Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to 150518 budget analysis invest in nutrition
Similar to 150518 budget analysis invest in nutrition (20)
More from SUN_Movement
More from SUN_Movement (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
150518 budget analysis invest in nutrition
- 1. Invest in Nutrition through National Budget Analysis Patrizia Fracassi Senior Nutrition Analyst and Strategy Advisor SUN Movement Secretariat Patrizia Fracassi Senior Nutrition Analyst and Strategy Advisor SUN Movement Secretariat Presentation at the SPRING webinar 19 May 2015 Experience from 30 countries in the SUN Movement
- 2. The SUN Movement Approach Country governments lead national efforts to scale up nutrition. Within each country a SUN Focal Point is identified
- 3. The SUN Movement Approach The Focal Point brings people together in a multi-stakeholder platform Technical Community United Nations Government Partners Civil Society Donors Business
- 4. The SUN Movement Approach The multi-stakeholder platform Works to align and coordinate action across sectors. Women’s Empowerment Health Development & Poverty Reduction Agriculture Education Social Protection
- 5. Building Consensus: People Evidence Actions Money Think…
- 6. Individuals affected or at risk of malnutrition Communities and households at risk of malnutrition Public basic needs Double aim: 1)More nutrition for money: leverage from existing investments 2)More money for nutrition: add to existing investments Embedding Nutrition
- 7. 2014 self-assessment exercise (37 countries) Call for acceleration Progress in the SUN Movement People Evidence Action Money
- 8. A call for interest launched in January A conference call conducted with all countries to introduce the 3-step approach: •Step 1: Identify nutrition-relevant on-budget allocations in Ministries, Departments, Agencies (MDAs) •Step 2: Categorize identified budget allocations into nutrition- specific and nutrition-sensitive •Step 3: Assign a weight to the classified budget allocations 30 countries responded and undertook the preparatory work between February and March • 15 countries supported by experts from GNR/IDS, R4D, SPRING Analyzing National Budgets (2015)
- 9. Four regional workshops conducted during April in Bangkok, Thailand (15-16); Entebbe, Uganda (21-22), Abidjan, Ivory Coast (27-28) and Guatemala City (28-30) More than 180 participants, mostly from Governments (including finance people) Parliamentarians and journalists invited for the advocacy and dissemination session Over 90% of participants felt their objectives were achieved Analyzing National Budgets (2015)
- 10. Participating Countries in Africa • DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO • GAMBIA • GHANA • KENYA • LESOTHO • MADAGASCAR • MAURITANIA • BENIN • BURKINA FASO • BURUNDI • CAMEROO N • CHAD • COMOROS • COTE D’IVOIRE • SOUTH SUDAN • TOGO • UGANDA • ZAMBIA
- 11. Other Participating Countries ASIA: •BANGLADESH •INDONESIA •NEPAL •PAKISTAN •PHILIPPINES •TAJIKISTAN •VIETNAM •YEMEN •MAHARASHTRA (India) LATIN AMERICA: •COSTA RICA •GUATEMALA •PERU
- 12. 30 countries with identified nutrition-relevant budget allocations in Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) further categorized into nutrition- specific and nutrition-sensitive 16 countries with more than one data point 10 countries with indicated sources of funding (domestic, external, mixed) 3 countries with planned and actual spending Priority: work on the presentation of data for the 2015 Global Nutrition Report and for the 2015 SUN Report Available Data
- 13. • Inclusion of sector-wide investments with limited details (e.g. water supply, education, etc.) • Inclusion of personnel • Inclusion of governance • Weighting process: – Pros and cons in terms of: • 1) usefulness; 2) consistency and 3) interpretation – Mixed experience from donors and countries Challenging Issues
- 14. Use of Budget Analysis (1) • Develop a synthesis document to provide future guidance for budget analysis and planning – Describe nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive investments and identify good examples • Further engage relevant MDAs – Mentioned by Costa Rica and Vietnam • Plan for nutrition (link with CRF): – Good examples available from Asian and Latin American countries – Required examples from African countries on the link between budgeting and planning
- 15. Use of Budget Analysis (2) • Track actual spending and implementation: – Good examples from Guatemala (Zero Hunger Pact) and from Peru (integrated national programmes) – The National Health Account looks at nutrition as one of the ‘purpose areas’. Pros and cons? • Track off-budget spending – Need to agree on one common language to ensure consistency and one feasible approach to ensure sustainability
- 16. • Develop the data into advocacy messages that are simple, audience focused and help to strengthen the investment case. • Develop advocacy tools for helping the analysis transcend its technical basis – with clear purpose for use by Parliamentarians and civil society, particularly journalists. • Build capacity with key champions using the information. Use of Budget Analysis (3)
- 17. • A budget analysis homepage available on the SUN website featuring guidelines, articles, reports and presentations • SUN Monthly Newsletters presenting updates and articles (including links to relevant ones) • Blog type articles from countries with interest already received from focal points, parliamentarians and journalists who participated in the regional workshops Communication
- 18. • All country teams that prepared themselves, actively participated in the workshops and continue to show incredible engagement • UNICEF regional teams in particular Christiane Rudert, Victor Aquayo, Pura Rayco Selon, Stefano Fedele, Khassoum Diallo, Noel Marie Zagra • Global Nutrition Report team in particular Komal Bathia • Results for Development team in particular Mary D’Alimonte, Shan Shoe-Lin and Hilary Rogers • SPRING team in particular Alexis D’Agostion and Amanda Pomeroy • World Bank team in particular Jakub Jan Kakietek, Meera Shekar and Sylvia Kaufmann • ACF team in particular Sandra Mutuma and Louis-Marie Poitou • ICF team in particular Harold Alderman and Suman Chakrabarti • SUN Movement Secretariat Acknowledgments
Editor's Notes
- The SUN Movement is not a program or a fund. It is an open space to cultivate trust so that everyone can foster alliances for improved nutrition. By April 2015, 55 countries have become members of the Scaling Up Nutrition Movement. Governments that join the Movement do appoint SUN Focal Points with the authority and capacity to convene and engage decision-makers and experts from different sectors and from a wide range of organizations.
- Countries in the SUN Movement establish or strengthen coordinating mechanisms that are convened by the Government. We call them multi-stakeholder platforms. Countries are at different stages with the functioning and with the decentralization of these platforms. This week (week of 18th of May), a phone conference call is taking place with countries in the SUN Movement to discuss opportunities and challenges with engaging different types of national and international actors (e.g. civil society, business community, development partners).
- The health, agriculture and education sectors have their own ministries in all countries but key functional areas such as social protection, women’s empowerment and WASH are incorporated in different ministries, depending on the country. This makes the engagement of Ministries and Departments a unique process in each country. From the experience in the SUN Movement, we have learnt that the coordination and alignment for scaling up nutrition is most effective when this function is convened from a unit with a recognized coordinating mandate for nutrition. Alignment is also significantly enhanced when civil society organizations and parliamentarians are involved as they effectively engage with a wide range of actors.
- Given the multi-stakeholder, multi-sectoral, multi-level and multi-disciplinary nature of nutrition, we emphasize the criticality for all concerned parties to work towards results that are commonly accepted. A Common Results Framework is effectively the outcome of a negotiation process that involves multiple sectors and stakeholders. Agreeing on common results, requires to think with people, evidence, actions and money. This is important also when we talk about the budget analysis: the framing – or what is included and what is excluded – is essentially a negotiated process.
- If we take the perspective of line Ministries, their core business is to provide the population with services that respond to essential public needs in terms of health, income, education, safe and nutritious foods, drinking water and sanitation. But when Governments commit to address malnutrition, they commit to do something different for the communities, households and individuals who are at the highest risk of malnutrition or are already suffering from malnutrition. In order to achieve this, Governments joining the SUN Movement also commit - in principle - to work with other actors such as the civil society, the private sector and the international development partners. The logic of doing something different contributes to two aims: 1.To get more nutrition for invested money, building on existing service delivery channel to optimize existing investments, and 2. To define the resource gap, meaning how much additional money is needed to achieve the highest impact on malnutrition reduction.
- In 2014, 37 SUN countries reported significant progress in bringing people together into multi-stakeholder platforms and in establishing evidence-based policy and legal frameworks. BUT for most countries, these efforts have yet to be fully translated into adequately coordinated and monitored actions with investments that are properly scaled up, aligned and accounted for.
- 15 countries did Step 1 (budget review) by themselves while the remaining were supported by IDS, Results 4 Development and SPRING.
- Overall countries embraced the ways of working in the SUN Movement with its focus on sharing and learning through a participatory approach
- 18 countries participating in the exercise + 2 countries as observers
- 9 countries in Asia
- We have information (excel template) from 30 countries as a result of Step 1 and Step 2 Still working on the data and - especially – on the final confirmation from countries to be able to present the data. Lots of discussion around the categorization of some programmes into specific or sensitive (e.g. school feeding, immunization,
- Slide for discussion Some countries have used the 100% and 25% split (same as donors) Some have used the 4 weights: 100%, 75%, 50% and 25% Some have used a range from 10% to 100% Some have applied the weight for specific as well as sensitive interventions
- Slide for discussion Describe where nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive identified allocations are found (e.g. in which MDAs and programmes). The link between budgets and plans for Africa is not straightforward and requires more analysis and discussion with the Focal Points.
- Slide for discussion