Report of the Launch of WHO’s Financing dialogue 24 June 2013 19 WHO, Report of WHO’s Financing dialogue Meeting 25-26 November 2013
Annex 1 - Financing dialogue process
WHO Financing Dialogue Evaluation - Annexes
PwC 26
Bilateral meetings
The 24 June launch of WHO’s financing dialogue requested that WHO hold bilateral meetings with member
states and other contributors to begin to operationalize the general commitments of the 24 June meeting ahead
of the second financing dialogue meeting set for 25-26 November. As such, a request for bilateral meetings was
sent to all Geneva-based missions, heads of development aid agencies and WHO’s major non-State
contributors. Out of this, the Secretariat followed-up actively through phone calls with 34 contributors,
including WHO’s 20 top donors, the BRICS countries, 6 emerging countries and 4 oil states.
The specific objectives of the bilateral meetings, as set out by the Secretariat20, were to:
To review collaboration between the two organizations with a view to understanding also the broader context: how does the collaboration with WHO fit with the contributor’s collaboration with other UN and global health agencies?
To understand opportunities and challenges that may exist to the contributor increasing the predictability, alignment, flexibility and/or transparency of its funding to WHO
To explore actions WHO or others might take to influence the amount/predictability/ alignment/flexibility/and/or transparency of funding for 2014-15
To identify next steps in identifying details of 2014-15 funding and what might be possible to have ready to
share, also with others, ahead of the November meeting
As a result, a total of bilateral meetings with 19 Member States and non-State contributors21 took place between
the June and November meetings. The format of the bilateral meetings varied (e.g. part of annually planned
bilateral meetings, in the Capital or in side-line of the Regional Committee meetings) and were attended on the
part of the contributors, by senior-level representatives. WHO was represented by its senior leadership team
including DG, DDG, RDs, ADGs, Director of PRP and other selected Directors.
Mission briefings
Mission briefings were organised by the Secretariat with the aim a better understanding of the financing
dialogue’s objectives for Member States. A total of 5 mission briefings took place between September and
November 2013. These included:
Joint WPR/SEAR regional mission briefing in regions in the margins of the Regional Committee
meetings on 20 Sept 2013 which convened Australia, Bangladesh, China, Malaysia, Indonesia, Korea,
Singapore and Thailand.
Western European and Others group on 27 September 2013 which convened the United States,
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, the EC, Italy, Japan, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway,
Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.
EUR briefing on 4 October 2013 was called by EUR Coordinator of Finland and was attended Austria,
Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, the EC, Finland, France, Greece, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Monaco,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, the Russian Federation, Switzerland, Sweden and Turkey.
20 WHO, WHO Financing dialogue, Draft Framework for Financing dialogue Bilateral Meetings. 21 Financing dialogue bilateral discussions were conducted for the following contributors: Netherlands, Australia, Switzerland, United States, Japan, Luxembourg, Finland, Norway, Republic of Korea, Germany, China, Malaysia, United Kingdom, European Commission, Canada, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Sweden, South Africa.
Annex 1 - Financing dialogue process
WHO Financing Dialogue Evaluation - Annexes
PwC 27
APPIA group briefing on 4 November 2013 was attended by Finland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden,
United Kingdom, Netherlands and Ireland.
Western European and Others group on 19 November 2013 to assist to the demonstration of the web
portal.
During these mission briefings, several Member States indicated they would not be in a position to announce
funding commitments at the November meeting. They also expressed their interest in better understanding the
funding gaps. They also reinforced their support for the financing dialogue process.
Regional Committee discussions on the financing dialogue
The financing dialogue featured in all of the 6 regions’ Regional Committee meetings, either as a standing-alone
agenda or as part of the discussions on WHO’s reform. The RC meetings took place between September and
October 2013, prior to the November financing dialogue meeting.
Discussions reconfirmed the importance of the action to operationalize the principles agreed to at the June
meeting. As an example, Member States in the AFR region indicated their support to embark on the financing
dialogue which would facilitate their future funding decision22. In the WPR region, Member States indicated
that more flexible funding arrangements should be sought otherwise it would difficult to see how the
organization could continue to serve its membership adequately23.
The PRP consolidated Regional Committee discussions on the financing dialogue in preparation to the
financing dialogue November meeting and to inform regional level discussions during the dialogue.
22 WHO, Final report, Sixty-third session of the WHO regional committee for Africa, Brazzaville, Republic of Congo, 2-6 September 2013 23 WHO, Final report, Regional Committee for the Western Pacific sixty-fourth session, Manila, Philippines, 21-25 October 2013
Annex 2- Terms of Reference
WHO Financing Dialogue Evaluation - Annexes
PwC 28
Annex 2- Terms of Reference
Modalities for the evaluation of the financing dialogue and resource mobilization experiences
Background
1. The financing dialogue was proposed for the first time in 2013 as a mechanism to improve the flexibility,
predictability, alignment and transparency of the financing of the Programme Budget 2014-2015 and to reduce
its vulnerability. Given the novelty surrounding the mechanism, in deciding to go ahead with the proposed
mechanism, Member States requested that an evaluation of the financing dialogue be conducted.
2. This document outlines the proposed modalities for the conduct of the evaluation following the approach
and requirements of the WHO evaluation policy.
Objective and scope
3. The objective of the evaluation will be to assess the effectiveness of the financial dialogue mechanism to
support the financing the WHO programme budget and to obtain lessons learnt from the resource mobilization
experiences from Member States and other contributors and within the Secretariat at the three levels of the
organization. In fulfilling its objective, the evaluation will assess the flexibility, predictability and sustainability
of the financing dialogue process and identify strengths and existing gaps requiring corrective action at the
policy, structure and process levels to support decisions of stakeholders regarding the future direction of the
mechanism
4. The evaluation will address the following key questions:
Has the financing dialogue and related resource mobilization experiences improved the alignment,
predictability, flexibility and transparency of WHO’s financing and broadened the contributor base?
o What are the strengths and weaknesses of the mechanism and the lessons learnt resource
mobilization experiences?
Is the current approach to the financing dialogue and resource mobilization experiences still
relevant and should the mechanism be considered for the Programme Budget 2016–2017?
o What did it cost?
o How can the financing dialogue be enhanced or improved?
Methodology and timelines:
5. The evaluation will cover the financing dialogue approach and resource mobilization experiences,
processes and the outcomes, namely: (a) the results of the first and second sessions of the financing dialogue of
June and November 2013; (b) the experiences with resource mobilization following the establishment of the
financing dialogue mechanism; and (c) the “high-level” quantitative analysis of the financing situation at the
start of 2014-2015 in January 2014, compared with that for the previous biennium.
6. The evaluation will be conducted by external consultants with an appropriate knowledge and skill mix of
the subject of the evaluation, as well as experience in performing such evaluations involving organizational
reform and resource mobilization. Financing dialogue participants are invited to comment on the proposed
approach and will be given the opportunity to provide inputs during the evaluation.
7. The evaluation will be conducted during the period December 2013 through March 2014. The final
report, together with the response of the Secretariat, will be discussed by the Health Assembly at its 67th
Annex 2- Terms of Reference
WHO Financing Dialogue Evaluation - Annexes
PwC 29
session, through the PBAC in May 2014. Subsequently, the report will be widely disseminated to Member
States, partners and other stakeholders.
Annex 3 - Evaluation methodology
WHO Financing Dialogue Evaluation - Annexes
PwC 30
Annex 3 - Evaluation methodology
The financing dialogue evaluation was conducted based on a close collaboration with the WHO Secretariat, and
in line with the UNEG norms and standards for evaluations, as well as its ethical guidelines. The evaluation was
conducted in close collaboration with the WHO Secretariat, including the head of the office of Independent
Oversight Services, who commissioned the evaluation.
The approach underlying this evaluation and which guided our reporting involved a first phase that assesses the
effectiveness in which the financing dialogue was carried out and delivered. The second phase took care to
provide WHO and its Member States forward looking recommendations on the way the process should be led in
the future and that would be most fitted and beneficial for the organization, in the context of the reform
process.
The execution of the evaluation comprised of four stages, described in detail below.
Mobilise phase
During this phase, we agreed with our focal point for this assignment, Financing dialogue Project Manager, on
the objectives, scope and project plan for the assignment. We selected stakeholders for interviews and also
developed detailed evaluation questions for internal and external stakeholders.
Our observation of the two financing dialogue meetings in June and November 2013 as part of the Stage 2
Evaluation of WHO’s reform, in which members of our team were engaged, allowed our team to have an already
good understanding of the major issues at hand from the start of the assignment.
Assess and analyse phase
This phase comprised four data gathering activities allowing for triangulation of findings. During this phase, the
PwC Evaluation Team conducted in-depth analysis as follows.
Interviews
We undertook a total of 26 interviews face-to-face or by telephone including with 12 WHO senior management
across the three levels of the organisation (HQ and regional), 8 Member States representatives (Ministry of
Health, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Geneva-based missions and Development Aid Agencies) and 1 non-State
contributor and 2 global health organisations. Global health organisations were also consulted to understand
their model for attracting donor funding. Refer to Appendix 2 for a full list of interviewees.
Desk review
We conducted a desk review of reports, working documents and articles relevant to WHO’s financing dialogue.
All material issued in preparation of the financing dialogue was reviewed including the notes for the records of
the two meetings. We have also leveraged our attendance as observers to the two meetings as part of the Stage 2
evaluation.
For the desk review we have considered the findings of the WHO Stage 2 evaluation of the reform and a number
of important studies issued in recent years notably from WHO’s external auditor, Joint Inspection Unit (JIU),
DFID, Chatham House and the Multilateral Organisation Performance Assessment Network (MOPAN) WHO
Institutional report) on the role and effectiveness of the WHO.
Annex 3 - Evaluation methodology
WHO Financing Dialogue Evaluation - Annexes
PwC 31
Financial analysis
For this we reviewed and analysed WHO’s financial situation and donor contributions for the last three
biennium 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13 and the Q1 of 2014-15. The financial figures were analysed to assess
impact of the financing dialogue on funding levels.
The costs for conducting the financing dialogue process were also analysed and categorised.
Survey
We conducted an online and anonymous survey with the objective to assess the perception of Member States
and non-State contributors on the effectiveness and impact of the financing dialogue and its resource
mobilisation experience.
The target population for the survey considered all those who were invited to attend the financing dialogue.
This included Member States representatives from Missions, Capital and development agencies as well as non-
State contributors, including foundations, UN agencies and health partnerships providing more than 1 million
USD in contribution.
The survey was opened for a period of 2 weeks between 21 March and 5 April 2014 and two reminders were sent
to motivate completion on 28 March and 2 April 2014. It was administered in WHO’s three official languages,
English, French and Spanish.
A total of 47 participants completed the survey in its entirety, resulting in a response rate of 20%. The survey
results show a greater participation from contributors from the European region (54%) and a large
representation (80%) of Member States and non-State contributors who participated in financing dialogue
bilateral meetings between June and November 2014. This marks therefore a greater representation of WHO’s
largest donors. Refer to Appendix 4 for the survey results.
Synthesise and reporting phase
The ‘synthesise and reporting’ phase consisted of consolidating the findings gathered in the previous phase,
analysing and triangulating the data, validating it with WHO senior management and consolidating them in
this report, which on one hand looks at how well the objectives of the financing dialogue were achieved and
what are our recommendations for the future format of the financing dialogue process.
The reporting phase involved frequent interactions with staff members from the PRP, the Internal Oversight
Services (IOS) and the DDG for the socialisation of the findings and improvements.
Annex 4 - List of interviewees
WHO Financing Dialogue Evaluation - Annexes
PwC 32
Annex 4 - List of interviewees
Last name First
name
Country/
Organisation
Title
1 Adlide Geoff GAVI Alliance Director, Advocacy and Public Policy
2 Andrade Filho Brazil First Secretary, Permanent Mission, Geneva
3 Asamoa-Baah
Anarfi WHO Deputy Director-General
4 Aylward Bruce WHO Assistant Director-General, Polio, Emergencies and Country Collaboration
5 Benn Christoph Global Fund Director, External Relations
6 Blais Pierre Canada Counsellor
7 Capuano Corinne WHO Director, Regional Director's Office, WPRO
8 Cuypers Dirk Belgium PBAC Chairman
9 Elliot Brian WHO Planning Resource Coordination and Performance Monitoring
10 Girod Magali United Kingdom
Advisor
11 Halen Anna Sweden Counsellor for Health Affairs
12 Jacob Zsuzsanna WHO Regional Director EURO
13 Kieny Marie-Paule
WHO Assistant Director-General, Health Systems Information
14 Klinger Irene WHO Director, External Relations, Partnerships and Governing Bodies, AMRO
15 Landry Steve BMGF Director, Multilateral Partnerships
16 Lorenzo Veronique EU Head of Unit, Education, Health, Research, Culture, Directorate General for Development and Cooperation, European Commission
17 Lutnaes Sverre Norway Counsellor
18 Makubalo Lindiwe South Africa Health Attaché
19 Mason Liz WHO Director, Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health
Annex 4 - List of interviewees
WHO Financing Dialogue Evaluation - Annexes
PwC 33
20 Muller Linda WHO Planning Resource Coordination and Performance Monitoring
21 Pendergast Scott WHO Planning Resource Coordination and Performance Monitoring
22 Renganathan Elil WHO Director, Planning Resource Coordination and Performance Monitoring
23 Reynders Daniel Belgium Head of the International Relations Unit at the Belgian Federal Public Service (FPS) of Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment
24 Shipton Nicky UK Second Secretary
25 Smith Ian WHO Director Policy and Strategic Directions
26 van Hilten Menno WHO Technical Officer, Noncommunicable Diseases and Mental Health
Annex 5 - Bibliography
WHO Financing Dialogue Evaluation - Annexes
PwC 34
Annex 5 - Bibliography
The list below presents a list of key documents reviewed and is non-exhaustive.
Desk review
1 WHO, Final report, Sixty-third session of the WHO regional committee for Africa, Brazzaville, Republic of Congo, 2-6 September 2013
2 WHO, Final report, Regional Committee for the Western Pacific sixty-fourth session, Manila, Philippines, 21-25 October 2013
3 WHO, Proposals to improve WHO’s financing, PBAC of the Executive Committee, Second extraordinary meeting, EBPBAC/EXO2/2, 23 November 2012.
4 WHO, Report of the Launch of WHO’s Financing dialogue 24 June 2013
5 WHO, Report of WHO’s Financing dialogue Meeting 25-26 November 2013
6 WHO, WHO Financing dialogue, Draft Framework for Financing dialogue Bilateral Meetings.
7 WHO, The future of financing for WHO, Report by the Director-General, EXECUTIVE BOARD, 128th Session, 15 December 2010.
8 WHO's Budget, What's behind the numbers and how is it financed?, Launch of WHO's Financing dialogue Executive Board Room, WHO, Geneva, 24 June 2013.
9 WHO reform Financing of WHO, Report of the Programme, Budget and Administration Committee of the Executive Board to the Sixty-sixth World Health Assembly, A66/50 20 May 2013
10 WHO reform, Financing of WHO, Sixty-sixth World Health Assembly, A66/48 13 May 2013
11 WHO working documents, updates on bilateral meetings, September to November 2013.
12 WHO working documents, secure funding at start of biennium 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13 and 2014-15, 31 March 2014.
13 WHO, Voluntary contributions by fund and by contributor for the year ended 31 December 2012, 66th World Health Assembly, 26 April 2013.
14 MOPAN, Institutional report, World Health Organization, 2013.
Annex 6 - Survey results
WHO Financing Dialogue Evaluation - Annexes
PwC 35
Annex 6 - Survey results
WH
Ofi
na
nc
ing
dia
log
ue
Su
rvey
Fin
din
gs
Ap
ril
20
14
Pw
CSe
cti
on
1:B
ac
kg
ro
un
d
Pw
CA
pri
l2014
Ov
er
vie
wo
fth
efi
na
nc
ing
dia
log
ue
su
rv
ey
3W
HO
financin
gdia
logue
•S
urv
ey
Fin
din
gs
Th
esu
rvey
isa
nim
po
rta
nt
com
po
nen
to
fth
efi
na
nci
ng
dia
log
ue
(FD
)ev
alu
ati
on
tob
ette
ru
nd
erst
an
dM
emb
erS
tate
sa
nd
no
n-S
tate
Act
ors
’vie
ws
on
the
wa
yth
eF
Dw
as
con
du
cted
an
dw
het
her
ita
chie
ved
its
ob
ject
ives
.
Th
esu
rvey
wa
sa
lso
aim
eda
to
bta
inin
gco
ntr
ibu
tors
per
spec
tive
so
nth
ep
refe
rred
wa
yfo
rwa
rdfo
rth
efu
ture
of
the
Fin
an
cin
gD
ialo
gu
e.
Th
esu
rvey
wa
sco
nd
uct
edo
nli
ne,
an
on
ymo
usl
y,
an
dm
ad
ea
vail
ab
lein
inth
ree
lan
gu
ag
es.I
tw
as
op
enfo
ra
per
iod
of
2w
ee
ks
bet
wee
n2
1M
arc
ha
nd
4A
pri
l2
014
.
Rem
ind
ers
wer
ese
nt
by
the
IOS
(WH
O)
on
28
Ma
rch
20
14a
nd
2A
pri
l2
014
.
So
me
of
the
key
fea
ture
so
fth
esu
rvey
resu
lts
are
tha
t:
4
7p
eop
lere
spo
nd
edto
the
surv
ey,
wh
ich
isa
resp
on
sera
teo
f2
0%
.
O
fth
e19
con
trib
uto
rsth
at
eng
ag
edin
bil
ate
ral
mee
tin
gs
bet
wee
nJ
un
ea
nd
No
vem
ber
20
13,
15re
spo
nd
edto
this
surv
ey.
M
ore
tha
nh
alf
the
resp
on
den
tsw
ere
fro
mth
eE
UR
Ore
gio
n.
Pw
CA
pri
l2014
Mo
re
tha
nh
alf
the
re
sp
on
de
nts
we
re
fro
mE
UR
O
4W
HO
financin
gdia
logue
•S
urv
ey
Fin
din
gs
10%
20
%
5%
54
%
10%
2%
0%
10%
20
%
30
%
40
%
50
%
60
%
AF
RO
AM
RO
EM
RO
EU
RO
WP
RO
SE
AR
O
•T
he
surv
eyw
as
dis
trib
ute
din
the
thre
eo
ffic
ial
lan
gu
ag
es,
En
gli
sh,
Fre
nch
an
dS
pa
nis
hin
ord
erto
imp
rove
pa
rtic
ipa
tio
nra
tes.
•T
he
ma
jori
tyo
fre
spo
nd
ents
wer
efr
om
the
EU
RO
reg
ion
.
•T
her
ew
as
ag
oo
dre
pre
sen
tati
on
fro
mth
eA
MR
O,
AF
RO
an
dW
PR
Ore
gio
ns
as
wel
l.
Pw
CA
pri
l2014
87
%o
fr
es
po
nd
en
tsw
er
eM
em
be
rS
tate
sr
ep
re
se
nta
tiv
es
,m
os
tfr
om
Min
istr
ies
of
He
alt
h
5W
HO
financin
gdia
logue
•S
urv
ey
Fin
din
gs
41
1
5
Mem
ber
Sta
tere
pre
sen
tati
ve
Un
ited
Na
tio
ns
ag
ency
Oth
ern
on
-Sta
teco
ntr
ibu
tor
21
4
14
2
Min
istr
yo
fH
ealt
h
Min
istr
yo
fF
ore
ign
Aff
air
s
Per
ma
nen
tM
issi
on
inG
enev
a
Dev
elo
pm
ent
aid
ag
ency
•T
her
ew
as
ast
ron
gre
spo
nse
fro
mM
inis
trie
so
fH
ealt
hw
ith
10re
spo
nd
ents
fro
mth
eE
uro
pea
nre
gio
n,
4fr
om
the
Am
eric
as
reg
ion
an
d4
fro
mth
eW
este
rnP
aci
fic
reg
ion
.•
Of
the
47
resp
on
den
ts,
on
ly1
wa
sa
Un
ited
Na
tio
ns
ag
ency
,ye
t4
UN
ag
enci
esa
rein
WH
O’s
top
20
do
no
rs.
Br
ea
kd
ow
no
fa
llr
es
po
nd
en
ts
Br
ea
kd
ow
no
fM
em
be
rS
tate
sR
ep
re
se
nta
tiv
es
Pw
CA
pri
l2014
Mo
re
re
sp
on
de
nts
att
en
de
dth
eN
ov
em
be
rm
ee
tin
gth
an
did
inJ
un
e,
wit
ha
ma
jor
ity
info
rm
ed
thr
ou
gh
mis
sio
nb
rie
fin
gs
or
Re
gio
na
lC
om
mit
tee
dis
cu
ss
ion
s
6W
HO
financin
gdia
logue
•S
urv
ey
Fin
din
gs
Ju
n-1
33
9%
No
v-13
52
%
No
ne
9%
Bil
ate
ral
mee
tin
gs
wit
hW
HO
Sec
reta
ria
t2
1%
Fin
an
cin
gD
ialo
gu
ed
iscu
ssio
ns
at
Reg
ion
al
Co
mm
itte
es3
9%
Bri
efin
gse
ssio
ns
wit
hG
enev
a-
ba
sed
mis
sio
ns
40
%
Inv
olv
em
en
tin
the
Ju
ne
an
d/o
rN
ov
em
be
r2
013
Fin
an
cin
gD
ialo
gu
em
ee
tin
gs
Inv
olv
em
en
tin
Fin
an
cin
gD
ialo
gu
e-r
ela
ted
me
eti
ng
s
•2
1%o
fth
ere
spo
nd
ents
ha
den
ga
ged
inb
ila
tera
ld
iscu
ssio
ns
wit
hW
HO
top
rep
are
for
the
No
vem
ber
mee
tin
g.
•4
0%
ha
db
rief
ing
sess
ion
sw
ith
Gen
eva
ba
sed
mis
sio
ns.
Pw
CA
pri
l2014
87
%o
fr
es
po
nd
en
tsp
ro
vid
eA
ss
es
se
dC
on
trib
uti
on
s,
wh
ile
56
%p
ro
vid
eS
pe
cif
ied
Vo
lun
tar
yC
on
trib
uti
on
s
7W
HO
financin
gdia
logue
•S
urv
ey
Fin
din
gs
87
%
56
%
36
%
0%
25
%
50
%
75
%
100
%
Ass
esse
dC
on
trib
uti
on
sS
pec
ifie
dV
olu
nta
ryC
on
trib
uti
on
sC
ore
Vo
lun
tary
Co
ntr
ibu
tio
ns
(CV
C)
•T
he
ma
jori
tyo
fre
spo
nd
ents
pro
vid
eA
sses
sed
Co
ntr
ibu
tio
ns,
wh
ich
isex
pec
ted
as
mo
stre
spo
nd
ents
are
Mem
ber
Sta
tes.
•A
lmo
sto
ne
thir
d,
ho
wev
er,
said
they
pro
vid
edC
ore
Vo
lun
tary
Co
ntr
ibu
tio
ns.
Pw
CSe
cti
on
3:
Ex
pe
cta
tio
ns
fro
m&
Pe
rfo
rm
an
ce
of
the
fin
an
cin
gd
ialo
gu
e
Pw
CA
pri
l2014
Inc
re
as
ed
tra
ns
pa
re
nc
yo
fW
HO
’sfi
na
nc
ing
isth
en
um
be
ro
ne
pr
ior
ity
for
re
sp
on
de
nts
9W
HO
financin
gdia
logue
•S
urv
ey
Fin
din
gs
0%
25
%5
0%
75
%10
0%
To
bet
ter
un
der
sta
nd
ho
wW
HO
isfi
nan
ced
To
be
info
rmed
ina
tra
nsp
are
nt
wa
ya
bo
ut
WH
O’s
bu
dg
eta
nd
fun
din
gsh
ort
fall
sfo
rth
e2
014
-15
bie
nn
ium
To
ben
efit
fro
mth
eo
pp
ort
un
ity
toh
ave
an
inte
ract
ive
mu
ltil
ate
ral
dia
log
ue
on
WH
O’s
fin
an
cin
g
To
ensu
rea
full
y-fu
nd
edP
rog
ram
me
Bu
dg
et
To
imp
rove
WH
O’s
fun
din
ga
lig
nm
ent
toth
eP
rog
ram
me
Bu
dg
et
To
un
der
sta
nd
the
nee
dfo
rW
HO
tore
ceiv
ep
red
icta
ble
fun
din
g
To
un
der
sta
nd
ho
wW
HO
wo
uld
all
oca
tefl
exib
lefu
nd
ing
To
enh
an
ceth
eef
fect
iven
ess
an
dq
ua
lity
of
WH
O’s
wo
rk
To
imp
rove
the
tra
nsp
are
ncy
of
WH
O’s
fun
din
g
To
bro
ad
enth
eco
ntr
ibu
tor
bas
e
To
att
end
ap
led
gin
gco
nfe
ren
ce
Str
on
gly
dis
ag
ree
Dis
ag
ree
Nei
ther
ag
ree
or
dis
ag
ree
Ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
•9
8%
of
resp
on
den
tsw
an
ted
WH
Oto
be
tra
nsp
are
nt
ab
ou
tb
ud
get
an
dfu
nd
ing
sho
rtfa
lls.
•9
3%
wa
nte
dto
see
the
tra
nsp
are
ncy
of
WH
O’s
fun
din
gim
pro
ve.
•9
3%
wa
nte
dto
see
an
imp
rove
men
tin
WH
O’s
fun
din
ga
lig
nm
ent
toth
eP
B.
Pw
CA
pri
l2014
Th
eN
ov
em
be
rm
ee
tin
gw
as
ra
ted
be
tte
rth
an
Ju
ne
10
WH
Ofinancin
gdia
logue
•S
urv
ey
Fin
din
gs0
%2
5%
50
%7
5%
100
%
Th
ep
urp
ose
and
ob
ject
ives
wer
ecl
earl
yco
mm
un
ica
ted
Do
cum
enta
tio
nre
late
dto
the
Fin
an
cin
gD
ialo
gu
em
eeti
ng
wa
sa
vail
ab
leo
nW
HO
’sw
ebsi
tew
ell
ina
dva
nce
of
the
mee
tin
g
Do
cum
enta
tio
nw
as
det
ail
eden
ou
gh
an
da
llo
wed
adeq
uat
ep
rep
ara
tio
nfo
rth
em
eeti
ng
We
rece
ived
an
ad
equ
ate
leve
lo
fg
uid
ance
on
the
role
we
wer
eex
pec
ted
top
lay
du
rin
gth
eF
inan
cin
gD
ialo
gu
em
eeti
ng
Th
ed
iscu
ssio
ns
du
rin
gth
em
eeti
ng
pro
vid
eda
dd
itio
na
lu
sefu
lin
form
ati
on
on
WH
Ofi
na
nce
toin
form
you
rfu
nd
ing
dec
isio
ns
Th
em
eeti
ng
pro
vid
edeq
ua
lo
pp
ort
un
ity
for
all
pa
rtic
ipa
nts
toen
gag
e
Th
ew
ebca
stw
as
effe
ctiv
ea
nd
all
ow
edp
art
icip
an
tsto
foll
ow
and
inte
rven
ed
uri
ng
the
mee
tin
g
Th
efo
rmat
of
the
mee
tin
gw
as
ap
pro
pri
ate
lyd
iffe
ren
tiat
edfr
om
ag
ove
rnin
gb
od
ym
eeti
ng
Th
em
eeti
ng
met
my
exp
ecta
tio
ns
Ig
ain
eda
clea
ru
nd
erst
and
ing
of
the
nex
tst
eps
inth
eF
inan
cin
gD
ialo
gu
ep
roce
ss
Str
on
gly
dis
ag
ree
Dis
agre
eN
eith
erag
ree
or
dis
agre
eA
gre
eS
tro
ng
lyag
ree
Ju
ne
20
13N
ov
em
be
r2
013
0%
25
%5
0%
75
%10
0%
•F
or
the
Ju
ne
mee
tin
g,
79
%th
ink
the
pu
rpo
sea
nd
ob
ject
ives
wer
ecl
earl
yco
mm
un
ica
ted
wh
ile
46
%o
fre
spo
nd
ents
thin
kth
eti
mel
ines
s,a
deq
ua
cya
nd
leve
lo
fd
eta
ils
of
the
do
cum
ents
circ
ula
ted
pri
or
toth
em
eeti
ng
cou
ldh
ave
bee
nim
pro
ved
.•
Fo
rth
eN
ove
mb
erm
eeti
ng
,9
7%
of
resp
on
den
tsth
ink
the
ob
ject
ives
wer
eb
ette
rco
mm
un
ica
ted
;h
ow
ever
,6
3%
of
resp
on
den
tsco
nfi
rmth
eir
sati
sfa
ctio
nw
ith
the
do
cum
enta
tio
nti
mel
ines
s,a
deq
ua
cya
nd
leve
lo
fd
eta
ils
of
the
do
cum
ents
.
Pw
CA
pri
l2014
11
WH
Ofinancin
gdia
logue
•S
urv
ey
Fin
din
gs
Th
eN
ov
em
be
rm
ee
tin
gp
ar
tly
ad
dr
es
se
ds
om
eo
fth
ec
on
ce
rn
sr
ais
ed
by
the
re
sp
on
de
nts
inJ
un
e
Th
en
eed
for
WH
Oto
giv
es
uff
icie
nt
an
dd
eta
ile
dfi
na
nc
ial
info
rm
ati
on
as
ab
asi
sfo
ra
stro
ng
an
aly
sis.
Wh
at
we
re
so
me
of
yo
ur
co
nc
er
ns
,if
an
y,
foll
ow
ing
the
Ju
ne
20
13m
ee
tin
g?
Did
the
No
ve
mb
er
20
13m
ee
tin
ga
dd
re
ss
tho
se
co
nc
er
ns
?
We
exp
ecte
dto
com
eo
ut
of
the
No
vem
ber
mee
tin
gw
ith
acl
eare
rp
ictu
reo
fth
efi
na
nci
ng
ga
ps,
wh
ich
we
did
no
t.T
he
web
po
rta
l,a
lth
ou
gh
pro
mis
ing
,w
as
no
ta
vail
ab
leea
rly
eno
ug
hto
all
ow
for
ap
rop
era
na
lysi
s.
Wis
hed
the
mee
tin
gh
ad
go
ne
fur
the
rin
ide
nti
fyin
gth
ep
ro
ce
ss
thr
ou
gh
wh
ich
the
Se
cr
eta
ria
ta
llo
ca
tes
As
se
ss
ed
Co
ntr
ibu
tio
ns
an
dh
ow
the
lack
of
fun
din
ga
ffec
tsW
HO
’sa
bil
ity
tod
oth
eir
wo
rk.
Th
eN
ove
mb
erm
eeti
ng
ad
dre
ssed
this
pa
rtia
lly.
We
ap
pre
cia
ted
the
com
mit
men
to
fth
eS
ecre
tari
at
top
rovi
de
mu
chg
rea
ter
det
ail
on
its
spen
din
g,
act
ivit
ies,
an
dre
sult
sth
rou
gh
the
new
web
po
rta
l.
Th
eim
po
rta
nce
for
the
No
vem
ber
mee
tin
gto
cla
rif
yth
ee
xp
ec
tati
on
sv
is-à
-vis
Me
mb
er
Sta
tes
an
dd
on
or
s.
Th
isw
as
on
lya
dd
ress
edp
art
iall
y.T
he
No
vem
ber
mee
tin
gco
uld
ha
veb
enef
ited
fro
mcl
eare
rg
uid
elin
esis
sued
toM
emb
erS
tate
sa
nd
do
no
rso
nh
ow
they
sho
uld
pre
pa
rea
nd
wh
ich
info
rma
tio
nsh
ou
ldb
ep
rese
nte
d.
Th
eJ
un
eF
ina
nci
ng
Dia
log
ue
did
no
ta
llo
ca
tee
no
ug
hti
me
toth
ep
ro
ce
ss
es
for
bil
ate
ra
le
ng
ag
em
en
ta
nd
did
no
tp
rovi
de
acl
ear
un
der
sta
nd
ing
of
the
Sec
reta
ria
tex
pec
tati
on
svi
s-à
-vis
do
no
rs,
for
the
fin
an
cin
gd
ialo
gu
ep
roce
ss.
Th
eN
ove
mb
erF
ina
nci
ng
Dia
log
ue
ad
dre
ssed
thes
eis
sues
ina
mo
rest
ruct
ure
da
nd
tim
ely
ma
nn
er.
Co
nce
rned
tha
tth
eF
ina
nci
ng
Dia
log
ue
wo
uld
bec
om
ea
no
ther
set
of
go
ve
rn
ing
bo
dy
me
eti
ng
s.
Rec
og
nis
edth
eef
fort
sto
bre
ak
aw
ay
fro
mg
ove
rnin
gb
od
ym
eeti
ng
s,h
ow
ever
effo
rts
wil
ln
eed
toco
nti
nu
e.
Pw
CSe
cti
on
4:
Bil
ate
ra
lm
ee
tin
gs
an
dm
iss
ion
br
iefi
ng
s
Pw
CA
pri
l2014
Bil
ate
ra
lm
ee
tin
gs
we
re
we
llo
rg
an
ise
da
nd
ad
de
dv
alu
eto
the
FD
pr
oc
es
s,
ho
we
ve
rth
ey
we
re
no
tc
on
sid
er
ed
mo
re
us
efu
lth
an
FD
me
eti
ng
s.
13
WH
Ofinancin
gdia
logue
•S
urv
ey
Fin
din
gs
0%
25
%5
0%
75
%10
0%
Th
eb
ila
tera
lm
eeti
ng
sw
ere
wel
lo
rga
nis
ed
Th
eb
ila
tera
lm
eeti
ng
sa
dd
edv
alu
eto
the
Fin
an
cin
gD
ialo
gu
ep
roce
ss
Th
eco
nte
nt
of
the
bil
ate
ral
mee
tin
gs
mad
eth
eN
ove
mb
erF
ina
nci
ng
Dia
log
ue
mee
tin
gm
ore
rele
va
nt
Th
eb
ila
tera
lm
eeti
ng
sw
ere
use
ful
too
bta
incl
ari
tyo
nW
HO
’sfu
nd
ing
ga
ps
Th
eb
ila
tera
lm
eeti
ng
sw
ere
mo
reb
enef
icia
lfo
rm
ea
sa
do
no
rth
an
the
Fin
an
cin
gD
ialo
gu
em
eeti
ng
s
Th
ep
roce
ssfo
ren
teri
ng
into
bil
ate
ral
mee
tin
gs
wit
hW
HO
wa
scl
ear
We
wo
uld
hav
ew
an
ted
tob
em
ore
eng
aged
inb
ila
tera
lm
eeti
ng
sw
ith
WH
O
Str
on
gly
dis
ag
ree
Dis
ag
ree
Nei
ther
ag
ree
or
dis
ag
ree
Ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
•9
2%
of
the
Mem
ber
Sta
tes
an
dn
on
-S
tate
Act
ors
wh
op
art
icip
ate
din
the
bil
ate
ral
mee
tin
gs
ag
reed
they
wer
ew
ell
or
ga
nis
ed
.
•4
0%
of
resp
on
den
tsfo
un
dth
eb
ila
tera
lm
eeti
ng
su
se
ful
too
bta
ina
cla
rity
on
WH
O’s
fun
din
gg
ap
s.
•7
3%
of
resp
on
den
tsa
gre
edth
at
the
bil
ate
ral
mee
tin
gs
ad
de
dv
alu
eto
the
FD
pr
oc
es
sa
nd
tha
tth
eco
nte
nt
ma
de
the
No
vem
ber
mee
tin
gm
ore
rele
van
t.
•N
earl
ya
thir
do
fre
spo
nd
ents
wo
uld
ha
veli
ked
tob
em
or
ee
ng
ag
ed
du
rin
gth
eb
ila
tera
lm
eeti
ng
s.
•H
ow
ever
,n
oo
ne
fou
nd
the
bil
ate
ral
mee
tin
gs
mo
re
be
ne
fic
ial
as
ad
on
or
tha
nth
eF
D.
Pw
CA
pri
l2014
Bil
ate
ra
lm
ee
tin
gs
ar
em
uc
hm
or
ee
ffe
cti
ve
wit
hW
HO
de
pa
rtm
en
tal
inp
uts
,y
et
the
re
iss
co
pe
for
imp
ro
ve
me
nt 1
4W
HO
financin
gdia
logue
•S
urv
ey
Fin
din
gs
Wit
hIn
pu
ts9
3%
Wit
ho
ut
Inp
uts
7%
Ar
eb
ila
ter
al
me
eti
ng
sm
or
ee
ffe
cti
ve
wit
hp
ro
gr
am
ma
tic
inp
uts
fro
mW
HO
de
pa
rtm
en
ts,
or
wit
ho
ut?
93
%o
fM
emb
er-S
tate
an
dn
on
-Sta
teco
ntr
ibu
tors
wh
ore
spo
nd
edto
the
surv
eyin
dic
ate
dth
eir
pre
fere
nce
toh
ave
inte
ract
ion
sw
ith
tech
nic
al
Dep
art
men
ts.
Su
gg
es
tio
ns
for
imp
ro
vin
gth
ew
ay
bil
ate
ra
lm
ee
tin
gs
ar
ec
on
du
cte
da
re
to:
E
nsu
reco
nsi
sten
cyin
the
rep
rese
nta
tio
no
fp
art
ies
eng
ag
ed.
C
lari
fyth
ep
urp
ose
an
da
imo
fth
eb
ila
tera
lm
eeti
ng
sa
hea
do
fti
me
an
dth
eva
lue-
ad
ded
for
WH
O.
E
nsu
recl
ari
tyo
nsh
are
dex
pec
tati
on
sa
nd
sha
rea
sm
uch
info
rma
tio
nin
ad
van
ceo
fth
em
eeti
ng
s.
Avo
ida
silo
ap
pro
ach
tore
sou
rce
mo
bil
isa
tio
n,
even
tho
ug
hte
chn
ica
lin
pu
tis
key
.
Su
gg
es
tio
ns
for
imp
ro
vin
gth
ew
ay
mis
sio
nb
rie
fin
gs
ar
ec
on
du
cte
da
re
to:
In
clu
de
up
da
tes
on
WH
Ofu
nd
ing
.
Ma
ke
do
cum
enta
tio
na
vail
ab
lein
ad
van
ce.
C
lari
fyex
pec
tati
on
s.
En
sure
gre
ate
rin
tera
ctio
ns
an
dd
ialo
gu
eb
etw
een
the
Sec
reta
ria
ta
nd
mis
sio
ns.
Pw
CSe
cti
on
5:
Re
so
ur
ce
mo
bil
isa
tio
na
tW
HO
Pw
CA
pri
l2014
0%
10%
20
%
30
%
40
%
50
%
60
%
12
34
5
On
ly2
9%
of
re
sp
on
de
nts
ag
re
ed
tha
tth
ey
ha
da
po
sit
ive
re
so
ur
ce
mo
bil
isa
tio
ne
xp
er
ien
ce
wit
hW
HO
;th
er
eis
ro
om
for
imp
ro
ve
me
nt
16
WH
Ofinancin
gdia
logue
•S
urv
ey
Fin
din
gs
Cu
rren
td
isco
nn
ect
bet
wee
nR
Ma
pp
roa
ches
acr
oss
the
org
an
isa
tio
nS
taff
con
tin
ue
tom
ob
ilis
ere
sou
rces
ind
epen
den
tly
WH
O’s
RM
ap
pro
ach
sho
uld
be
mo
rest
rate
gic
an
dfo
cuse
do
nP
Bfu
nd
ing
ga
ps
Mo
refi
na
nci
al
det
ail
ssh
ou
ldb
em
ad
ea
vail
ab
leto
do
no
rsR
eso
urc
em
ob
ilis
ati
on
effo
rts
sho
uld
als
ota
ke
pla
cea
tco
un
try-
leve
lw
ith
eng
ag
emen
tfr
om
go
vern
men
to
ffic
ials
Le
ast
po
sit
ive
RM
ex
pe
rie
nc
es
Eff
ecti
veco
mm
un
ica
tio
nw
ith
PR
P/D
GO
Ove
rall
go
od
RM
ap
pro
ach
bu
tro
om
for
imp
rove
men
tin
infa
vou
rin
ga
mo
rece
ntr
ali
sed
an
dco
ord
ina
ted
RM
ap
pro
ach
Go
od
pa
rtn
ersh
ipw
ith
WH
Oo
nte
chn
ica
lis
sues
Mo
st
po
sit
ive
RM
ex
pe
rie
nc
es
Lea
stp
osi
tive
exp
erie
nce
Mo
stp
osi
tive
exp
erie
nce
M
ost
resp
on
den
tsa
ren
eutr
al
ab
ou
tth
eir
exp
erie
nce
wit
hW
HO
’sre
sou
rce
mo
bil
isa
tio
nef
fort
s.
Th
eyin
dic
ate
dth
at
ther
eis
roo
mfo
rim
pro
vem
ent
inth
eR
Ma
pp
roa
ch,
pre
ferr
ing
ast
rate
gic
,ce
ntr
ali
sed
an
dco
ord
ina
ted
ap
pro
ach
.
Th
ere
isa
fra
gm
enta
tio
nin
the
ap
pro
ach
toR
M,
wit
hd
iffe
ren
tse
gm
ents
of
sta
ffre
ach
ing
ou
tto
con
trib
uto
rs.
Pw
CA
pri
l2014
Re
sp
on
de
nts
hig
hli
gh
ted
so
me
su
cc
es
se
sa
nd
ar
ea
sw
hic
hn
ee
dim
pr
ov
em
en
tsin
the
wa
yth
eF
Dw
as
co
nd
uc
ted
17
WH
Ofinancin
gdia
logue
•S
urv
ey
Fin
din
gs
Su
cc
es
se
s
Ar
ea
sfo
rim
pr
ov
em
en
t
Pr
ep
ar
ati
on
Pr
oc
es
sS
tak
eh
old
er
en
ga
ge
me
nt
Re
su
lts
Go
od
pre
pa
rati
on
Tim
ely
ava
ila
bil
ity
of
do
cum
enta
tio
n
Cla
rify
ing
the
term
ino
log
yo
fth
eF
ina
nci
ng
Dia
log
ue
pro
cess
Bri
ng
ing
aw
are
nes
so
nfi
na
nci
ng
nee
ds
an
dch
all
eng
es
Incr
easi
ng
tra
nsp
are
ncy
Mo
red
eta
iled
fin
an
cia
lin
form
ati
on
nee
ded
Incl
usi
vea
nd
op
end
ialo
gu
e
Mo
red
iscu
ssio
ns
fro
mp
art
icip
an
tsa
nd
less
fro
mm
od
era
tors
Mo
rere
gio
na
lle
vel
dis
cuss
ion
PB
web
po
rta
l
Pw
CSe
cti
on
6:
Imp
ac
to
fth
efi
na
nc
ing
dia
log
ue
Pw
CA
pri
l2014
Th
eF
Dp
ro
vid
es
be
tte
rtr
an
sp
ar
en
cy
on
ho
wW
HO
isfi
na
nc
ed
,b
ut
ha
sn
ot
infl
ue
nc
ed
do
no
rs
toin
cr
ea
se
fun
din
g
19
WH
Ofinancin
gdia
logue
•S
urv
ey
Fin
din
gs
0%
25
%5
0%
75
%10
0%
Th
eF
ina
nci
ng
Dia
log
ue
pro
vid
eda
go
od
un
der
stan
din
go
fh
ow
WH
Ois
fin
an
ced
an
dit
sfu
nd
ing
cha
llen
ges
Th
eF
ina
nci
ng
Dia
log
ue
pro
cess
isg
ener
ati
ng
ad
iscu
ssio
nin
ou
ro
rga
nis
atio
no
nin
crea
sin
gfu
nd
ing
toW
HO
Th
eF
ina
nci
ng
Dia
log
ue
pro
cess
isg
ener
ati
ng
ad
iscu
ssio
nin
ou
ro
rga
nis
atio
na
bo
ut
ho
ww
ea
lig
no
ur
fun
din
gto
the
PB
Th
eF
ina
nci
ng
Dia
log
ue
pro
cess
ish
elp
ing
us
imp
rove
inte
rna
lco
ord
ina
tio
no
ffu
nd
ing
toW
HO
Th
eF
ina
nci
ng
Dia
log
ue
pro
cess
isp
rov
idin
gg
rea
ter
tra
nsp
are
ncy
on
WH
Ofi
na
nci
ng
Th
eF
ina
nci
ng
Dia
log
ue
pro
cess
led
us
top
rovi
de
fun
din
gp
roje
ctio
ns
Th
eF
ina
nci
ng
Dia
log
ue
pro
cess
led
us
toin
crea
seo
ur
fun
din
gto
the
WH
Oco
mp
are
dto
the
pre
vio
us
bie
nn
ium
We
ha
vem
ore
con
fid
ence
inth
ew
ay
WH
Om
an
ages
its
fun
din
gfo
llo
win
gth
eF
ina
nci
ng
Dia
log
ue
pro
cess
We
ha
vem
ore
con
fid
ence
that
WH
Ow
ill
be
ab
leto
dem
on
stra
tea
cco
un
tab
ilit
yfo
rre
sult
sa
sa
resu
lto
fth
eF
inan
cin
gD
ialo
gu
ep
roce
ss
Str
on
gly
dis
ag
ree
Dis
ag
ree
Nei
ther
ag
ree
or
dis
ag
ree
Ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
9
6%
of
resp
on
den
tsth
ink
tha
tth
eF
Dh
as
pro
vid
eda
go
od
un
der
sta
nd
ing
of
WH
O’s
fin
an
cin
ga
nd
cha
llen
ges
.
87
%o
fre
spo
nd
ents
thin
kth
eF
Dis
pro
vid
ing
gre
ate
rtr
an
spa
ren
cyo
nW
HO
fun
din
g.
7
9%
of
resp
on
den
ts,
ho
wev
er,
ind
ica
ted
tha
tth
eF
Dd
idn
ot
con
trib
ute
toin
crea
sin
gfu
nd
ing
.
70
%o
fre
spo
nd
ents
thin
kth
eyh
ave
mo
reco
nfi
den
ceth
at
WH
Ow
ill
be
ab
leto
dem
on
stra
tea
cco
un
tab
ilit
ya
sa
resu
lto
fth
eF
D.
6
8%
thin
kth
at
the
FD
ish
elp
ing
wit
hd
iscu
ssio
nto
bet
ter
ali
gn
thei
rfu
nd
ing
toth
eP
B.
Pw
CA
pri
l2014
Am
ajo
rit
yo
fr
es
po
nd
en
tsth
ink
tha
tth
eF
Dh
as
en
ha
nc
ed
tra
ns
pa
re
nc
ya
nd
wil
lc
on
trib
ute
toin
sti
tuti
on
al
ch
an
ge
20
WH
Ofinancin
gdia
logue
•S
urv
ey
Fin
din
gs
0%
25
%5
0%
75
%10
0%
Th
eF
ina
nci
ng
Dia
log
ue
pro
cess
fost
ered
mo
reef
fect
ive
com
mu
nic
ati
on
fro
mth
eS
ecre
tari
at
Th
eF
ina
nci
ng
Dia
log
ue
pro
cess
pro
vid
edg
rea
ter
tra
nsp
are
ncy
fro
mth
eS
ecre
tari
at
Th
eF
ina
nci
ng
Dia
log
ue
pro
cess
sho
wed
aco
mm
itm
ent
fro
mth
eS
ecre
tari
at
toim
pro
vere
sult
sre
po
rtin
g
Th
eF
ina
nci
ng
Dia
log
ue
pro
cess
trig
ger
edm
ore
stra
teg
icd
iscu
ssio
ns
wit
hM
emb
erS
tate
sa
nd
no
n-S
tate
Act
ors
Str
on
gly
dis
ag
ree
Dis
ag
ree
Nei
ther
ag
ree
or
dis
ag
ree
Ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
T
her
eis
stro
ng
ag
reem
ent
fro
mre
spo
nd
ents
tha
tth
eF
Dh
as
fost
ered
cha
ng
ea
tth
eS
ecre
tari
at,
on
ma
tter
so
ftr
an
spa
ren
cy(8
2%
),co
mm
un
ica
tio
n(7
8%
)a
nd
aw
illi
ng
nes
sto
imp
rove
resu
lts
rep
ort
ing
(73
%).
F
urt
her
,8
2%
ag
ree
tha
tth
at
the
FD
pro
cess
trig
ger
edm
ore
stra
teg
icd
iscu
ssio
ns
wit
hM
emb
erS
tate
sa
nd
no
n-S
tate
Act
ors
.
Pw
CA
pri
l2014
Re
sp
on
de
nts
thin
kth
ew
eb
po
rta
lis
ah
igh
lig
ht
of
the
FD
an
dp
ro
vid
es
gr
ea
ter
tra
ns
pa
re
nc
y
21
WH
Ofinancin
gdia
logue
•S
urv
ey
Fin
din
gs
0%
25
%5
0%
75
%10
0%
Th
eP
rog
ram
me
Bu
dg
etw
ebp
ort
al
wa
sa
hig
hli
gh
to
fth
eF
inan
cin
gD
ialo
gu
ep
roce
ss
Th
ew
ebp
ort
al
pro
vid
esg
rea
ter
tra
nsp
are
ncy
on
WH
O’s
fin
an
cin
g,
wh
ich
did
no
tex
ist
bef
ore
the
Fin
an
cin
gD
ialo
gu
e
Th
ew
ebp
ort
al
pro
vid
edan
ad
equ
ate
lev
elo
ffi
na
nci
al
det
ail
Th
ein
form
ati
on
inth
ew
ebp
ort
al
isin
form
ing
/wil
lin
form
my
org
an
isa
tio
n’s
fun
din
gd
ecis
ion
s
Str
on
gly
dis
ag
ree
Dis
ag
ree
Nei
ther
ag
ree
or
dis
ag
ree
Ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
F
or
90
%o
fre
spo
nd
ents
,th
ew
ebp
ort
al
wa
sa
hig
hli
gh
to
fth
eF
Db
yp
rovi
din
gg
rea
ter
tra
nsp
are
ncy
toth
ep
roce
ss.
C
om
pa
red
toth
ese
hig
hfi
gu
res,
63
%o
fre
spo
nd
ents
tho
ug
ht
the
web
po
rta
lp
rovi
ded
an
ad
equ
ate
leve
lo
ffi
na
nci
al
det
ail
.
Wh
ile
ave
ryg
oo
dre
sult
,th
ere
isst
ill
roo
mfo
rim
pro
vem
ent,
as
evid
ence
db
yco
mm
ents
fro
mco
ntr
ibu
tors
.
Fin
all
y,4
6%
thin
kth
ew
ebp
ort
al
wil
lin
form
thei
ro
rga
nis
ati
on
on
futu
refu
nd
ing
dec
isio
ns.
Imp
ort
an
tth
at
the
web
po
rta
lis
up
da
ted
on
are
gu
lar
ba
sis
Th
ew
ebp
ort
al
stil
ln
eed
sto
sho
wh
ow
mo
ney
issp
ent
Th
ew
ebp
ort
al
sho
uld
dem
on
stra
tere
gio
na
la
nd
cou
ntr
yle
vel
fun
din
gb
rea
kd
ow
na
nd
sho
rtfa
lls
Su
gg
es
tio
ns
Th
ew
ebp
ort
al
sho
uld
go
furt
her
inth
efi
na
nci
ng
det
ail
s
Pw
CA
pri
l2014
As
ar
es
ult
of
the
FD
,m
or
er
es
po
nd
en
tsa
re
co
ns
ide
rin
gto
pr
ov
ide
pr
ed
icta
ble
fun
din
g,
ali
gn
ed
toth
eP
B
22
WH
Ofinancin
gdia
logue
•S
urv
ey
Fin
din
gs
45
%4
3%
38
%3
5%
33
%13
%10
%
Pro
vid
em
ore
pre
dic
tab
lefu
nd
ing
(e.g
.m
ult
i-ye
ar
ag
reem
ents
)
Fu
lly
ali
gn
fun
din
gto
the
PB
Incr
ease
tra
nsp
are
ncy
of
fun
din
gP
erm
ittr
ansf
ers
of
spec
ifie
dfu
nd
ing
fro
mo
ver-
sub
scri
bed
are
as
tou
nd
er-
fun
ded
area
so
fw
ork
up
on
ag
reem
ent
wit
hW
HO
Pro
vid
em
ore
flex
ible
fun
din
g(e
.g.
toa
low
erle
vel
of
spec
ific
ati
on
)
Pro
vid
esu
pp
lem
ents
toa
sses
sed
con
trib
uti
on
so
na
volu
nta
ryb
asi
s
Sta
rtg
ivin
gW
HO
volu
nta
ryco
ntr
ibu
tio
ns
A
sa
resu
lto
fth
eF
D,
45
%o
fre
spo
nd
ents
wo
uld
con
sid
erp
rovi
din
gm
ore
pre
dic
tab
lefu
nd
ing
toW
HO
.
On
the
oth
erh
an
d,
on
ly10
%w
ou
ldco
nsi
der
pro
vid
ing
volu
nta
ryco
ntr
ibu
tio
ns.
Pw
CA
pri
l2014
Le
gis
lati
on
co
mp
lia
nc
ea
nd
na
tio
na
lb
ud
ge
tr
es
tric
tio
ns
ar
eli
mit
ing
the
fun
ds
av
ail
ab
leto
WH
O
23
WH
Ofinancin
gdia
logue
•S
urv
ey
Fin
din
gs
0%
25
%5
0%
75
%10
0%
Nee
dfo
ra
lig
nm
ent
wit
hO
DA
req
uir
emen
tsw
hic
hp
reve
nt
fun
din
gce
rta
ina
ctiv
itie
s
Nee
dfo
ra
lig
nm
ent
wit
hM
DG
sw
hic
hp
rev
ent
fun
din
gce
rta
ina
ctiv
itie
s
Nee
dto
com
ply
wit
hg
ov
ern
men
tle
gis
lati
on
s
Nee
dto
com
ply
wit
hin
tern
al
bu
dg
etp
roce
sses
an
dre
stri
ctio
ns
Su
bo
pti
ma
lre
po
rtin
g
Str
on
gly
dis
ag
ree
Dis
ag
ree
Nei
ther
ag
ree
or
dis
ag
ree
Ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
M
ore
tha
n6
0%
of
the
resp
on
den
tsci
ted
com
pli
an
cew
ith
go
vern
men
tle
gis
lati
on
an
db
ud
get
pro
cess
rest
rict
ion
sa
sth
em
ain
cau
ses
pre
ven
tin
ga
nin
crea
seo
ffu
nd
ing
toW
HO
.
57
%th
ere
spo
nd
ents
tho
ug
hsu
bo
pti
ma
lre
po
rtin
gb
yW
HO
wa
sa
ba
rrie
rto
incr
easi
ng
fun
din
g.
M
ore
tha
na
qu
art
ero
fre
spo
nd
ents
thin
kif
WH
O’s
wo
rkw
ere
ali
gn
edm
ore
clo
sely
wit
hM
DG
sa
nd
OD
Ap
rio
rity
,th
eyw
ou
ldin
crea
sefu
nd
ing
.
Pw
CA
pri
l2014
WH
On
ee
ds
tod
em
on
str
ate
cle
ar
re
su
lts
an
da
ch
iev
eo
rg
an
isa
tio
na
le
ffic
ien
cy
toa
ttr
ac
tm
or
efu
nd
ing
24
WH
Ofinancin
gdia
logue
•S
urv
ey
Fin
din
gs
0%
25
%5
0%
75
%10
0%
Cla
rity
of
man
dat
e
Dem
on
stra
tio
no
fo
rga
nis
ati
on
al
effi
cien
cy
Dem
on
stra
tio
no
fre
sult
s
Ali
gn
men
to
fp
roje
cts/
pro
gra
ms
wit
hd
on
or
na
tio
na
lp
oli
cy/o
rga
nis
ati
on
al
pri
ori
ties
Str
on
gly
dis
ag
ree
Dis
ag
ree
Nei
ther
ag
ree
or
dis
ag
ree
Ag
ree
Str
on
gly
ag
ree
A
no
verw
hel
min
g9
3%
of
resp
on
den
tsth
ink
tha
tW
HO
nee
ds
tod
emo
nst
rate
thei
rre
sult
sin
ord
erto
att
ract
mo
refu
nd
ing
.
Th
ere
are
als
ocl
ear
ind
ica
tio
ns
(90
%)
tha
tW
HO
nee
ds
toim
pro
veo
rga
nis
ati
on
al
effi
cien
cy.
6
3%
of
resp
on
den
tsth
ink
WH
On
eed
sto
imp
rove
the
cla
rity
of
thei
rm
an
da
teto
imp
rove
the
qu
ali
tya
nd
qu
an
tity
of
fun
ds.
Pw
CA
pri
l2014
Mo
st
re
sp
on
de
nts
thin
kth
at
Me
mb
er
Sta
tes
sh
ou
ldb
eth
eta
rg
et
gr
ou
pto
inc
re
as
eW
HO
’sr
es
ou
rc
es
25
WH
Ofinancin
gdia
logue
•S
urv
ey
Fin
din
gs
Mem
ber
Sta
tes
Gra
nt
Mak
ing
Fo
un
dat
ion
s
Ph
ila
nth
rop
ists
Pri
vate
Sec
tor
NG
Os
Hig
hN
etW
ort
hIn
div
idu
als
Gen
era
lP
ub
lic
•T
he
ma
jori
tyo
fre
spo
nd
ents
(81%
)th
ink
Mem
ber
Sta
tes
sho
uld
be
the
top
sou
rce
of
fun
din
gfo
rW
HO
.
•F
ocu
ssh
ou
lda
lso
be
giv
ento
Gra
nt
Ma
kin
gF
ou
nd
ati
on
sa
nd
Ph
ila
nth
rop
ists
.
Pw
CSe
cti
on
7:
Fu
tur
efo
rm
at
for
the
fin
an
cin
gd
ialo
gu
e
Pw
CA
pri
l2014
Th
er
eis
an
ov
er
wh
elm
ing
su
pp
or
tfo
rth
efi
na
nc
ing
dia
log
ue
toc
on
tin
ue
…
27
WH
Ofinancin
gdia
logue
•S
urv
ey
Fin
din
gs
96
%o
fre
spo
nd
ents
ag
ree
tha
tth
eF
Dsh
ou
ldco
nti
nu
e.
70%
thin
kit
sho
uld
be
bro
ad
ened
toin
clu
de
po
ten
tia
ln
ewd
on
ors
.
60
%th
ink
itsh
ou
ldb
eh
eld
pri
or
toth
eP
Ba
pp
rov
al,
40
%th
ink
aft
er.
No
clea
rco
nse
nsu
so
nh
ow
oft
enth
eF
Dsh
ou
ldb
eh
eld
.
Pw
CA
pri
l2014
Fu
tur
eF
Ds
sh
ou
ldin
clu
de
pr
es
en
tati
on
sfr
om
WH
OR
eg
ion
al
Dir
ec
tor
sa
nd
co
ntr
ibu
tor
s
28
WH
Ofinancin
gdia
logue
•S
urv
ey
Fin
din
gs
29
%3
3%
33
%4
3%
48
%5
7%
Sit
evi
sits
Sa
tell
ite
mee
tin
gs
Fin
an
cin
gD
ialo
gu
em
eeti
ng
ou
tsid
eG
enev
aP
an
eld
iscu
ssio
ns
Mem
ber
Sta
tes/
no
n-S
tate
con
trib
uto
rp
rese
nta
tio
ns
Pre
sen
tati
on
sb
yW
HO
Reg
ion
al
Dir
ecto
rs
5
7%
of
resp
on
den
tsth
ink
the
Fin
an
cin
gD
ialo
gu
esh
ou
ldb
een
ha
nce
dw
ith
pre
sen
tati
on
sfr
om
WH
Ore
gio
ns
an
dfr
om
con
trib
uto
rsa
lik
e.
Res
po
nd
ents
are
als
oin
favo
ur
of
ha
vin
gp
an
eld
iscu
ssio
ns
(43
%)
as
an
inte
ract
ive
form
at.
Annex 7- Financing dialogue budget
WHO Financing Dialogue Evaluation - Annexes
PwC 36
Annex 7- Financing dialogue budget
Cost Analysis of implementing the 2013 financing dialogue Expense Statement
Direct Expenses Related to the FD Meetings 24 June 2013 25-26 November 2013
Logistics
Meeting Venue Rent
Catering & Printing $ 5,032 $ 6,000
Dedicated Staff
Conference Staff24 $ 22,094 $ 48,837
WebEx Operator $ 241 -
Communication Material25
Video $ 24,683 $ 61,140
Brochure $ 7,041 $ 7,517
IT Infrastructure
WebEx Computers $ 14,923 -
WebEx License
Travel Costs
Regional Office Staff $ 10,158 $ 51,657
PBAC Chair $ 3,001 $ 2,926
Travel to Bilateral Meetings - $ 10,195
Sub-total: Direct Expenses $ 87,173 $ 188,272
Direct Cost of Hosting Meetings $ 275,445
Cost of Creating Web Portal
Web Portal design & development $ 77,295
Indirect Cost (estimates of WHO staff time) $ 143,367
Total: Cost of Web Portal $ 220,662
24 This includes interpretation services to six languages. 25 This includes materials produced in six languages.
Annex 7- Financing dialogue budget
WHO Financing Dialogue Evaluation - Annexes
PwC 37
Total Cost of Implementing the FD
Direct Costs
June 2013 Meeting Expenses $ 87,173
November 2013 Meeting Expenses $ 188,272
Dedicated Project Management Staff $ 158,710
Cost of Creating a Web Portal $ 220,662
$ 654,817
Indirect Costs
Estimates of WHO staff time $ 281,150
Total Cost of Implementing the FD $ 935,967
Cost Analysis
Figure 8: Cost Breakdown for the Overall 2013 FD (USD 935 967)
Figure 9: Components of the Direct Costs in Carrying out the 2013 FD (USD 275 445)
Direct Cost in Carrying out FD
36%
Web Portal (incl. WHO Staff Time)
28%
Estimated WHO Staff Time
36%
Logistic, 4%
Non-WHO Staff, 26%
Communication Material, 36% IT Infrastructure,
5%
Travel Costs, 28%
Annex 8- Web portal review
WHO Financing Dialogue Evaluation - Annexes
PwC 38
Annex 8- Web portal review
The web portal was marked as one of the successes of the financing dialogue process. In both interviews and in
the survey, respondents praised the portal and mentioned that it provided a greater level of transparency which
was not there before. However, there were some concerns about the level and accuracy of the information which
is presented in the portal. The key issues seem to be the need for ‘granular’ information, to keep it updated, and
indicate how the funds are being spent in greater details.
We compared the information on the WHO web portal to the financing information available on the websites of
the GAVI Alliance (GAVI) and the Global Fund (GF).
A key difference between GF / GAVI sites and portal site is the information flow. The web portal does not explain the process as to how the priorities and allocations were decided. More to the point, it does not explain how the budget fits with the global issues that face WHO. The GF portal, for example provides the total financing needs to solve defined issues, and also identifies the non-GF sources of financing. This gives the reader a clear indication of who funds what in the space GF operates in. The web portal gives an impression that the starting point is the WHO mandate, not the global health issues as such.
The web portal presents the programming information clearer than GAVI or GF. All information provided on the web portal including on programme (area of focus, performance framework, results achieved) and financing (resources needed, available and shortfall) is also available in one way or another on the GF and GAVI websites. The major difference is that WHO’s web portal makes accessing this information much easier as it is a standalone site while GF and GAVI present parts of the programme and financing information in different sections of their sites.
The WHO web portal is much more detailed on the resources requirements. It details resources needed by regional and country offices, programmes and sub-programmes and even deliverables. This level of detail is not available on GF and GAVI sites. To determine GAVI and GF resources needed one needs to review the preparatory reports of their replenishment conferences.
The WHO web portal provides more detailed accounts of funding per donor, including the breakdown of each donor's funds to each sub-programme. For example, it is possible to find how much one country has funded or pledged to fund each of the 30 sub-programmes. By comparison, the GAVI and GF sites provide information on the funding process including replenishment cycles, including a breakdown in form of excel sheet of contributions and pledges made by each donor. But the information does not include a breakdown of how individual donor funds are allocated. It needs noting that WHO funds are mostly earmarked to SO/Categories, as opposed to GF and GAVI who receive un-earmarked funds.
The WHO web portal brings added value by showing the linkages between resources and activities (integrated approach) and transparency in who funds what. GF and GAVI provide information on the funding process which is separate from the distribution of funds to specific areas and activities.
The GAVI and GF sites provide more strategic information including strategy, business plan,
detailed methodology to conduct needs assessment etc, to explain why they need the funds, as opposed to the web portal which details how WHO will spend funds.
www.pwc.com
