Day 3.1 - developing 2014 commitments
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•303 views
The document discusses developing commitments for the 2014 High Level Meeting (HLM) on sanitation and water. It outlines the "creative tensions" from the 2012 HLM commitments around having too many vs too few commitments, commitments being old vs new, and commitments focusing on quick wins vs structural changes. It then provides "golden rules" for 2014 commitments, including having few but high quality commitments, commitments being rooted in existing plans but with a new lens, sequencing short and long term commitments, and making commitments specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound (SMART). The document also discusses tools and sector dialogue support available from the secretariat to help develop commitments, including country status overviews, guidance notes, and we
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Similar to Day 3.1 - developing 2014 commitments
Similar to Day 3.1 - developing 2014 commitments (20)
More from sanitationandwater4all
More from sanitationandwater4all (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (11)
Day 3.1 - developing 2014 commitments
- 1. Developing 2014 commitments Fiorella Polo Partnership Meeting, 11-13 Nov., Geneva 2013
- 2. Basics: 1. ‘Creative tensions’ of 2012 HLM commitments 2. ‘Golden rules’ for dream commitments 3. Tools and support from the secretariat
- 3. The process of developing HLM commitments COMMITMENTS Analytical TOOLS Sector DIALOGUE 3
- 4. 2012 HLM commitments: a melting pot? 4
- 5. 2012 HLM commitments: a melting pot? Screen-shot on commitments from website; both circles and the histogram Political Prioritization Evidence Based Decisions National Processes 5
- 6. Creative tensions of 2012 HLM commitments 1. Too Many vs. Too Few 2. Old vs. New 3. Quick wins vs. Structural Changes 4. Broad vs. Specific 6
- 7. 1. Too many vs. too few! Too few Too many 15 15 - Hard to advocate for - Hard to monitor - Hard to implement! 1 2 - Peceived as not ambitious! - Quantity = quality? 7
- 8. 2. Old vs. New Old New Implement the Health Extension Workers Program on the ground - Rooted in national plans/ existing commitments - Favours alignment of priorities - Enables tracking by national systems The whole country will be 100% ODF by 2015 - Can shift the agenda Can change the scale 8
- 9. 3. Quick wins vs. Structural Quick • Create an inter sectorial working group • Allocate 1.5 Mil USD to Water - Feasible - Visible - Reportable Structural • Create a WASH board that oversees WASH related ministries and reports directly to the President • Create separate budget line for sanitation - Can make a long-term impact Difficult to achieve in 2 yr. Difficult to keep momentum around 9
- 10. 4. Specific vs. Broad Specific • Create a Directorate of Sanitation within the Ministry of Health - Actionable Speak to context Monitorable at country Hard to aggregate globat Broad/agreeable • 50 Million people will gain access to sanitation • Carry out institutional reforms in sanitation - Can focus on the large picture - Can be aggregated - Challenging to monitor 10
- 11. Basics: 1. ‘Creative tensions’ of 2012 HLM commitments? 2. ‘Golden rules’ for dream commitments 3. Tools and support from the secretariat
- 12. The rules of dream 2014 HLM commitments 2014 HLM 2012 HLM 1. Too few vs. too little 1. Few, but of quality 2. Old vs. New 2. 3. Short-term vs. structural 3. Sequence short-term and structural 4. Broad vs. Specific 4. SWA –MART: Smart and SWA categories Rooted in plans, but with a new lens 12
- 13. 1. Few, but of quality ‘90 second’ rule - Max. 5 commitments - Commitments tell a story to the high level ‘game-changing’ rule - Bold commitments that will carry a step-change on: 1. Sustainability 2. Elimination of inequalities 3. Universal access 13
- 14. 2. Rooted in plans, but with new lens Balance Rule Good commitments are - rooted in existing plans - Understand bottlenecks of unfinished agenda BUT - Recognise shifting agenda (Universal access, tackling inequalities, sutainabiliy, aideffectiveness) - will be integrated in next planning cycle 14
- 15. 3. Sequence short vs. long term ‘Approppriate timeframe’ rule - Quick wins for ‘1st timers / 2 yr. periods - For 2nd timers, focus should shift to structural changes 15
- 16. 4. SWA-MART ‘SMART rule’ Specific Ensure coordination of sector activities NO Measurable ? Achievable ? Relevant ? Timebound NO 16
- 17. 4. SWA- MART SMART Specific Establish over the next two years a fully formal coordination mechanism for partners jointly provided by Ministry of Health and Ministry of Public Works YES Measurable ? Achievable YES Relevant Timebound ? YES 17
- 18. 4. SWA- MART SMART Specific Inclusion of sanitation in the political agenda NO Measurable ? Achievable ? Relevant ? Timebound NO 18
- 19. 4. SWA- MART SMART Include Sanitation as priority in the Growth Strategy for Poverty Reduction Document (2014-2018) and Government Priority Actions Program (2014-2018) Specific Yes Measurable Yes Achievable ? Relevant ? Timebound Yes 19
- 20. 4. SWA- MART SMART Include Sanitation as priority in the Growth Strategy for Poverty Reduction Document (2014-2018) and Government Priority Actions Program (2014-2018) Specific Yes Measurable Yes Achievable ? Relevant ? Timebound Yes 20
- 21. 4a. SWA Specific • Indicate an action and who is responsible • Makes sense at country level • BUT fits into SWA CATERGORIES Political Prioritization 1. Financing 2. Visibility Evidence Based Dec-Making 3. 4. 5. 6. National Processes Monitoring Transparency Evidence Linking monitoring to planning 7. Policy & Plans 8. Coordination 9. Decentralization 10. Human resources 24
- 22. 4b. SWA Measurable • No global/ common indicators • BUT country-specific indicator included upfront • Check for measurability by national systems 25
- 23. 4c. Achievable ACHIEVABLE: - Consistent with progress on previous commitments - Consistent with what other countries do - Anticipating all facets/ level off effort required E.g.: Build knowledge-sharing networks 1yr later: centres have been built but no meny to run them! 26
- 24. 4d. Relevant Fit to fix the main problems! Comitments reflect: 1. Key sector bottlenecks – JSRs, CSOs, BAT, JSR, GLAAS 2. Progress of previous commitments - SWA update 3. Country broader priorities - PSRP etc. 4. Commitments in regional/global fora - AfricaSan, SACOSAN 27
- 25. Summary: rules of dream 2014 HLM commitments 2014 HLM 1. Few, but of quality ‘90 second’ rule ‘game changing’ rule 2. Rooted in plans, but with a new lens ‘Balancing’ rule 3. Sequence quick quick and structural ‘Sequencing’ rule 4. SMART in SWA categories ‘SWA-MART’ rule 28
- 26. 3. SWA- MART: 10 categories and 3 spare lenses UNIVERSAL ACCESS EQUALITY SUSTAINABILITY Political Prioritization 1. Financing 2. Visibility Evidence Based Decision Making 3. 4. 5. 6. National Processes Monitoring Transparency Evidence Linking monitoring to planning 7. Policy & Plans 8. Coordination 9. Decentralization 10. Human resources 29
- 27. The process of developing HLM commitments COMMIT MENTS TOOLS SECTOR DIALOGUE 30
- 28. Market place TOOLS 6. Getting stakeholders together 2. GLAAS 7. Combining analysis tools 3. WASH BATs 8. Balancing old and new priorities 4. Country Status Overviews 9. Aligning with regional processes 5. SWA website 10. Linking Post-2015 country consultations SECTOR DIALOGUE 1. Country Status Overviews 31
- 29. Basics: 1. ‘Creative tensions’ of 2012 HLM commitments? 2. ‘Golden rules’ for dream commitments 3. Tools and support from the secretariat
- 30. Tools available from the Secretariat WHAT 1. Reviewing progress - New customized tools - 2014 Guidance notes WHEN 1. Reviewing progress Live now! January 2. Planning new commitments - Guidance notes - Webinars - SMART review 2. Planning new commitments December December March – on demand 33
Editor's Notes
- 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
- 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 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’