• Citer

Comparative analysis of two different approaches to putting IHP+ into practice: Mali and Benin

par Paul, Elisabeth ;Berthé, Issa;Samake, Salif
Référence 7th European Congress on Tropical Medicine & International Health (3-6/11/2011: Barcelone)
Publication Non publié, 2011

Communication à un colloque

• Accès en ligne
• Détails
• Contenu
• Statistiques

Résumé :

Introduction: The International Health Partnership and related initiatives (IHP+) seeks to achieve better results by mobilising development partners around a single country-led national health strategy, guided by the principles of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. At country level, the IHP+ materializes through the preparation, signature, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation of a "Country Compact" – a negotiated and signed agreement in which partners commit to implement and uphold the priorities outlined in the national health strategy. Some of the main determining features of the IHP+ are the leadership of the recipient government over the preparation and implementation process of the Compact, broad domestic ownership of the national health plan, and mutual accountability for results. Methods: In this communication, we perform a comparative analysis of two very different approaches that have been followed in Mali and Benin. It is based on authors' experience in the IHP+ process in Mali, extensive document review and interviews with most significant stakeholders involved in the process both in Mali and Benin. Results: Mali has prepared its country Compact on the grounds of its 10-year experience in leading a sector-wide approach (SWAp) in the health sector. It has therefore benefited from improved donor coordination, MoH leadership in piloting the national programme, trust capital between partners and broad ownership of the health plan. It has succeeded in making the IHP+ process even more inclusive. On the contrary, Benin had no health SWAp to start with. The preparation process of the Compact was much less inclusive and country-led, resulting in narrow ownership and vague commitments. Nevertheless, it is hoped that the IHP+ can help launch a new partnership dynamic within the health sector. Conclusion: Beyond common principles, the IHP+ is put into practice in different ways from country to country according to their context.