Thank you Chair,
I am speaking on behalf of the five Nordic countries Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.
We align ourselves with the statement made by Denmark on behalf of the EU and its Member States.
We thank the Secretariat for the performance assessment report and commend the results achieved during the biennium.
The report provides valuable information for reflection and analysis for future planning.
It also shows a determination by the management to increase the efficiency of the organization.
To our mind, WHO results based management is ahead of many other international organizations.
Three things are needed for a results based system.
The first is a budget based on expected results.
The second is measurable goals, targets and indicators to measure performance and,
the third is results’ analysis that feeds into strategic planning.
Firstly, we see a need for a stronger focus on results and clearer links to the budget.
Judging from the report, there appears to be a weak relation between the achievement of the organizational wide expected results and money spent.
For SO 1 less than half (4 out of 9) of the targets were fully achieved with an expenditure of 102% of the approved budget.
In contrast, for SO 4, 75 percent (6 out of 8) of the targets were fully achieved but with an expenditure of only 57% of the budget.
While there may be several explanations for this we believe that it illustrates a weak connection between budget levels and results.
Secondly, the indicators do not adequately measure WHOs result.
As most of the indicators do not adequately reflect the performance of the WHO,
it is difficult to draw conclusions about the organization’s contribution to achieved results.
Two types of indicators are problematic:
- the ones that measure country performance but not WHO contribution
- the ones that measure production of tools that can vary from a 2 page pamphlet to a technical manual of 100 pages that has taken months to produce.
In some cases the achievement far exceeds the targets. Take for instance indicator 4.3.1, that measures the number of Member States implementing strategies for increasing coverage of skilled care at childbirth.
The baseline was 25, the target 50 and the achieved result 66.
This is part of a SO that got only 67 percent of the approved budget and 57 percent expenditure.
Thirdly, we see the need for improved analysis of the results and performance to feed into strategic planning.
One of the most important aspects of a performance assessment is to feed experiences from the previous years into the organization’s strategic discussions about its priorities and work.
In order to learn from mistakes and successes, improve management, effectiveness and response to country needs, there needs to be a sharp understanding on WHOs performance.
Such an analysis is in our mind lacking in the document.
The results analysis in the document is basically done on OWER level. There is little analysis on SO level or of WHO´s delivery at country level.
We would like to see results reported on three levels:
1) WHO outputs,
2) WHOs contribution to country effects on the short/medium term and
3) WHOs contribution to country and global health on the medium/long term.
Furthermore, denominatons should be developed that more acurately reflect the achievement between “fully achieved” and “not achieved”.
It is not useful that indicators with a 10% achievement rate and indicators with a 95% achievement rate are ranked the same way.
We are aware of the difficulty in measuring contribution to results at the different levels.
Nevertheless, to strengthen the credibility of WHO and motivate donors to keep investing in the organization, we believe follow up and analysis of WHO´s performance needs to be improved.