1 / 32

Zambian Health SWAp revisited – has it made the intended effects?

Zambian Health SWAp revisited – has it made the intended effects?. Collins Chansa Donor Coordinator Ministry of Health - Zambia. Outline of the Presentation. Zambian Health SWAp Notable Developments Basic tenets of the Zambian Health SWAp Structures & Instruments in the SWAp

skip
Download Presentation

Zambian Health SWAp revisited – has it made the intended effects?

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. Zambian Health SWAp revisited – has it made the intended effects? Collins Chansa Donor Coordinator Ministry of Health - Zambia

  2. Outline of the Presentation • Zambian Health SWAp • Notable Developments • Basic tenets of the Zambian Health SWAp • Structures & Instruments in the SWAp • SWAp Coordination Committees • SWAp Joint Annual Reviews • Major Achievements and Challenges • Policy Reflections

  3. Zambian Health SWAp 1 • During the late 80’s and early 90’s Zambia’s health sector was characterized by several fragmented donor projects • Project support tended to undermine national efforts to develop the health sector in an holistic and comprehensive manner

  4. Zambian Health SWAp 2 • GRZ perceived a need to integrate all the vertical programmes into a sectoral framework that would meet common national goals and objectives • In 1993, Zambia was the first country in Africa to implement a health SWAp

  5. Why was the SWAp Adopted? • Increases predictability of funding • Improve the financing base since priorities are identified in advance • Reduce transaction costs and duplication • Apply interventions equitably and to reduce geographic disparities • Leadership & Stewardship. Place government in charge leading to institutional & financial sustainability • Improved efficiency in resource allocation & use

  6. Isn’t Donor Collaboration Wonderful? WHO INT NGO CIDA 3/5 UNAIDS GTZ RNE UNICEF Norad WB Sida USAID UNFPA MOF UNTG PMO CF DAC GFCCP PRSP PEPFAR HSSP GFATM MOEC MOH SWAP CCM NCTP CTU CCAIDS NACP LOCALGVT CIVIL SOCIETY PRIVATE SECTOR Source: WHO: Mbewe

  7. Verticalization of Aid leads to Fragmentation and Poor Results: Child Health Nutrition Malaria Case management Community Management Skilled birth attendance Drug Use HIV/AIDS New born care PMTCT Safe and Supportive Environment Health system Maternalhealth Source: WHO: Mbewe

  8. Notable Developments 1

  9. Notable Developments 2

  10. Basic tenets of the Zambian Health SWAp • GRZ stewardship & ownership • Commitment to the Health Vision & the National Health Strategic Plan • Support to a defined cost-effective Basic Health Care Package of interventions • Support to a Common Basket where no distinction is made between Cooperating Partners’ funds and that from GRZ • Joint systems for sector reviews, planning, procurement, disbursement of funds, reporting, accounting and audit

  11. Structures & Instruments in the SWAp • Memorandum of Understanding between MoH and CPs (Nov 1999 & June 2006) • Formal GRZ led coordination process • Joint Annual Health Sector Reviews • 5 year National Health Strategic Plan • 5 year National Human Resources for Health Strategic Plan • Rolling 3 year Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) • Drug Supplies Budget Line • Agreed Resource Allocation Criteria

  12. SWAp Coordination Committees Annual Consultative Committee Sector Advisory Group (SAG) Committee Policy Committee Consultative Committee Monitoring & Evaluation Committee Capital Technical Working Group Health Care Financing Technical Working Group Procurement Technical Working Group Human Resources Technical Working Group

  13. SWAp Joint Annual Reviews • Zambia has conducted 5 independent joint reviews between 1992 and 2006. • In 2004, routine Joint Annual Reviews (JARs) were also introduced • The JAR is conducted annually and consists of 4 main phases: Literature Review; Key Informant Interviews; Field Visits; and Joint Annual Review meeting. (3 JARS done so far).

  14. Major Achievements 1 • Implementation has developed gradually and consultatively = confidence + trust • Operational basket funding for districts, hospitals, Training Institutions, Statutory Boards • Operational Human Resources for Health (HRH) basket and a Drug Supplies Budget line • Establishment of the SWAp Secretariat has intensified dialogue and communication

  15. MINISTRY OF HEALTH SWAp SECRETARIAT STAKEHOLDER IN THE HEALTH SECTOR Sector Dialogue & Communication Day to Day Management of the SWAp Collaborative Process

  16. Major Achievements 2 • Improvements in financial management and accountability • Some vertical programmes also use the SWAp accounts for disbursements • Contributed to promoting equity in the allocation of resources to districts

  17. Major Achievements 3 • Increased GRZ Fiscal Space: High financial commitment by CPs both in terms of numbers & level of funding • Financial disbursements to the basket increased from an annual average of US$ 6.7 million in 1995 to about US$ 70 million in 2005 • Proportion of grants as opposed to loans in MoH is the highest among the GRZ Ministries

  18. Major Achievements 4 Predictable & sustainable funding: • Agreement with CPs to make two disbursements per year • Operationalisation of a 6-months buffer • Supporting a set of common activities has increased financial sustainability. GRZ increases in the advent of partnership problems (1997-1999) and Volatility due to Ex. Rates (2005-2007)

  19. Challenges 1 • Transaction costs are still high due to high frequency & comprehensiveness of meetings (SWAp & Non-SWAp) • Several donors are still outside the SWAp and several funding modalities • Use of parallel systems by some bilateral donors and Global Health Initiatives • In 1998 about 22% of overall donor support was through the SWAp while in 2005, this figure increased to 29% but dropped to 17% in 2006

  20. Challenges 2 • Several disease-specific projects on HIV/AIDS. 19% of overall donor support was for HIV/AIDS in 2005, increasing to 61% in 2006 • Overall level of funding to the health sector is still low. $US 18 available compared to the required $US 33 dollars per capita

  21. Problems in Funding, Sustainable and Predictable Financing THE (in USD) / Capita (at exchange rate) $35/capita Minimum level of investment recommended by the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health (CMH) Source: The World Bank. 2005. World Development Indicators. 2006.

  22. Challenges 3 • Inadequate support for cost items like drugs and human resources making it difficult to provide quality health care • Fragmentised procurements for Vaccines, HIV/AIDS drugs, Family planning commodities etc • Inability of the system to take care of sudden drastic losses in funding due to exchange rate fluctuations (2005-2006)

  23. Harmonization, alignment and mutual Accountability Ideally, for a SWAp to be effective, both govt. and donors have to re-align their working arrangements In reality, emphasis is on re-aligning govt. systems and rarely donors’ working arrangements No Mutual Accountability on the part of donors

  24. Who’s in the driver’s seat?

  25. Do donors really let government drive?

  26. Question: what is the “health sector”? • How the “health sector” relates to the “health system”, but not the same • Does the sector refer to public sector only, or public and private actors? • Health outcomes are influenced by forces inside and outside the health system — how does SWAp address factors beyond health care?

  27. Lessons Learnt 1 • Establishment of formal structures and tools for managing the SWAp and having a strong secretariat can make a huge contribution • CPs contributing to the basket are more committed to the SWAp process • The SWAp can provide a framework for collaboration but might not create significant improvements in efficiency

  28. Lessons Learnt 2 • A SWAp can benefit from a decentralized health system • Aid coordination is a very complex process which develops slowly • MTEF as a tool for strengthening mechanisms for aid management might not be very effective

  29. Policy Reflections 1 • Devpt of effective support systems, ‘learning by doing’ and re-adjusting from experiences • Create opportunities for the participation of various stakeholders (by taking cognizance of their respective constraints) • There is need to estimate the full resource envelope & put all funding ‘on budget’

  30. Policy Reflections 2 • Build confidence through transparency in resource allocation and use • Exit of key CPs from the Health Sector in preference for Direct Budget Support shouldn’t affect the level of funding in the overall health sector

  31. Does it Really work? • No agreed framework for evaluating SWAps and other Aid modalities – Attempts by Walford, Paris Declaration, Hutton, and most recently Boesen and Dietvorst • Thus, attributing health outcomes directly to the SWAp is difficult as the SWAp is not implemented in isolation • SWAps should be seen as add on processes to vertical projects and ingredients of Direct Budget Support

  32. END OF THE PRESENTATION

More Related