Development Partners in Mozambique

SPM #	Standard Performance Measure	Belgium	EC	GAVI	GFATM	Netherlands	Norway	Spain	Sweden	UK	UNAIDS	UNFPA	UNICEF	WHO	World Bank
2007	2009	Rating ∆	2007	2009	Rating ∆	2007	2009	Rating ∆	2007	2009	Rating ∆	2007	2009	Rating ∆	2007	2009	Rating ∆	2007	2009	Rating ∆	2007	2009	Rating ∆	2007	2009	Rating ∆	2007	2009	Rating ∆	2007	2009	Rating ∆	2007	2009	Rating ∆	2007	2009	Rating ∆	2007	2009	Rating ∆
1DP	Partner has signed commitment to (or documented support for) the IHP+ country compact, or equivalent agreement, where they exist.	0	100		100 (2008)	100		0	100		N/A	100 (2008)		0	100		100	100		0	100		0 (2005)	0		0	100		100 (2008)	100		100 (2008)	100		100 (2008)	100		100 (2008)	100		0 (2005)	100
2DPa	Percent of aid flows to the health sector that is reported on national health sector budgets.	-	-		30 (2005)	100		- (2005)	-		0	121 (2008)		100	100		99	94		91	90		100 (2005)	100		100	98		N/A (2008)	N/A		96	7		-	87		66 (2005)	82		100 (2005)	100
2DPb	Percent of current capacity-development support provided through coordinated programmes consistent with national plans/strategies for the health sector.	-	-		- (2005)	N/A		N/A (2005)	N/A		N/A	N/A (2008)		100	100		53	63		100	100		N/A (2005)	N/A		100	100		N/A (2005)	N/A		3	19		100	100		100 (2005)	100		100 (2005)	100
2DPc	Percent of health sector aid provided as programme based approaches.	-	-		30 (2005)	78		100 (2005)	100		100	100 (2008)		100	100		92	100		33	30		76 (2005)	100		73	79		N/A (2005)	N/A		2	10		-	100		62 (2005)	63		100 (2005)	100
3DP	Percent of health sector aid provided through multi-year commitments.	100	100		100 (2005)	100		100 (2005)	100		79	50 (2008)		100	100		91	100		83	74		75 (2005)	100		100	100		N/A (2005)	N/A		100	100		100	100		0 (2005)	0		50 (2005)	100
4DP	Percent of health sector aid disbursements released according to agreed schedules in annual or multi-year frameworks.	-	-		100 (2005)	100		100 (2005)	100		111	84 (2008)		100	100		100	100		100	100		100 (2005)	100		100	97		N/A (2005)	N/A		100	100		100	100		72 (2005)	82		100 (2005)	100
5DPa	Percent of health sector aid that uses country procurement systems.	-	-		100 (2005)	100		N/A (2005)	N/A		100	96 (2008)		100	100		83	49		- (2005)	-		- (2005)	100		60	73		N/A (2005)	N/A		0	0		0	0		- (2008)	-		- (2005)	-
5DPb	Percent of health sector aid that uses public financial management systems.	-	-		30 (2005)	100		- (2005)	-		67	64 (2008)		100	100		90	58		39	31		100 (2005)	100		100	98		N/A (2008)	N/A		2	10		46	63		86 (2005)	15		- (2005)	- ()
5DPc	Number of parallel project implementation units (pius) per country.	-	-		1 (plea)	0		N/A (plea)	N/A		0	0 (2008)		0	0		0	0		0 ( 200)	0		0 (plea)	0		0	0		N/A	N/A		0 (plea)	0		0	0		0 (2005)	0		0 (plea)	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).	0	0		- (2005)	100		0 (2005)	0		100	100 (2008)		100	100		100	100		100	100		100 (2005)	100		100	100		100	100		0	100		100	100		100 (2005)	100		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.	0	0		0 (2005)	100		0 (2005)	0		N/A	N/A (2008)		0	100		100	N/A		100 (2005)	100		100 (2005)	100		0	100		100	100		100	100		0	100		100 (2005)	100		100 (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.	100	100		0 (plea)	0		0 (2005)	100		0	0 (2008)		0	100		100	100		0	100		100 (2005)	100		0	0		0	100		0 (plea)	0		0 (plea)	100		0	100		0 (2005)	100
Important information about these ratings: Notes on methods: The methodology used to undertake this exercise is available at – www.ihpresults.com/how/methodology Standard Performance Measures (SPMs) for Country Governments and Development Partners, along with their associated targets, are available at – www.ihpresults.com/how/methodology/spms The Criteria used to reach the above ratings are available at – www.ihpresults.net/how/methodology/rating/ Detailed guidance on key terms and definitions is available at – www.ihpresults/how/data_collection The latest available data for this exercise was from 2009. Progress may have been made in 2010 that is not reported here. Development Partner data has been aggregated to produce ratings for individual Development Partner scorecards. For more a more detailed explanation on this see – www.ihpresults.net/how/limitations SPM 5DPb: 5 countries’ data is not counted for this SPM. For more a more detailed explanation on this see – www.ihpresults.net/how/limitations/ 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.

SPM #

Standard Performance Measure

Belgium

GAVI

GFATM

Netherlands

Norway

Spain

Sweden

UNAIDS

UNFPA

UNICEF

WHO

World Bank

2007

2009

Rating ∆

2007

2009

Rating ∆

2007

2009

Rating ∆

2007

2009

Rating ∆

2007

2009

Rating ∆

2007

2009

Rating ∆

2007

2009

Rating ∆

2007

2009

Rating ∆

2007

2009

Rating ∆

2007

2009

Rating ∆

2007

2009

Rating ∆

2007

2009

Rating ∆

2007

2009

Rating ∆

2007

2009

Rating ∆

1DP

Partner has signed commitment to (or documented support for) the IHP+ country compact, or equivalent agreement, where they exist.

100

100
(2008)

100

N/A

100
(2008)

100

0
(2005)

100

100
(2008)

100

100
(2008)

100

100
(2008)

100

100
(2008)

100

0
(2005)

100

2DPa

Percent of aid flows to the health sector that is reported on national health sector budgets.

30
(2005)

100

-
(2005)

121
(2008)

100

100
(2005)

100

N/A
(2008)

N/A

66
(2005)

100
(2005)

100

2DPb

Percent of current capacity-development support provided through coordinated programmes consistent with national plans/strategies for the health sector.

-
(2005)

N/A

N/A
(2005)

N/A

N/A
(2008)

100

N/A
(2005)

N/A

100

N/A
(2005)

N/A

100

100
(2005)

100

100
(2005)

100

2DPc

Percent of health sector aid provided as programme based approaches.

30
(2005)

100
(2005)

100

100
(2008)

100

76
(2005)

100

N/A
(2005)

N/A

100

62
(2005)

100
(2005)

100

3DP

Percent of health sector aid provided through multi-year commitments.

100

100
(2005)

100

100
(2005)

100

50
(2008)

100

75
(2005)

100

N/A
(2005)

N/A

100

0
(2005)

50
(2005)

100

4DP

Percent of health sector aid disbursements released according to agreed schedules in annual or multi-year frameworks.

100
(2005)

100

100
(2005)

100

111

84
(2008)

100

100
(2005)

100

N/A
(2005)

N/A

100

72
(2005)

100
(2005)

100

5DPa

Percent of health sector aid that uses country procurement systems.

100
(2005)

100

N/A
(2005)

N/A

100

96
(2008)

100

-
(2005)

100

N/A
(2005)

N/A

-
(2008)

-
(2005)

5DPb

Percent of health sector aid that uses public financial management systems.

30
(2005)

100

-
(2005)

64
(2008)

100

100
(2005)

100

N/A
(2008)

N/A

86
(2005)

-
(2005)

-
()

5DPc

Number of parallel project implementation units (pius) per country.

1
(plea)

N/A
(plea)

N/A

0
(2008)

0
( 200)

0
(plea)

N/A

0
(plea)

0
(2005)

0
(plea)

6DP

Partner uses the single national performance assessment framework, where they exist, as the primary basis to assess progress (of support to health sector).

-
(2005)

100

0
(2005)

100

100
(2008)

100

100
(2005)

100

100
(2005)

100

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.

0
(2005)

100

0
(2005)

N/A

N/A
(2008)

100

N/A

100
(2005)

100

100
(2005)

100

100
(2005)

100

100
(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.

100

0
(plea)

0
(2005)

100

0
(2008)

100

100
(2005)

100

0
(plea)

100

0
(2005)

100

Important information about these ratings:
Notes on methods:

The methodology used to undertake this exercise is available at – www.ihpresults.com/how/methodology
Standard Performance Measures (SPMs) for Country Governments and Development Partners, along with their associated targets, are available at – www.ihpresults.com/how/methodology/spms
The Criteria used to reach the above ratings are available at – www.ihpresults.net/how/methodology/rating/
Detailed guidance on key terms and definitions is available at – www.ihpresults/how/data_collection
The latest available data for this exercise was from 2009. Progress may have been made in 2010 that is not reported here.
Development Partner data has been aggregated to produce ratings for individual Development Partner scorecards. For more a more detailed explanation on this see – www.ihpresults.net/how/limitations
SPM 5DPb: 5 countries’ data is not counted for this SPM. For more a more detailed explanation on this see – www.ihpresults.net/how/limitations/

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.