1 / 17

SECTOR-WIDE APPROACHES IN THE HEALTH SECTOR (IN UGANDA)

SECTOR-WIDE APPROACHES IN THE HEALTH SECTOR (IN UGANDA). KEY CHARACTERISTICS & CHALLENGES Dr. Martinus Desmet, MPN, WHO Country Office - Uganda. Content. Common definitions of SWAp What SWAp really is (should be) Challenges Belgian contribution to SWAp. 1. COMMON DEFINITIONS.

colum
Download Presentation

SECTOR-WIDE APPROACHES IN THE HEALTH SECTOR (IN UGANDA)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SECTOR-WIDE APPROACHESIN THE HEALTH SECTOR(IN UGANDA) KEY CHARACTERISTICS & CHALLENGES Dr. Martinus Desmet, MPN, WHO Country Office - Uganda

  2. Content • Common definitions of SWAp • What SWAp really is (should be) • Challenges • Belgian contribution to SWAp

  3. 1. COMMON DEFINITIONS - from policy to policy - a process

  4. SWAp’s - DEFINITIONS “All significant funding for the sector supports: - a single sector policy and expenditure programme - government leadership - adopting common approaches across the sector - progress towards relying on government procedures to disburse and account for all funds.” WHO (2000) “Sector-wide Approaches for Health Development” SWAp = a process: -broadening & deapening policy dialogue - more sector funds into co-ordinated arrangements - developing common procedures based on those of government ------> focus on the intended direction of change rather than just the level of attainment

  5. 2. WHAT SWAp REALLY IS(or should be) - not only funding - efficiency / effectiveness

  6. ULTIMATE GOAL OF AHealth SWAp ? “NOT ONLY A PROCESS” ULTIMATE PURPOSE ? INCREASE EFFICIENCY = INCREASED AND IMPROVED OUTPUT AT THE SAME COST

  7. So: What are the keys in aHealth SWAp to increase efficiency ? GOVT USE PARTNERSHIP FOR CONSENSUS BUILDING AROUND: 1) “SOLID PIECE” of POLICY - Evidence-based; based on ORGANISATIONAL PRINCIPLES for SERVICE DELIVERY 2) Common PLANNING devices - activity packages by level; 5-yr/1yr, incl. COSTING & FINANCING 3) ‘Adapted’ FUNDING arrangements (not only ‘common basket’)

  8. Health SWAp keys for increased efficiency (Cont’d) 4) Reliable MONITORING - on input, process & output 5) Continuous EVALUATION mechanisms - at “Health District” & national level; regular meetings with all involved 6) Accountable resources MANAGEMENT & ACCOUNTING procedures.

  9. 3.CHALLENGES - Donors & Govt - Link with national budget frame & PRSP/PRSC - Decentralisation

  10. 1) GOVT & DONORS • GOVERNMENT • POLICY, STRUCTURES & SYSTEMS NOT YET FULLY IN PLACE • ACCOUNTABILITY ! • LINKS WITH BROADER GOVT POLICIES, GOVT BUDGET PROCESS • DONORS • RELUCTANT TO GO INTO BUDGET SUPPORT • (funding is not the only point) • ‘MANAGERS’ MORE THAN HEALTH PROFESSIONALS • DONORS + GOVERNMENT • NEW CONCEPT, NEEDS INTERNALIZATION • TOO MUCH ‘PROCESS-ORIENTED’ AT NATIONAL (DISTRICT ?) LEVEL • NO KNOWLEDGE OF DONOR DEPENDENCY RATIO

  11. 2) LINK WITH NATIONAL BUDGET FRAME & PRSP/PRSC • TRENDS IN HEALTH FINANCING MECHANISMS • PROJECT VS SECTOR SUPPORT; OTHER SOURCES ? • OVER TIME: ‘REMAINING’ % OF TOTAL BUDGET FROM PROJECTS • ‘EXTRA-BUDGETARY’ / FUNDS UNACCOUNTED FOR. • TENSION ‘SECTOR’ - ‘TOTAL’ GOVT BUDGET • TOTAL GOVT BUDGET = OWN RESOURCES + HIPC I/II + OVERALL BUDGET SUPPORT + SECTOR-SPECIFIC BUDGET SUPPORT • BUDGET ALLOCATION PROCESS: PARTICIPATORY GOVT / CIVIL SOC / DONORS / PARLIAMENT • FUNGIBILITY OF DONOR FUNDS/ ROLE NATIONAL BANK • DONOR DEPENDENCY RATIO ??? • ESTABLISHMENT ‘POVERTY ACTION FUND’ = SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES IN DEFINED SECTORS FUNDED BY HIPC RETURNS + SPECIFIC DONOR CONTRIBITIONS (fungibility !).

  12. 2) LINK WITH NATIONAL BUDGET FRAME & PEAP PRSP/PRSC (2) • IMPACT GLOBAL INITIATIVES • NON-ADDITIONAL TO SECTOR BUDGET CEILING / “DISRUPTIVE” • EXCHANGED AGAINST LESS TIGHT BUDGET COMPONENTS • SWAp STRUCTURES: • Mid-Term Review, Health Policy Advisory Committee, Health Development Partners Group • NEED FOR CLOSE COLLABORATION BETWEEN • TECHNICAL EXPERTISE, AND • ‘POLITICAL/ DIPLOMATIC’ LEVELS OF • REPRESENTATION’ OF DONOR COUNTRY • E.g. Presidential proposal for budget cuts so as to cover extra-ordinary defense expenditure. / Presidential proposal to increase with 25% the No. Of districts.

  13. 2) LINK WITH NATIONAL BUDGET FRAME & PEAP PRSP/PRSC (3) • PEAP / PRSP VERY BROAD ! • Macro-economic; Governance; Income of the Poor; Quality of Life of the Poor • Poor vs Non-poor ? • FROM NATIONAL PLAN ----> PRSP ----> PRSC • HEALTH SECTOR WITHIN “PILAR 4” OF POVERTY ERADICATION ACTION PLAN (“PEAP”) • PEAP = PRSP • PRSP AS THE BASIS FOR PRSC. • OUTCOME OF HEALTH SWAp in PRSC PROCESS • HSSP TARGETS AND MTR ‘UNDERTAKINGS’ USED AS BENCHMARKS IN THE POLICY MATRIX OF PRSC TO MONITOR PROGRESS MADE

  14. 4. CONTRIBUTION OF BELGIUM ? - NATIONAL - DISTRICT

  15. Contribution of BelgiumNational level • GOAL ?? (linked to sectors in Country Strategy Paper, Indicative Country Programme) • Participation in SWAp structures (HAPC, HDP group, MTR, Working Groups, ICCs): • WHO ? • HOW ? • Participation in PRSC process ? • WHO ? • HOW ?

  16. Contribution of Belgium (2)District level • GOAL ?? • In district coordination structures (esp. When decentralised governments) • WHO ? • HOW ? • In operational activities. • WHO ? • HOW ?

  17. THANK YOU

More Related