AusAID Data across IHP+ Countries

SPM # Standard Performance Measure Nepal
2007 2009 Rating ∆
1DP Partner has signed commitment to (or documented support for) the IHP+ country compact, or equivalent agreement, where they exist. N/A
(2008)
100
2DPa Percent of aid flows to the health sector that is reported on national health sector budgets. 100
(2008)
76
2DPb Percent of current capacity-development support provided through coordinated programmes consistent with national plans/strategies for the health sector. -
(2008)
-
2DPc Percent of health sector aid provided as programme based approaches. 50
(2008)
76
3DP Percent of health sector aid provided through multi-year commitments. 50
(2008)
76
4DP Percent of health sector aid disbursements released according to agreed schedules in annual or multi-year frameworks. 50
(2008)
76
5DPa Percent of health sector aid that uses country procurement systems. 100
(2008)
100
5DPb Percent of health sector aid that uses public financial management systems. N/A
(2008)
N/A
5DPc Number of parallel project implementation units (pius) per country. 0
(2008)
0
6DP Partner uses the single national performance assessment framework, where they exist, as the primary basis to assess progress (of support to health sector). 100
(2005)
100
7DP Partner has participated in mutual assessment of progress implementing commitments in the health sector, including on aid effectiveness, if a mutual assessment process exists. N/A
(2005)
100
8DP Evidence of support for civil society to be actively represented in health sector policy processes - including health sector planning, coordination & review mechanisms. 0
(plea)
100
Important information about these ratings:
Notes on methods:
Notes on interpretation:
The exercise has been largely self-reported, and it has been difficult to find opportunities to triangulate data without imposing significant transaction costs.
  • The consistency of interpretation for key terms and definitions between participating agencies may vary within this country. This could affect the comparability of results.
  • For Development Partner SPM ratings it is important to note that the country context has a significant impact on the extent to which progress can be made by Development Partners for each of the Standard Performance Measures. Comparisons of performance across the country offices of a single agency should be made with this in mind.