WHO reform: Managerial reform
The proposed new financial model, if loyally followed by donors, along with the other reform proposals, will reduce the current imbalance between the adopted programme budget and the funds available to implement it, be more transparent and represent a more democratic financing process.
We note that no reference is made to how the new financial model will affect the three levels of the organisation, which is an important dimension. We ask the WHO to elaborate on this and also
- On how phase 1 will function in practice,
- At what stage of the new financial model the assessed contribution will be allocated to specific areas?
- At what level pledges will be made at the pledge conference (i.e. SO or program level)?
- What other documents than the program budget the pledge conference will be based on?
We support the proposal for targeted resource mobilization after the pledging conference in order to secure finance to remaining gaps, but wish to hear more on how and by whom this will be led, and how this will be coordinated amongst the three levels in WHO – headquarter-, regional- and country level. We also support the introduction of several check points to get a better status of finances during the budget period. We suggest introducing financial reporting, including projections of income, to the Board twice a year.
We welcome the proposed introduction of a new platform for reporting on resources received. This will ensure better transparency as to how donors fund the overall programme of WHO.
Norway welcomes the proposed evaluation policy and agrees with its principles and definitions. However, we suggest that the option of independent evaluations on a regular basis is given a more central place in the policy. It is important that the suggested model also evaluates the normative aspects, as well as health system strengthening, within WHOs line of work.
Regarding the first stage of the proposed independent evaluation, Norway supports the view of the Joint Inspection Unit that the team selection should be done in a competitive basis, in accordance with the norms and standards for evaluation of the United Nations Evaluation Group. This will ensure that the process is perceived as truly independent, adding to the value and the credibility of the results. We also support the input provided by the Joint Inspection Unit to the draft terms of reference. We would also like to see that the evaluation includes a review of the fulfilment of programmatic goals.