View
59
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Draft proposed WHO programme budget (PB)
2018–2019: the European Region’s perspectiveDr Sussan Bassiri
Director
Administration and Finance
OutlineFull cycle through the lens of the
12th General Programme of Work (GPW12)• 2014–2015: assessing progress made in the 1st
biennium of GPW12• 2016–2017: applying lessons learned and continuing
priorities • 2018–2019: consolidating and refining the priority areas
WHO/Europe PB14–15 in numbers
• WHA-approved PB (US$ 225 million) was increased by 6% (US$ 239 million); all increase in Outbreak and crisis response
• WHA-approved PB was 95% funded• Financial implementation of the approved
was 89%
PB14–15 by category• Variation in implementation
directly related to financing level
• Better alignment of funding and allocated budget
• Even implementation of available funds (91%–98%)
• Many technical achievements across 6 categories
best funded
least funded
Financial resources in 2014–2015• 48% fully or highly flexible funds• 52% highly specified voluntary contributions
(VC)• 9% more assessed contributions (AC) and
core voluntary contributions account (CVCA) allocated in 2014–2015 from the global level than in 2012–2013 greater fairness in financing underfunded and priority areas
WHO/Europe top donors in 2014–2015Un
ited
Stat
es o
f Am
eric
a
Euro
pean
Com
miss
ion
Germ
any
GAVI
Alli
ance
Switz
erla
nd
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
m o
f Gre
at
Brita
in a
nd N
orth
ern
Irela
nd
Russ
ian
Fede
ratio
n
Gene
ralit
at d
e Ca
talu
nya,
Sp
ain
Norw
ay
Unite
d N
ation
s Ce
ntra
l Em
erge
ncy
Resp
onse
Fund
(C
ERF)
-
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000 • USA – single largest donor (19% of all VC)
• European Commission and Germany – 8% each
• European Member States fund ~ 22% of approved PB for WHO/Europe, in addition to AC and CVCA
• Picture similar to previous bienniums WHO/Europe vulnerability due to limited donor base
Lessons learned from 2014–2015
• Significant increase in outbreak and crisis responses in 2014–2015 resulted in challenges to find a balance between planned core activities and response to emergencies given unvarying level of core human resources
• Political changes in countries and limited financial and human resources were the main challenges for implementation, similar to previous bienniums
Lessons learned from 2014–2015
• Strong commitment at the country level is a key for success• Collaboration and partnerships are critical• Sustainability of actions is essential to maintain achievements• Technical capacity at the country level needs to be
strengthened • Unfinished agendas to be considered
Please see detailed analysis of lessons learned in Regional Committee document
2016–2017: applying lessons learned• Early operational planning 2016–2017 allowed continuity of
operations and early start of implementation• Early allocation of flexible funds prior to biennium start increased
predictability and ensured smooth start• Bottom-up planning approach for 2016–2017 led to more realistic
budget levels• Roll-out of the country matrix of roles and responsibilities, promotes
clarity and transparency of actions between regional and country levels
2016–2017: continuing priorities
• WHA-approved PB increased by 6% in emergencies
• Implementation on track
• WHA-approved PB 84% funded, incl. projected VC
• Better alignment of funding to the approved budget, “pockets of poverty” still exist
1 2 3 4 5 6 Emer-gencies
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 WHA budget
Current budget allocations
Funds available
Implementation
CategoryUS
$, m
illio
n best funded
least funded
Development of PB18–19 to dateFebruary – May 2016
• Setting strategic direction from the regional level
• Identification of priorities at the country level
• Identification of regional and global priority work
• Costing of outputs for all prioritiesMay 2016Regional consolidation and review of priority outcomes, with related outputs and costing
June 2016Global consolidation and review of priorities by category and programme area networks, and Global Policy Group
July 2016Development of the draft global PB18–19
July – Aug. 2016Development of the Regional Perspective on PB18–19
Sept. 2016RC66 reviews draft global PB18–19, draft Regional
Perspective
GLOBAL LEVEL REGIONAL LEVEL
Development of PB18–19• Continuity – bottom-up planning identified priorities built on the
priority-setting of 2016–2017 • Stable budget – same base budget level as 2016–2017 with
adjustments based on application of the Strategic Budget Space Allocation (~US$ 3 million)
• Alignment of budget and priorities – good correspondence between priorities and budget level by category
• Alignment with SDGs – the 2030 Agenda taken into account during various steps in the PB development process
• Emergency reform – followed separate planning process; approved by WHA69; integral part of the draft PB18–19
Frequency of programme areas cited as priorities
• Country consultations:
10 priority health outcomes were identified, excluding Emergencies
• Highest demand (= number of countries choosing specific priorities) for categories 2 and 3
• Continuity of priorities from 2016–2017
NCDHealth services
TBMental health
Health info.Mother&Child
Health policiesMedicines
VPIEnvironment
HIVAMR
NutritionSDH
Violence&injuriesAgeing
DisabilitiesNTDGER
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Number of countries
* does not include programmes under emergency reform
Proposed PB18–19Categories and programme areas WHA PB
2016–2017PB 2018–2019
proposed % Change
Categories 1–6, excluding Health Emergencies Programme
219.47 222.50 1%
Subtotal base programmes, incl. Health Emergencies Programme
235.40 258.60 10%
Outbreak and crisis response 3.0
Poliomyelitis 7.40 5.90 -20%
Total PB 245.80 264.50 8%
Proposed PB18–19 compared to allocated PB14–15 and PB16–17
• Clear increase of budget in priority areas across bienniums
• Readjusted budget where necessary (e.g. categories 1 and 3)
• Effect of emergency reform in category 5
• Strategic orientations for Region for PB18–19 shown in the Regional Committee document
Cat 1 Cat 2 Cat 3 Cat 4 Cat 5 Cat 60
10
20
30
40
50
60PB14-15PB16-17PB18-19
US$
mill
ion
Financing of PB18–19• Financial dialogue: fully funded PB14–15, good
projections for PB16–17, uncertain prospects for PB18–19
• Current projections financing is 48% of proposed budget
• High reliance on few donors, high earmarking, and «pockets of poverty» still exist. More flexibility is needed on donor side
• Financial dialogue, web portal, emergency reform, SDGs expected to affect PB18–19 financing but effects are still uncertain
Financing Projections
Flexible US$ 103 million
Voluntary US$ 24 million
Total US$ 127 million
Next steps in developing PB18–19
Sept. 2016RC66 reviews draft global PB18–19, draft Regional Perspective
Jan. 2017EB reviews revised PB18–19 incorporating input from all RCs
Oct. – Dec. 2016Region contributes to revision of the global PB18–19 based on feedback from Regional Committees (RCs)
July – Sept. 2017Preparation and presentation to RC67 of the regional implementation plan for PB18–19
GLOBAL LEVEL REGIONAL LEVEL
May 2017Consideration of draft PB18–19 by 70th World Health Assembly