Intensified action on seven behaviours by all development partners Session objectives 1.To review status of intensified action: progress, issues and challenges 2.To discuss possible modifications to the approach 3.To agree next steps

background… December 2012 IHP+ Country Teams Meeting message to health leaders – Is progress in putting agreed principles of effective aid/development cooperation into practice, but slower than expected – Countries have moved further than development agencies – Are some critical areas in which greater progress would lead to more rapid and sustained results. Become known as the 7 behaviours April 2013All IHP+ signatory countries invited to express interest in championing intensified action Global health leaders commit to renewed action on 7 behaviours; support for 'twin-track' approach May 2013IHP+ technical briefing at WHA discusses 7 behaviours

The 7 behaviours – not new, but important 1.Agreement on priorities that are reflected in a single national health strategy and underpinning sub-sector strategies, through a process of inclusive development and joint assessment, and a reduction in separate exercises. 2.Resource inputs are recorded on budget and in line with national priorities. 3.Financial management systems are harmonized and aligned; requisite capacity building is being done or underway, and country systems strengthened and used. 4.Procurement/supply systems are harmonized and aligned; parallel systems phased out; country systems strengthened and used, with a focus on best value for money. 5.Joint monitoring of process and results, based on one information and accountability platform. 6.Opportunities for systematic learning between countries are developed and supported by agencies (south-south/triangular cooperation). 7.Provision of strategically planned and well-coordinated technical support.

Intensified action by all development partners Twin-track approach – to be mutually reinforcing 1.Country dialogue, review and action on the seven behaviours  Identify problems; underlying causes; priorities for action (government or development agency; local or global)  Findings shared with agency HQs; any patterns identified 2.International development agency review and action  Self-review of performance on each of the behaviours – not just what but why, and what can be done  Take feedback across country rapid reviews into account as well

Country rapid review and action Status Seven behaviours a good framework for strategic discussion of current problems in development cooperation Priorities identified; next steps discussed locally; shared with agency HQs Issues Follow-up: less evidence of intensified action to implement agreed country-based actions, partly because targets and timelines not explicit enough More attention needed to effect change in agency behaviour in response to country findings

International development agency review and action Status – Some agencies have held internal discussions, but to date individual agency review of all 7 behaviours quite limited – Emergence of collective agency action focused on a single area: improving measurement of results by harmonizing and aligning agency reporting requirements Issues – Time-limited focus on a single issue is attractive and works well where high- level political engagement needed – Focusing only on one issue at a time would mean that opportunities for responding to patterns of problems from country rapid reviews, that require change in a number of agency policies and procedures, could be neglected

Steering Committee invited to comment and advise on proposed next steps in two areas 1. Follow up on in-country action plans Countries review responsibilities for achieving targets, adhering to timelines for actions agreed Promote greater HQ staff engagement through informal teams consisting of members from key agencies in the country concerned; mandated to provide a link between follow-up at country level and HQs 2. Regaining momentum for comprehensive action within development agencies For greater long-term impact at country level, the case for a more comprehensive internal review to inform agencies' own reform processes remains strong. A combination of both approaches (collective single issue focus plus individual internal review) is most likely to achieve greater gains