2. 1. Les fondements
2. “Tentions créatives” des engagements de la RHN de 2012
3. Les “règles d‟or” pour des engagements idéaux
4. Outils et support du Secrétariat
5. Les „tensions créatives‟ des engagement
de la RHN de 2014
1. Beaucoup trop vs. trop peu
2. Anciens vs. Nouveaux
3. „Gains rapides‟ vs. „Changements Structurels‟
4. Génériques vs. Spécifiques
6
6. 1. Trop vs. pas assez!
Trop
Pas assez
15
1
15
2
• difficile de faire du plaidoyer
• Perçu comme peu
ambitieux
• difficile d‟effectuer le suivi
• Quantité vs. Qualité
• difficile à mettre en œuvre
7
7. 2. Vieux vs. Nouveaux
Vieux
Nouveaux
Appliquer les programmes de
proximité en soins de santé
primaire sur le terrain
- Enraciné dans les plans
nationaux / engagements
existants
- Favoriser l‟alignement des
priorités
- Favoriser le suivi par les
systèmes nationaux
Le pays tout entier sera
100% ODF en 2015
-
Peut changer l„agenda
Peut changer l‟échelle
8
8. 3. Gains rapides vs. gains structurels
Rapide
• Créer un groupe de travail
inter sectorielle
• Allouer 1.5 Mil à l‟eau
- Réalisable
- Visible
- Le suivi est possible
Structurel
• Créer un conseil WASH qui
supervise les ministères liés a
WASH et rend compte directement
au Président
• Créez ligne budgétaire distincte
pour l'assainissement
-
Peut avoir un impact à long terme
Difficile a atteindre en 2 ans
Difficile de garder la dynamique
9
9. 4. Spécifique vs. large et consensuel
Spécifique
Large et consensuel
• Créer une Direction de
l'assainissement au sein du
ministère de la Santé
• Accroitre l‟accès a 50 Mil de
personnes supplémentaires
• Procéder à des réformes
Institutionnelles en matière
d'assainissement
-
-
Actionnable
Contextuel
suivi à l‟échelle nationale
Difficile à agréger au niveau
mondial
Vision globale
Agrégable
Difficile a suivre
10
10. 1. Basique
2. “Tentions créatives” des engagements de la RHN de 2012
3. Les “règles d‟or” pour des engagements idéaux
4. Outils et support du Secrétariat
11. 1. Peu mais de qualité
La règle des 90 secondes
- Max. 5 engagements
- Raconter une histoire aux acteurs de haut niveau
Changer les règles du jeu
- Des engagements ambitieux qui induiront un changement:
1. Durabilité
2. Elimination des inégalités
3. Accès universel
13
12. 2. Ancrés dans les plans nationaux
mais avec un nouvel angle
Règle de l‟équilibre
De bons engagements sont:
- ancrés dans les stratégies existantes
- comprennent les goulets d'étranglement
de l‟agenda inachevé
BUT
- Reconnaître les évolutions de l‟agenda
(Accès universel, lutte contre les inégalités,
durabilité, efficacité de l‟aide)
- seront intégrés dans les cycles de
planification futurs
14
13. 3. Séquentiel à court terme et structurel
Les règle de la durée appropriée:
- Pour les nouveaux partenaires, des gains rapides sur une
période de 2 ans.
- Pour les anciens partenaires, la priorité devrait se faire sur
les changements structurels
15
14. 4. “SMART” et aligné avec les catégories SWA
„SMART
rule‟
Specific
S‟assurer de la coordination des
activités
NO
Measurable
?
Achievable
?
Relevant
?
Timebound
NO
16
15. 4. “SMART” et aligné avec les catégories SWA
SMART
Specific
Dans les 2 années à venir, mettre en place
un mécanisme formel de coordination par le
Ministere de la Sante et Ministere des
Infrastructures Publiques
YES
Measurable
?
Achievable
YES
Relevant
Timebound
?
YES
17
16. 4. “SMART” et aligné avec les catégories SWA
SMART
Specific
Inclure l‟assainissement sur l‟agenda
politique
NO
Measurable
?
Achievable
?
Relevant
?
Timebound
NO
18
17. 4. “SMART” et aligné avec les catégories SWA
SMART
Faire de l'assainissement une priorité dans la
stratégie de croissance pour la réduction de la
pauvreté (2014-2018) et le Programme d'actions
prioritaires des gouvernements (2014-2018)
Specific
Yes
Measurable
Yes
Achievable
?
Relevant
?
Timebound
Yes
19
18. 4a. SWA spécifique
Pour adresser les problèmes les plus importants, les engagements
doivent :
•
•
•
Indiquer une action, un leader et le soutien des ministres / partenaires
Faire sens au niveau des pays
MAIS s'inscrire dans l‟une des catégories SWA:
Priorisation
Politique
1. Financement
2. Visibilité
Prise de décision sur
base factuelle
3. Monitoring Global
4. Monitoring à l‟échelle
nationale
5. Transparence
6. Preuve
7. Lien entre monitoring
et programmation
National
Processes
8. Politique et
planification
9. Coordination et
alignement
10. Decentralisation
11. Capacité
22
19. 4b. SWA Mesurable
Pour adresser les problèmes les plus importants, les engagements
doivent prendre en compte:
•
•
•
Aucun des indicateurs globaux / communs
MAIS indicateur spécifique à chaque pays
et inclus en avance dans l‟élaboration
Mesurable par les systèmes nationaux
23
20. 4c. Réalisable
Pour adresser les problèmes les plus importants, les engagements
doivent prendre en compte:
1. Les goulots d‟étranglements sectoriels les plus importants –
JSRs, CSOs, BAT, JSR, GLAAS
2. Les progrès réalises sur les engagements précédents – Mis a jour
SWA
3. Les priorités plus larges des pays - PSRP etc.
4. Engagements des forums régionaux/globaux - Africasan, Sacosan
- ne avec les progrès réalises vis-a-vis des enagements precedents
- Qui anticipent les efforts requis pour leur mise en oeuvre
E.g.: Construire des reseaux de partage d‟informations/de connaissances
1 ans plus tard: des centres d‟infos ont ete construits mais pas de ressources
pour leur fonctionnement!
24
21. 4d. Pertinant
Pour adresser les problèmes les plus importants, les engagements
doivent prendre en compte:
1. Les goulots d‟étranglements sectoriels les plus importants – JSRs,
CSOs, BAT, JSR, GLAAS
2. Les progrès réalisés sur les engagements precedents – Mis a jour SWA
3. Les priorités plus larges des pays - PSRP etc.
4. Engagements des forums régionaux/globaux - Africasan, Sacosan
4e. Limité dans le temps
25
22. Resume: règles d‟Or
des engagements RHN 2014
2014 RHN
1. Peu, mais de qualité
Règle des „90 secondes‟
2. Ancrés sur des plans
actuels, mais avec sous un
nouvel angle
Règle de l‟équilibre
3. Gains rapides et structurels
Règle de l”‟ordre”
4. SMART par catégories SWA
Regle “SWA-MART”
26
23. SWA- MART:
10 categories and 3 optiques
ACCES UNIVERSEL
EGALITE
DURABILITE
Prioritisation
politique
1. Financement
2. Visibilité
Prise de décision à
base factuelle
3.
4.
5.
6.
Suivi
Transparence
Evidence
Lien entre le suivi
et la planification
Processus
nationaux
7. Politiques publiques
et planification
8. Coordination
9. Decentralisation
10. Ressources Humaines
27
24. Résumé des Engagements
1 slide
- 2 angles
- 10 Catégories
D‟ici 9
Avril
2014
Déclaration des
engagements des pays
D‟ici 5
Mars
2014
Les
Règles
o9p0
Outils
analytiques
Dialogue
Préparatoire
25. Le processus de développement des
engagements
Les
Règles
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
„90 secondes‟: few, but focused
„change les règles du jeu‟: carefully ambitious
„Equilibrés: existing plans with new lenses”
„Séquencé‟: short term and structural
„SMART‟: Specific, Measurable, Achievable,
Relevant, Time-bound
29
26. Le processus de développement des
engagements
Dialogue
Préparatoire
6. Les acteurs du secteur ensemble
7. Analiser les goulots et les anciens progrès
8. Equilibre entre anciennes et nouvelles priorités
9. Alignement avec les processus nationaux
10. Lien avec les consultations nationales sur
l‟agenda Post-2015
30
27. Le processus de développement des
engagements
Outils
analytiques
11. Joint Sector Reviews- JSR
12. Suivi des progrès sur les engagements de 2012
13. Country Status Overviews- CSOs
14. WASH Bottleneck Analysis Tools - BATs
15. GLAAS
31
28. 1. Basique
2. “Tentions créatives” des engagements de la RHN de 2012
3. Les “règles d‟or” pour des engagements idéaux
4. Outils et support du Secrétariat
29. Outils disponibles produits
par le Secrétariat
QUOI
QUAND
1. Evaluation des progrès
- Nouveaux outils
- Notes directrices 2014
2.
Developpement de nouveaux
engagements
- Notes directrices
- Webinaires
- Revue SMART
Maintenant!
Janvier
1.
Planning new
commitments
Décembre
Décembre
Mars – sur demande
34
Explain that HLM commitments in 2012 were over 400, on abroad range of topics, varied from primary (mdg type) to very specifc actions that would be meanigful only to a specific country.Explain that Explain that this is different on different partnerships: heatlh/e-thekwinin all same commitments and indicators.The SWA model introduces 3 ‘creative tensions’
Explain that HLM commitments in 2012 were over 400, on abroad range of topics, varied from primary (mdg type) to very specifc actions that would be meanigful only to a specific country.Explain that Explain that this is different on different partnerships: heatlh/e-thekwinin all same commitments and indicators.The SWA model introduces 3 ‘creative tensions’
Explain that HLM commitments in 2012 were over 400, on abroad range of topics, varied from primary (mdg type) to very specifc actions that would be meanigful only to a specific country.Explain that Explain that this is different on different partnerships: heatlh/e-thekwinin all same commitments and indicators.The SWA model introduces 3 ‘creative tensions’
The SWA model introduces 3 ‘creative tensions’
Ask participants to check their country summary and to refelect : how easily can you communicate to your Minister what your commitments are all about? Can you do it in 90 second? Or do you have toomany commitmentsTo To many commitments mean:it is hard to communicate on them to the political levelIt is hard to monitor progressIt is ultimately hard to implement them!On the other side: has any of you thought, while preparing the commitments: ho no! we can’t have only two commitmentsToo few commitments can be seen as not ambitious!Does quantity equal quality?
Remind that we have asked countries if hteir commitmetns existed before the HLM.50% yes 50% no.Is that good or bad? there are countries who make commitments to implement previosu commitments (e.g. ethekwini)Other that make ocmmitments that were intheir national plansRooting commitments to existing plans and commitmetn :Allows for commitments to be aligned with country priotityes Allows for commitments to be picked up and monitired by national systems HoweverHLM commitments have been used ‘shift’ the agenda: sanitation, equity all emerging topicsIf plans already existed and were nt being implemented, maybe problem will perpetuate
Remind that we have asked countries if hteir commitmetns existed before the HLM.50% yes 50% no.Is that good or bad? there are countries who make commitments to implement previosu commitments (e.g. ethekwini)Other that make ocmmitments that were intheir national plansRooting commitments to existing plans and commitmetn :Allows for commitments to be aligned with country priotityes Allows for commitments to be picked up and monitired by national systems HoweverHLM commitments have been used ‘shift’ the agenda: sanitation, equity all emerging topicsIf plans already existed and were nt being implemented, maybe problem will perpetuate
Remind that the choice was to let evey country come up woth its own commitentKeeping commitments specific:Help focus on concrete actionsCan be tailored made for each countryAre easier to monitor- at country level HoweverBroad It is hard to see how they contribute to the big pciture- The more specific to a country, the more difficult to aggregate them and compare their progress globally
Explain that HLM commitments in 2012 were over 400, on abroad range of topics, varied from primary (mdg type) to very specifc actions that would be meanigful only to a specific country.Explain that this is different on different partnerships: heatlh/e-thekwinin all same commitments and indocatorsThe SWA model introduces 3 ‘creative tensions’
Remind that quanittiy and quoity are not the sameNeed easy crunchyAnd need game changin
It is ok to have bothIf you have new important agenda, seize the opportunity to raise it at HLM (buthen try to ahve it reflected in next cycle of planning)-if you have old commitments that are not being pusured, sue the HLM to revive them (but try to tackle the reason why the commitments are not being implemented
AMEASURABLE: give expale of JMP how now they archeckign measurability before proposing targets and indicators , before the other way aorund and ahs to adjsut definitions/indicatorOther parnterships have stnadard indicators, but this would actually mean that we are imposing stanadrvisionof sector, with stadard benchmarksSpecific:Action oriented and descriptive- state a solution not a problemIt needs to be clear who is responsible for what (esp. when several ministries involved)Makes sense to your country but fllows SWA categriesMeasurable: include the indicator updfront in the commitment designcheck its measurability /think of whom will follow up
Remind that specific is ggos, but what about the broader context, what else can make the commitments measureable?
Ask participants to check their country summary and to refelect on whether they could easlity communicate to their Minister what their ocmmitments was all about?Also ask them if they have neve thought..ho no! we can’t hae only two commitments
Ask participants to check their country summary and to refelect on whether they could easlity communicate to their Minister what their ocmmitments was all about?Also ask them if they have neve thought..ho no! we can’t hae only two commitments
Ask participants to check their country summary and to refelect on whether they could easlity communicate to their Minister what their ocmmitments was all about?Also ask them if they have neve thought..ho no! we can’t hae only two commitments
Ask participants to check their country summary and to refelect on whether they could easlity communicate to their Minister what their ocmmitments was all about?Also ask them if they have neve thought..ho no! we can’t hae only two commitments
Ask participants to check their country summary and to refelect on whether they could easlity communicate to their Minister what their ocmmitments was all about?Also ask them if they have neve thought..ho no! we can’t hae only two commitments
AMEASURABLE: give expale of JMP how now they archeckign measurability before proposing targets and indicators , before the other way aorund and ahs to adjsut definitions/indicatorOther parnterships have stnadard indicators, but this would actually mean that we are imposing stanadrvisionof sector, with stadard benchmarksSpecific:Action oriented and descriptive- state a solution not a problemIt needs to be clear who is responsible for what (esp. when several ministries involved)Makes sense to your country but fllows SWA categriesMeasurable: include the indicator updfront in the commitment designcheck its measurability /think of whom will follow up
AMEASURABLE: give expale of JMP how now they archeckign measurability before proposing targets and indicators , before the other way aorund and ahs to adjsut definitions/indicatorOther parnterships have stnadard indicators, but this would actually mean that we are imposing stanadrvisionof sector, with stadard benchmarksSpecific:Action oriented and descriptive- state a solution not a problemIt needs to be clear who is responsible for what (esp. when several ministries involved)Makes sense to your country but fllows SWA categriesMeasurable: include the indicator updfront in the commitment designcheck its measurability /think of whom will follow up
AMEASURABLE: give expale of JMP how now they archeckign measurability before proposing targets and indicators , before the other way aorund and ahs to adjsut definitions/indicatorOther parnterships have stnadard indicators, but this would actually mean that we are imposing stanadrvisionof sector, with stadard benchmarksSpecific:Action oriented and descriptive- state a solution not a problemIt needs to be clear who is responsible for what (esp. when several ministries involved)Makes sense to your country but fllows SWA categriesMeasurable: include the indicator updfront in the commitment designcheck its measurability /think of whom will follow up
AMEASURABLE: give expale of JMP how now they archeckign measurability before proposing targets and indicators , before the other way aorund and ahs to adjsut definitions/indicator
Explain that HLM commitments in 2012 were over 400, on abroad range of topics, varied from primary (mdg type) to very specifc actions that would be meanigful only to a specific country.Explain that this is different on different partnerships: heatlh/e-thekwinin all same commitments and indocatorsThe SWA model introduces 3 ‘creative tensions’
AMEASURABLE: give expale of JMP how now they archeckign measurability before proposing targets and indicators , before the other way aorund and ahs to adjsut definitions/indicatorOther parnterships have stnadard indicators, but this would actually mean that we are imposing stanadrvisionof sector, with stadard benchmarksSpecific:Action oriented and descriptive- state a solution not a problemIt needs to be clear who is responsible for what (esp. when several ministries involved)Makes sense to your country but fllows SWA categriesMeasurable: include the indicator updfront in the commitment designcheck its measurability /think of whom will follow up
Explain that HLM commitments in 2012 were over 400, on abroad range of topics, varied from primary (mdg type) to very specifc actions that would be meanigful only to a specific country.Explain that Explain that this is different on different partnerships: heatlh/e-thekwinin all same commitments and indicators.The SWA model introduces 3 ‘creative tensions’
Explain that HLM commitments in 2012 were over 400, on abroad range of topics, varied from primary (mdg type) to very specifc actions that would be meanigful only to a specific country.Explain that Explain that this is different on different partnerships: heatlh/e-thekwinin all same commitments and indicators.The SWA model introduces 3 ‘creative tensions’
Explain that HLM commitments in 2012 were over 400, on abroad range of topics, varied from primary (mdg type) to very specifc actions that would be meanigful only to a specific country.Explain that Explain that this is different on different partnerships: heatlh/e-thekwinin all same commitments and indicators.The SWA model introduces 3 ‘creative tensions’
Explain that HLM commitments in 2012 were over 400, on abroad range of topics, varied from primary (mdg type) to very specifc actions that would be meanigful only to a specific country.Explain that Explain that this is different on different partnerships: heatlh/e-thekwinin all same commitments and indicators.The SWA model introduces 3 ‘creative tensions’
Explain that HLM commitments in 2012 were over 400, on abroad range of topics, varied from primary (mdg type) to very specifc actions that would be meanigful only to a specific country.Explain that Explain that this is different on different partnerships: heatlh/e-thekwinin all same commitments and indicators.The SWA model introduces 3 ‘creative tensions’
Explain that HLM commitments in 2012 were over 400, on abroad range of topics, varied from primary (mdg type) to very specifc actions that would be meanigful only to a specific country.Explain that this is different on different partnerships: heatlh/e-thekwinin all same commitments and indocatorsThe SWA model introduces 3 ‘creative tensions’
Explain that HLM commitments in 2012 were over 400, on abroad range of topics, varied from primary (mdg type) to very specifc actions that would be meanigful only to a specific country.Explain that this is different on different partnerships: heatlh/e-thekwinin all same commitments and indocatorsThe SWA model introduces 3 ‘creative tensions’
Explain that HLM commitments in 2012 were over 400, on abroad range of topics, varied from primary (mdg type) to very specifc actions that would be meanigful only to a specific country.Explain that this is different on different partnerships: heatlh/e-thekwinin all same commitments and indocatorsThe SWA model introduces 3 ‘creative tensions’
Explain that HLM commitments in 2012 were over 400, on abroad range of topics, varied from primary (mdg type) to very specifc actions that would be meanigful only to a specific country.Explain that this is different on different partnerships: heatlh/e-thekwinin all same commitments and indocatorsThe SWA model introduces 3 ‘creative tensions’
Explain that HLM commitments in 2012 were over 400, on abroad range of topics, varied from primary (mdg type) to very specifc actions that would be meanigful only to a specific country.Explain that this is different on different partnerships: heatlh/e-thekwinin all same commitments and indocatorsThe SWA model introduces 3 ‘creative tensions’