1. The International Health Partnership Briefing to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Malaria and Neglected Tropical Diseases Phyllida Travis, WHO/IHP+ 16 October 2012

2. IHP+ IHP+: what it is, and why it was created IHP+ partners, goals and what is being done What are the results What's the relevance for malaria and NTDs?

3. What is IHP+? A partnership of countries, development agencies and civil society organizations that aim to accelerate better health services and health outcomes, particularly for the poor, by putting the Paris principles on aid effectiveness into practice. Created in 2007, with the first signatories to the Global Compact...

5. A strong efficient health system is needed to deliver quality services for a range of country health priorities

6. Why was IHP+ created? country reality can be.. aid fragmentation, duplication, inefficiencies, transaction costs Belgium France Sweden Netherlands Spain USAID Canada Luxembourg WHO UNICEF WFP UNFPA Plan International PSI Helen Keller Medecins Sans Frontieres Red Cross Japan Global Fund Against AIDS, TB & Malaria GAVI UNAIDS China United Nations (5) EU Members (6) International NGOs (8) DCE Global Initiatives

7. unintended burden of multiple missions – reaches district level *Assumes around 50 working days per quarter and 100 per half year although reported to work in excess of that Source:McKinsey: In-country interviews; DMO visitor log; team analysis PEPFAR GFATM NTLP Gates Foundation Norwegian TB EPI UNICEF WHO NACP NMCP London School Total 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 JICA Finnish Axios UNICEF World Vision MoH – TB MoH – Malaria MoH – AIDS MoH – EPI MoH – Maternal Health Weekly notifiable disease reports Total Harmonizing report writing can help reduce the burden TANZANIA DISTRICT EXAMPLES Report writing can consume even more time Number of full days per quarter spent on writing reports (Morogoro) Missions can consume 10-20% of a DMOs time: Number of one-day missions to Temeke during last 6 months

8. Supply logistics systems in Kenya, 2007

9. Who is IHP+? 20072012 Developing countries:831 Bilateral donors:813 Int'l agencies and foundations*:1112 TOTAL2756 *African Development Bank, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, European Commission, GAVI Alliance, Global Fund, International Labour Organization, UNAIDS, UNICEF, UNDP, WHO, UNFPA, World Bank Civil society also plays a key role in IHP+

10. IHP+ goals Stronger government leadership in defining national health priorities, and in promoting coordination behind one national health plan, leading to.. Reduced management burden, therefore more time for implementation, leading to.. Better results through better use of existing resources Goals remain relevant today

11. IHP+ work Increased support for one national health strategy, through: 1. More inclusive, better aligned national planning and joint assessment processes 2. More unified support for national plans, through country compacts 3. More harmonized financial management 4. One results monitoring platform, to track strategy implementation 5. Greater mutual accountability by monitoring progress against commitments IHP+ works through its partners – governments, development partners, CSOs; builds on existing processes

12. What is working and what is not working? 1. There is more evidence that better aid coordination gets value for money and results 2. Overall, there is some progress in health aid effectiveness but no room for complacency – there has not been the 'step change' that was anticipated 3. Countries have moved further than development partners in putting principles into practice

13. More evidence of links between effective aid and results More can be achieved with a clear vision and a credible plan: In Ethiopia, a health extension worker programme went nation-wide over 5 years, faster than many thought possible, because FMOH provided a credible plan and indicated where support was needed from Development Partners More can be achieved together than separately: In Nepal, scale up of free maternal health care from a few districts to nation-wide was possible because government and donors acted collectively – no one could have done it alone. Institutional deliveries rose from18% to 28% in 2011. Better coordination of resources can deliver greater value for money: in DRC, a new MOH single donor coordination unit led to threefold reduction in management costs for donor funds, from 28% - 9%. Liberated funds for other uses.

14. Is it working? IHP+Results performance reports

15. Progress but no room for complacency. Countries moved further than development partners Partner countriesDevelopment partners What is working? Country ownership and leadership in health development cooperation has increased Country aid governance and financial management systems are improving Development partners are supporting country leadership Development partners are providing better coordinated support, helping to develop frameworks to better manage health aid What is not working? There is less progress on country health budget allocations: only some have increased Changes in actual aid delivery by development partners much more limited. The target for increasing the proportion of external funding recorded in national budgets has been missed Development partner have not increase the proportion of aid delivered through country systems

16. What does all this mean for malaria and NTDs? Sustaining gains, protecting investments Need to understand the shared system bottlenecks to delivering services Respond in ways that follow 'good aid' / development practice Support sound national health plans with clear priorities: malaria and NTDs should feature where needed in national health plans; technical interventions should be 'correct'; implementation feasible. Work together - jointly agree ways to make better combined use of limited resources – health workers, medicines etc. Maintain efforts to track results and resources, with less fragmentation and duplication of reporting – shared oversight