NDPHSStrategyWorkingGroup

ThirdMeeting

Gdańsk,Poland

22April2009

Title / Minutes from the SWG 3 Meeting and its Subgroup on Expert Group related issues
Submittedby / Secretariat
Summary/Note / Thisdocumentrecallsthemaindiscussionpointsanddecisionsmadeduringthe3rdmeetingoftheSWG including the meeting of theSubgroup on Expert Group related issues
ListofAnnexes / Annex1–Sub-groupmeetingminutes
Annex2–Listofdocumentssubmittedtothemeeting
Annex3–Listofparticipants

1.Welcomeandopeningofthemeeting

Ms.KerstinÖdman,theChairoftheadhocStrategyWorkingGroup(SWG),openedthemeetingandwelcomedtheparticipants.SheintroducedtheconsultantMr.KristerEduards,whoparticipatedinthemeeting.

2.Adoptionoftheagenda

TheMeetingadoptedtheprovisionalagenda(submittedasdocumentSWG3/2/1).

3.PreparationsfortheafternoonmeetingwiththeSub-groupdealingwithExpertGrouprelatedrecommendations

TheSWGChairbrieflyinformedtheMeetingabouttheorganizationoftheSWG3morningandafternoonsessions,includingbutnotlimitedtotheprovisionalannotatedagendaoftheSub-groupforExpertGroupsmatters(submittedasdocumentSWG3/3/1)andthequestionsrelatedtotheNDPHSExpertGroups(submittedasdocumentSWG3/3/2).TheSWGChair drewattentiontothepaperconcerningprojectsthathadbeenupdatedbyFinlandandNorway.ItwastobediscussedafterthemeetingwiththeExpertGroupsintheafternoonandmightalsoneedtobefurtherupdatedinthelightofthediscussion.

TheMeetingtooknoteontheinformationpresented.

4.UpdateontheassignmentforanexternalconsultanttoassisttheSWG

TheSWGChairreferredtotheconsultant’sjobdescription,whichwasapprovedbytheSWGbysilentprocedureon27March2009(submittedasdocumentSWG3/4/Info1)andinformedthatFinlandandSwedenhadmanagedtoearmarkanamountof10,000EUReach,sufficienttocoverthefeesoftheconsultantMr.KristerEduards.

GermanyreconfirmedthatitwaswillingtoprovidethefinancialsupporttohireCEvaltoworkonsuccessindicatorsandcriteria.Funds,asincaseofthementionedFinnishandSwedishmoney,wouldbe channelled throughtheNDPHSSecretariat.

TheSecretariatinformedthatithadbeenintouchwithCEvalandthattheirconsultant,Mr.DirkvandenBoomwasflexibleintermsofavailabilityandabletoworkonsuccessindicatorsandcriteriawithinthesetdeadlineaccordingtotheworkplan,oralsoafterJune,incasetheSWGwantedtofirstawaittheconsultant’sreportfromMr.KristerEduards.Tobeableto fulfil histaskheinformedhewouldneedtoknowmid-termgoalsandvisionandthethematicareasinfocus.

TheMeetingagreedtohirethetwoconsultantsandaskedtheSecretariattosigncontractswiththetwoconsultants,basedonthefinancialsupportpledgedbyFinland,GermanyandSweden.Italsothankedthethreecountriesforofferingthissupport.

5.Follow-uponpreliminaryideasconcerningselectedrecommendationstobeaddressedbytheSWG

TheSWGChairinvitedtherespectivemembersoftheSWGtopresenttheirpreliminaryideasregardingtheselectedtopicsandrecommendationslistedindocumentSWG3/5/1“AgreeddivisionofresponsibilitiesandrelatedSWG1andSWG2decisions.”

5.1Midtermvisionandgoals

TheSWGChairinvitedNorwayandRussiatopresenttheirproposalconcerningtheNDPHSmid-termvisionandgoals.

Norwayinformedthatbothcountrieshadjointlysubmittedapaperconcerningmid-termvisionandgoals(documentSWG3/5.1/1)andthatthisdocumentconsideredmid-termvisionsandmid-termgoalsasdifferentissues.Themid-termvisionsweremorerelatedtolongtermgoalsoftheOsloDeclaration,whilemid-termgoalshadafocusonmoreconcreteoutcomes.MidtermvisionsexpressedtheprioritiesofthePartnershipfortheconcreteperiod,andshouldbeworkedoutbytheChairandCo-ChaircountriesinclosecollaborationwiththeEGsbeforetheyarediscussedbytheCSRandadoptedbythePAC.Thepaperproposedmid-termvisionstobeadoptedfor4yearsatatime.

Norwaysuggested“Betterprisonhealth-betterpublichealth–safersociety”asoneoftheNDPHSmid-termvisions,whichwouldbeconcretisedbythemid-termgoalsof organisingaconferenceonprisonhealthinconnectionwithPAC6,developingadeclarationonprisonhealth,conductingactivitiesdirectedtofollowupthedeclarationandcollaboratingwiththeWHO.

Russiaproposed“Improvedhealthofmother-and-child”asapossibleNDPHSmid-termgoal,whichwouldbefilledwithconcretemeasures,suchastheorganisationofaNDPHSsymposiumoncareforbabieswithextremelylowbodyweight(in2010)andtheorganisationofaNDPHSconferenceonprenataldiagnostics(in2011).

Norwayfurtherexplainedthattheemergingtopiconindigenouspeople’shealthcouldalsobecomeoneoftheNDPHSmid-termpriorities.

Germanyaskedhowmanymid-termsvisionsshouldbedefinedfortheNDPHS.

Finlandwonderediftheperiodof4yearsfordefiningmid-termvisionswastooshort,ifonedesiredtoguaranteecontinuity.

NorwayrecalledthatitshouldbeuptotheCSRChairandCo-ChairtoproposetotheCSRthemid-termvisions,andtheEGsshoulddevelopthegoalstoachievethemid-termvisions.Itwas,therefore,crucialtoincludetheEGsintheformulationofthemid-termvisionsandgoals.TheNDPHSwastobeseenasacoordinatingbody,andwiththehelpofandfeedbackfromtheexpertgroups,theNDPHSwasabletoprovideasoundfeedbacktothepoliticiansaboutthekeyhealthissuesintheNDarea.Inaddition,themid-termgoalsshouldbeinlinewiththepriorityareasof,forinstance,WHOortheEC,as,otherwise,theNDPHS’workwouldnotbeconsistentwiththemultinationalorganisations.WhileitwasuptotheCSRtodevelopmid-termvisions,itwouldbeseenasanaturalprocessthattheEGswouldthendefinethemid-termgoals.TheCSRwouldadoptorrejecttheEGproposalsandtheEGswouldthenbeinapositiontosetuptheirworkplansforeachyear,inlinewiththeNDPHSmid-termvisions.

Finland(MinistryofSocialAffairsandHealth)statedthatbesidestheprocessofdevelopingmid-termvisionandgoals,therewasstillaneedforanaddedvaluethattheNDPHSwassupposedtoproduce.ForFinland,theaddedvaluewastheconcreteandco-operationalwork,whichwassuccessfullycarriedoutbytheCSRandtheEGs.Thiswasimportanttokeepinmind.ThroughtheExpertGroups,thecooperationwithintheNDPHShadexpandedfromabilateraltoamultiregionalcooperation.

Finland(MinistryforForeignAffairs)stressedtheimportanceofregionalcooperation.WhilethefocushadbeenforalongtimeonNWRussia,theareainfocuswasnowbroadeninggraduallytakingintoaccountotherpartsoftheBalticSeaarea.Also,theEUStrategyfortheBSRwillopenupnewavenues.

Germanysuggestedfindinganicheoftopicsthatwerenotfullycoveredbythepoliciesofbig,multinationalorganisations,inordertocreateanaddedvalueintheregion.

TheECconsideredthethreesuggestionsofareasofactivitiesoutlinedinthepaper,namelyprisonhealth,childandmaternalhealthandindigenoushealthasveryparticularandtechnical.WhensettingupamoregeneralvisionforthePartnership,itwouldbeconvenienttodefinemoregeneralviewandfindingaplaceforthosethreeactivitiestherein.HeproposedtousetheNDPHScontributiontotheEUBSRStrategyconcerninghealthinequalitiesasabasisfordevelopingmidtermgoals.TheNDPHSshouldalsotakeintoaccountgeneralpolicies,notonlyfromWHO,butalsofromtheEU,astheNDPolicywastailoringthegeneralpoliciesaccordingtotheregionalneeds.ThisapproachwouldalsohelptheNDPHStokeeptheiractivitiesinthemainstreamofthegeneralpoliticaltrends,thusensuringthepossibilityoffinancialsupportfromtheEUPublicHealthProgramme.

Germanyproposedtoaddanothermid-termgoalfortheNDPHS,whichwastocreatehospital, prisonanduniversitypartnershipsandco-operationsonspecificissues,thusexpandingtheNDPHSnetwork.

LithuaniastressedthatitsmainvisionwaslinkedtoitsbilateralWHOagreements,whichweresignedinregularyearlyintervalsandthat,therefore,itwasdifficulttoagreeonothervisionsandgoals.Hence,itwasimportanttohavemainstreamedvisionsandgoals,inlinewiththebiggerpoliticaldecisionsintheregion.

TheSWGChairremarkedthatthereweremanylayerstopossiblevisionsandgoals.Onesolutiontomeetallneedscouldbetoformulategeneralheadings,whichwouldbeheadedovertheconcreteNDPHSgoals..

FinlandsuggestedlinkingtheNDPHSmid-termvisiontothefollowingthreeongoingmaintopics:

-Healthandinequality;

-Sustainabledevelopmentandsocialdimension;

-ImplementationoftheEuropeanSocialCharter.

Norwaywonderedifthemid-termgoalsshouldbeconsideredasexclusivetasks,oriftheNDPHShadalsoaroletokeepupwiththeongoingactivities(likestrategies,cooperation).Ifso,themid-termgoalswouldaddtotheoverallactivitiesthattheNDPHSwasalreadyconducting.

TheSWGChairwaswonderingifthethreethemesoutlinedinthepaperweresufficienttocoverallNDPHSrelatedworkaspectsandestimatedthattherewouldratherbe anumberofthemescoveringalltheworkoftheNDPHS.

Finlandagreedthatitwasgoodtokeepwithinthebroadpoliticallines.ItstressedthattheworkonPrisonHealth,asanexample,fittedverywellintheoverallpicture.TheworkoftheEGswasoftenundervalued,becausetheconcreteresults,whichwereundoubtedlyavailable,werenotclearlycommunicatedbytheExpertGroups.OncetheNDPHShadagreedonitsindicators,thisworkcouldthenbebetterusedandbettermeasured.

Norwaysuggestedusingthealreadyexistingpoliciesintheregionasaguidingprincipleand,atthesametime,definingtheconcretegoals.ItremindedthattheNDPHSwasfirstandforemostacoordinatingbody,andtoidentifythehealth-relatedgapsthroughitsExpertGroups.

TheSecretariatrecalledthattheNDPHShadvariousanglestolookfrom,firstlyithasaroleasapartoftheoverallNorthernDimensionprocessandsecondlyithasitsown,morespecificgoalsincludedintheOsloDeclaration.Itsuggesteddevelopingapaperwhichwouldtakeintoaccountboth.Inthispaper,itsuggested,majorpolicydocuments,liketheBSRstrategy,andtheNDPolicywouldbetakenintoaccountaswellasotheraspectsoftheongoingandfutureworkoftheNDPHSanditsExpertGroups.

TheSWGChairaskedallSWGmemberstosendtheirproposedinputtotheSecretariataswellastoNorwayandRussia,sothattheSWGMembersviewswouldbeproperlyreflectedintherevisedpaper.

TheMeetingrequestedNorwayandRussiatorevisethepaperwiththehelpoftheSecretariat,basedonthediscussionsandwritteninputprovidedbytheSWGmembers.

5.2 Strategiesandpolicies

WithreferencetodocumentSWG3/5.2/1,whichhadbeendraftedbyPoland,Polandpointedtothedifficultiesinproposingthematicareasasthemid-termgoalshadnotyetbeenformulated.

ReferringtodocumentSWG3/5/Info1,whichprovidedanupdatedoverviewofPartners’responsesconcerningthequestionsdiscussedatPACinOttawa,theSWGChairproposedtousethePartners’responsesconcerningthemestheyconsideredshouldbedealtwithbythePartnership.

GermanysuggestedthattheNDPHSshouldsetupapoolofexpertswith different scientific prioritieswhocouldactinaflexibleandfastwaytorespondnot only toupcominghealth-challenges but also to the requests of the CSR..TheCSRcoulddefinethethemesandcouldsetupadhocteamsthatcouldaddressthosechallenges.ThiscouldprovideanaddedvalueandwouldhelptheNDPHStoaddressissuesinafastandflexibleway.

FinlandfeltthatthepresentthematicareascoveredbytheExpertGroupscorrespondedquitewelltothecurrentchallengesandthatthesethemescouldbewidenedifneedbe(likequickresponsesto“birdflue”orfunctioninghealthservices).Inaddition,newtargetscouldbesynthesisedunderthecurrentstructure(Motherandchildcarecould,forexample,beaddressedbythePHCEG).Onlythethemeonhealthsecurity(whichincludedfoodsafety,anti-microbialresistance,preparedness,trafficaccidents,cleanwater,etc.)wasnotproperlyreflectedorcategorisedundertheworkofaspecificEG.FinlandreiteratedthatoutofallhealthtopicsdiscussedundertheNDPHSframework,healthylifestylesandcommunicablediseaseswereofprimeimportanceforFinland,andthereforealsofinanciallysupported.

NorwaynotedthattheNDPHShadnotthecapacitytocoverallhealth-relatedthemes.ItagreedwithFinland,thatitwasagoodsolutionthatEGsworkedinoronaspecifichealtharea.TherewasaneedtoguaranteecertainstabilityfortheEGswork,whichalsomeanttoensureconsistency.Basedonthisalreadyexistingstructure,onecouldformoraskfornewtaskforces,whichcouldemergeoutoftheexistinggroupstoaddressanewspecifictopicforalongerortime-limitedduration.Whenfollowingthisapproach,expertsonsocialissues,HIV/AIDS,PrisonHealthetc.couldjoinforcestoaddressotherimportanttopics,identifiedbytheCSR.IftheEGsweredissolvedintoapoolofexperts,theNDPHScouldloosemorethanwhatithadalreadygainedbyhavingtheExpertGroupsworkingthewaytheyalreadydid.ThesustainableEGstructurethatNDPHShadsucceededinbuildingoverthelastfiveyearscouldotherwisegraduallydissolve.Further,NorwayunderlinedthattheSWGneeded(1)toagreeontheprinciplesonEGsand(2)todefineaprocessonhowtheNDPHScouldeffectivelyaddressnewinitiatives.Thequestionhowthesewheretobeaddressedwasevenmoreimportantthantodefinethethematicareasatthisstage.

GermanyandPolandremarkedthattheindigenouspeopletopicwasnotofgreatrelevanceforthem.

TheSWGChairreiteratedthattheindigenouspeoplewereatargetgroupofthePartnershipandthatthedilemmaofsomecountriesnotbeingfullyconcernedwithitmightbebestsolvedbyallowingasmallergrouptogoaheadandcomeupwithaproposal(andmaybeevenfinancing)tobringtheissuefurther.

NorwaystressedthattheNDPHSneededtodefineclearprocedures/principlesonhowtohandlerequeststhatwereimportanttosomebutnottoallPartners.Further,askedbytheSWGChairifNorwaywouldbereadytodevelopaproposalinthis regard,Norwayconfirmedtheirreadiness.

GermanysuggestedthatPartnercountriesorExpertGroupscouldmakeproposalstotheCSRandtheCSRcouldsimplydecidewhichtopic(s)topursue.

FinlandwelcomedtheNorwegianideaofhavingrulesofprocedureinplaceinordertodefinewhenandhownewtopicscouldbeaddressed.

TheMeetingnotedthatthediscussiononthematicareaswascloselylinkedtothemid-termvisionandgoals.Itagreedtoincludethethematicareasintothedocumentonmid-termvisionandgoalstoberevisedbyNorway.ItfurtheragreedthatthepaperwouldalsooutlinetherulesandproceduresonhownewtopicswouldbeintroducedandfollowedupbytheNDPHSand/oritsExpertGroups.

5.3 Successindicatorsandcriteria

TheSWGChairproposedtodelegatethetopiconsuccessindicatorsandcriteriatotheconsultant,takingintoaccountthatPolandandCanadahadupdatedtheirproposalonsuccessindicatorsandcriteria(re-submittedasdocumentSWG3/5.3/1).

TheMeetingagreedtotheSWGChairsproposal

5.4. NDPHSMembership/Partnerstatus

TheSWGChairreferredtotheGermanandNorwegianrevisedproposalonNDPHSMembership/Partnerstatus(submittedasdocumentSWG3/5.4/1).

TheSWGChairinformedthatithadconsultedwith the lawyersoftheSwedishMinistryforForeignAffairsasagreedatthepreviousmeeting.Theprincipleoftheagreementlasttime,i.e.thataPartnerthatdoesnotpayitsfeewouldloseitsPartnerstatushadbeenacceptedbythisexpertise.However,theadvicewasfirsttosecurefreedomoftheCSRtoactaccordingtotheneedsinacertainsituationandsecondly,todefineadeadlineforpartnerstopaytheircontributions.

Germanyproposedtosetadeadlinefor1year.

Norwaystatedthatthenationalbudgetswereusuallyfinalizedendoftheyearforthecomingyear,atthelatest,andthereforetheNDPHSshouldalreadyknowinJanuaryifaPartnerwasabletopayornot.

Germanyexplainedthat e.g.theGermancontributionsdependedonaprojectcontribution,whichcouldnotbedefinedinadvanceofthecurrentfinancialyearbutonlyduringit.

TheSecretariatstressedthatitwasimportanttohaveaclearfinancialplanningfortheSecretariat’soperationstoensurethatcontributionswouldbemadeavailablewhichwouldmeettheagreeduponlevelofexpenditures.Furtheritrecalledthat,inorderforGermanyandCanadatobeabletopaytheirproject-basedcontributions,itwasnecessarytoidentifysuitableproject-basedactivities.

RussiainformedthatithadbeenworkingonresolvingtheoutstandingRussiancontributionsandexpectedadecisionfromtheMinistryofFinancewithinthenexttwo-threeweeks.Ifthecontributionwasapproved,itshouldbecomeeasierforRussiatoprovideitscontributionsfortheforthcomingyears.However,challengesmayoccuriftheamountofcontributionschanged.

AfterdiscussiontheMeetingagreedonthefollowingchangesanddecidedtofinalisetheproposalduringthenextmeeting:

-Undertheheading“Participants”,thewording“tobelimited”inthefirstparagraphshouldbedeletedastheDeclarationalsomentionsotherpossibilitiestobecomeaParticipant;

-Inthesecondparagraphunderthesameheading,(ParticipantstakepartintheCommitteeofSeniorRepresentatives’(CSR)meetingsandtheExpertGroups,butmaynottakepartinthePartnershipAnnualConference(PAC)onministeriallevelexceptasinvitedguests.ParticipantsdonottakepartindecisionsabouttheNDPHSbudget.),“abouttheNDPHSbudget”wasdeleted;

-Intheverylastparagraph(lossofPartnerstatus)itwasagreedtodeletethetextafter“…decisionstobemadebytheCSR”anddeletetherest.

AsregardsadeadlineforthelossofaPartnerstatusthreealternativesolutionswillbediscussedatthenextmeeting:

-Non-paymentforoneyear;

-Non-paymentuptoandincludingMayofthebudgetyear;

-Onepossibilitycouldbetoallowpaymentofuptoatleast50%duringthefirstpart oftheyear(whichwouldmeanthatthePartnercouldkeepitsPartnerstatusduring thatyear).

5.5.FundingofPartnershipsactivities

TheSWGChairreferredtodocument3/5.2/1,whichoutlinedonpage4and5thePolishandFinnishideasonthefundingofPartnership’sactivities.

FinlandexpresseditsconcernaboutthefutureoftheNDPHSProjectpipeline.Threecountriescurrentlyactedasdonorsinthepipeline.However,allofthemhadtheirownregulationsandgeographicalpreferencesandnomulti-donorfinancingwaspracticed.Therefore,itwasagreatchallengetodevelopthepipelinesystemfurther,sothatitcouldhaveagreatervalueforthewholePartnership.Astherewasnomulti-donorco-financing,thepipelineseemedtohavenotmuchmorepotentialtobeexplored.Finlandfurtherpointedoutthatithadalreadyallocatedasignificantamountofmoney,butalsohopedthatotherfinancingagencieswouldmakeuseofthistoolinthefuture.SuchamoverequiredactivelobbyingamongstandbythePartnerssothatotheractorsintheNDareaswouldbeconvincedaboutthebenefitsofthepipeline.FinlandfurthernoticedthatthereweremoreprojectsthathadreceivedfinancingthatwereactuallyshowninthePipeline.Thesameappliedforprojectsinthedatabase,whichwasnotascompleteasitcouldbe.AsimilarchallengewasalsonotedintheNorthernDimensionInformationSystem(NDIS).

NorwayremarkedthattheSecretariatwasofmoderatesizeandthetwopersonsintheSecretariatwerenotabletoknowaboutallprojectactivities,unlesstheseactivitieswerereportedtothem.

GermanyaddedthatsomePartnercountriescouldnotprovidefinancingsourcestothepipelineduetotheirinternaladministrativerules.

PolandaskedhowtheNDPHScouldavoidtheduplicationoffundingactivities.

Norwaysuggestedthatoneoftheimmediategoalscouldbetosetupasystemtoensurethattherewasnoduplicationofactivities.Thiscouldbedone,forexample,throughacoordinatingconferencewithotheractorsintheregion.

TheMeetingtooknoteoftheinformation.

6.FinalreporttobepresentedtotheCSR16Meeting

TheSWGChairinvitedthemeetingtodiscusstheoutlineofthefinalreporttobepresentedtotheCSR16Meeting(length,frameofcontents,presentationofthefollow-upactions,etc.).

TheMeetingdecidedthattheSWGChair,inco-operationwiththeSecretariat,wastopresentadraftreportfortheSWGtocommenton.

7.ConclusionsofthemeetingwiththeSub-grouponExpertGroupmatters

TheSWGMeetingwasenlargedbytheChairsandITAsoftheNDPHSExpertGroups.Thediscussionsonthis“Sub-groupmeetingonExpertGrouprelatedmatters”arerecordedinAnnex1.

AftertheSWGChairhadclosedtheSub-groupmeeting,sheinvitedtheSWGmemberstodrawconclusionsandpossiblefollow-upsuggestionsconcerningtheExpertGrouprelatedmatters.

FinlandstatedthattheSub-groupmeetinghadreemphasizedFinland’sopinionthattheEGswerewellworkingandhadallestablishednetworksattheirdisposal.Therefore,itwascrucialtocontinuesupportingtheirwork.Further,theSWGneededtoproposeinwhatareastheNDPHSshouldbeactiveandwhatkindofsetupandsizeitneededinordermeettheNDPHSgoals.Itwouldbehelpfultohaverulesinplace–howtoestablishnewprojects,howtofinancethem and ensure the involvementofexpertsfromvariousfieldsofexpertise,etc.

ItwasalsonotedthatthesocialwellbeingaspectintheEGswillneedfurtherconsiderationonthecompositionoftheEGs.

TheSWGChairaskedifFinlandandNorwaywouldbewillingtorevisetheirproposalconcerningprojects,ifneedbe,takingintoaccountthediscussionsduringtheSub-groupmeeting.ThesameappliedfortheSwedishandLithuanianproposalconcerningtheExpertGroups.

TheMeetingtooknoteoftheinformationprovidedandagreedthatallPartnerswouldreviewtheirproposalsandupdatethem,ifneedbeandsubmittheirrevisionstotheSWGChairandtheSecretariat assoonaspossible,andpreferablybytheendofMay/beginningofJune.

8.NextSWGMeeting

TheSecretariatinformedthatallSWGmembershadcommunicatedtheiravailabilitytoattendthe4thSWGmeetingon1September2009.

AttheinvitationofLithuaniaitwasagreedtohold thenextmeetinginVilniuson1-2September(1.5days).

Furthermore,Germanyalsoofferedtohostameetinganditwasagreedto comebacktotheGermanofferincaseanadditionalmeetingneededtobeorganisedafterthe1September2009.

9.Anyotherbusiness

Noitemswerediscussed.

10. AdoptionoftheSWG3meetingminutes

TheSecretariatproposedthatitwouldsendoutdraftSWG3Meetingminutestotheparticipantson11May2009andthatcommentsonthedraftwouldbedue,atthelatest,on15May2009.Arevisedreportwouldthenbedistributedon19May2009tobeadoptedpercapsulamprovidedthatnofurthercommentsaresubmittedwithinoneweek.

TheMeetingisinvitedtodecide,asappropriate.

11.ClosingoftheMeeting

TheMeetingclosedat19:00hrs.

Reference / Annex1
Title / MinutesoftheSubgroupmeetingonExpertGrouprelatedissues
Summary/Note / Thisannexrecallsthemaindiscussionpointsanddecisionsmadeduringtheabove named meeting.

1. Welcome and opening ofthe meeting

Ms. Kerstin Ödman, the Chair of the ad hoc Strategy Working Group (SWG), who chaired the meeting, opened it and welcomed the participants.

2. Expert Group matters in the evaluation report

The Chair invited the EG Chairs and ITAs to provide their responses to the questions that the SWG had developed for the Expert Groups (submitted as document SWG 3/3/2).

Questions related to projects

  1. How do you see the EG’s role in relation to project-based activities (facilitating projects, developing project ideas, encouraging others to implement projects, supporting others in project development, implementing projects, supporting the CSR in labeling projects with NDPHS logo, appraising the implemented projects and drawing conclusions from them and, finally, carrying over the work in regards to bringing project outcomes to a higher level (e.g. producing policy recommendations and strategies for presentation during ministerial PACs);
  1. In terms of the capacity of your EG, in how many projects can your EG be involved in at any point in time?
  1. What project donors do you see for the NDPHS projects / NDPHS-facilitated projects?
  1. How do you see the role of your EG in appraising project proposals put in the NDPHS Project Pipeline?

The Chair of the PH EG informed that the questions had been discussed with the core PH EG members.

  1. The PH EG Chair stated that the EGs should not be implementing projects on their own, and saw a two-fold approach for the EGs role in relation to project-based activities: (a) to develop project ideas (as the EG had a role in identifying gaps and proposing ways to address them) and (b) to encourage others to implement projects.
  2. The individual members of the PH EG were already running their individual projects and reported to the group about the progress and approaches. The capacities of the group were limited but the PH EG was in the favourable position to enjoy the services of a full time employed ITA.
  3. Financial sources for the work of the EG were provided through the Lead Partner, but the group had also considered applying for a project through the BSR programme.
  4. The group had already been working on appraising several of projects and on discussing new project ideas.

She also pointed out that it was unclear for the EG what was exactly meant by being a “facilitator of projects” and asked the SWG to provide a clear definition, which would help when discussing the new mandates for the EGs.

The Chair of the HIV/AIDS EG:

  1. Seconded the PH EG Chair’s statement that the EGs should not be implementing projects on their own andreminded that there were different views about the question when a project can be defined or labelled as a NDPHS project. The HIV/AIDS EG was working on many different projects and, similar to the PH EG, its members pursued their own project activities which were brought to the NDPHS forum. The HIV/AIDS EG members had ownership over their own projects and were in a position to influence the work on HIV/AIDS in their respective countries. If projects were not directly managed by the EG members, the members had often been asked and were able to provide significant help and expertise to the project managers. The HIV/AIDS EG was also able to initiate projects and identify structure and networks for implementation.
  2. Informed that the capacity or amount of projects that a NDPHS EG could handle varied, depending on how many members were involved.
  3. Reiterated that the financing for the HIV/AIDS EG activities had already been successfully provided through the NDPHS Project Pipeline, but also other sources mostly originating from the Lead Partner or EG members were considered to support the work.
  4. Suggested that the HIV/AIDS EG could always be used for project appraisal; however this might require clear instructions and mainstream expectations, so that the evaluation would not turn into a purely administrative act.

The ITA of the HIV/AIDS EG added that the planning process before the start of a project was approx 1 year time (but sometimes also significantly longer) in order to prepare and obtain the required resources.

The Coordinating Chair of the SIHLWA EG:

  1. Informed that the questions sent outwere put into a more respondent friendly format and sent to approx 50 SIHLWA members and alternates. 11 responses were received so far, due to the short deadline given. The full overview of all responses provided was distributed in a hard copy to all meeting participants.
  2. Noted that many ongoing project activities were not even reported by the EG members. The general view in SIHLWA was that projects were an important activity to be pursued, especially when it came to “Flagship” and “Associated” projects. Project funding was important and should be continuously sought; however, the Group should not deal with more than its capacity would allow for. From SIHLWA project work, new activities could emerge. For instance, programmes and collaborative activities, which could be even “commercial”, such as “Life at Stake”, or “PYLL”.
  3. Remarked that the SIHLWA EG saw itself more in a catalytic role rather than working on the implementation, as this also depended on the capacity of the individual members of the group. Often, they did more than they reported.
  4. Felt that the question concerning the identification of donors only became relevant, once the internal capacities to run a project successfully were ensured.
  5. Appraisal of projects would be very difficult.

The Chair of the PHC EG:

  1. Remarked that all elements, mentioned in the section containing questions related to projects were highly relevant for the PHC EG, except for project implementation. The PHC EG should be used to bring national ideas forward, by developing project ideas and by encouraging others to implement them.
  2. Stated that the group itself did not have capacity for project responsibilities, but could rather accompany the work of members/organisations that were implementing projects.
  3. Expressed the need to seek funding from different sources, such as Baltic Sea Regional Programme, DG SANCO, TAIEX and maybe also other, additional EU programmes. The funding mechanisms that were provided through the NDPHS Project Pipeline were also needed to be pursued more actively as an opportunity to receive co-financing from NDPHS Partner countries. In the long run, other funding sources could be connected to the pipeline, such as the World Bank, the NCM, or charity organisations such as the Gates foundation, etc.
  4. Declared that the PHC EG could also appraise project proposals. In order to do so, the Group would need to be involved from an earlier stage. The EG could also take several project proposals on its meeting agenda, discuss them and provide feedback to the financing agencies of the NDPHS Partners.

The Head of the Secretariat of the WGCC:

  1. Informed that, in the new CBSS environment, the CBSS Working Group for Cooperation on Children at Risk (WGCC) has changed its name to the CBSS Expert Group for Cooperation on Children at Risk (EGCC), effective as of 1 May 2009. The WGCC worked on developing projects as well as implementing projects itself. The Secretariat functioned as a project coordinator and also identified funding. The longest project that was implemented under the WGCC umbrella had had duration of two years, the shortest maybe one week.
  2. Recalled that the implementation and management of projects always depended on the capacity of the WGCC Secretariat.
  3. Informed that one of the donors of the WGCC was the EC, others were the members of the EG itself that sometimes were able to provide smaller amounts for a given activity, SIDA Baltic Sea Unit had contributed to some of the projects. .
  4. Stated that the WGCC had decided to decline to do project appraisal work as it did take too much time away from the core work of the Group.

Questions related to impact and reporting

  1. How do you measure the impact of your EG’s activities?
  1. What steps should be taken by your EG, the CSR and PAC to ensure proper dissemination of your EG’s work and mainstreaming its results into national decision-making processes in the Partner Countries?
  1. What mid-term goals of relevance to your EG would you like to suggest the NDPHS would agree upon?
  1. How would you describe the current reporting mechanism of the EGs to the CSR? How should it be changed with regard to time-bound/non-permanent Expert Groups if they are established?

The ITA of the PH EG:

  1. Emphasised that it was very difficult to measure the impact of the work of the PH EG. However, what could be measured was the role that the NDPHS played within its Partner countries and organisations through networking, collaboration established links, or increased visibility of the Partnership.
  2. Noted that for the PH EG, the critical issue was that the members of the PH EG were mostly from the Ministries of Justice, while the CSR had representatives of the Ministries of Health. It was, therefore, suggested the CSR representatives and the EGs members in the respective Partner countries should have regular contact, in order to boost up a more vivid exchange of information.
  3. Suggested setting the PH EG’s mid term goals for a period of no longer than three years, as member countries have programmes of that length.
  4. The PH EG was satisfied with the present reporting system and did not want to have it changed.

The Chair of the PH EG added, as an example of visibility or impact of the PH EG, that she had noticed that the number of invitations for the PHEG to take part in meetings was growing in similar proportions to the interest that other stakeholders had expressed in the work of the PH EG.

The Chair of the HIV/AIDS EG:

  1. Pointed out that all the projects that were linked to the HIV/AIDS EG activities had also defined indicators that could be measured. However, if it was decided that the EG should have an impact on, for example, improved aspects in the area of epidemiology, than this was not realistic. What could be measured was the work of the EG, but not its results.
  2. Felt that the dissemination of results of the EG was considered positive. However, it needed to be understood that the HIV/AIDS EG was an EG with a scientific background and that it needed to advocate itself as a group of experts.
  3. Assumed that mid term goals were difficult to set. Some of the EGs goals were far reaching with up to 10 years, some of them were much shorter, but again it was not suitable to formulate them to fit into a standard.
  4. Called for a good reporting mechanism that suited everyone. In this regard, no new bureaucracy was needed.

The Coordinating Chair of the SIHLWA EG:

  1. Stated that the impact of the work of their EG was difficult to measure, if not impossible. There was a need to measure input vs. output. However, as there were many actors working on the same issues it was difficult to give credit to only one of them. As an example, if the alcohol consumption didn’t go down, was this considered a success or a failure? Maybe the alcohol consumption would have gone up without the SIHLWA efforts, but this could not be judged. Indicators therefore needed to be more evidence based. In order to define indicators, it was important to know what the Group wanted.
  2. Process-related mid-term goal could be that SIHLWA Alc Sub-group would establish a network on experts who would make an up-date of stakeholder analysis every 2-3 years. The SIHLWA Chair inquired if the mid-term goals are to be only about health and social well-being. He subsequently remarked that Russia had money for social well-being projects and it would be good to attract this money for the NDPHS projects. Therefore, one mid-term goal could be to develop a mechanism to attract money from Russia.
  3. Expressed his consent with the SWG proposal to have the NDPHS mid term goals set for four years, but also called for them to be more specific in order to match the needs of and provide guidance to the SIHLWA EG.

He suggested to separate process mid-term indicators from the rest of indictors. The SIHLWA-Alc sub-group had defined the goal for anti-alcohol advertisements to be publicised. If the goal was not achieved, there could still be the process goal, that the group would need to prove that they worked on the process, for example, by establishing a network of actors who would be involved and interested in such advertisements. Another process drive example was the SIHLWA Stakeholder analysis, which had not yet happened, but was on its way.

  1. (No comments about reporting mechanism were presented by the SIHLWA EG).

The Chair of the PHC EG:

  1. Stated that similar to the other EG groups, impact was difficult to measure. Also, what kind of impact needed to be measured? Impact on the overall situation of primary health care? Or impact in relation to the objectives of the Partnership or to the work of the Expert Groups? But mid-term goals could be measured.
  2. Assumed that, in order to ensure a proper dissemination of the work of the PHC EG, there was a need to place primary health care issues higher on the political agenda.
  3. Reiterated that the EG worked towards improving the health care systems. However, it was difficult to set up med-term goals, which could be measured. Maybe one possible indicator could be to see how far the EG was known. One medium term goal could, for example, be for a transnational policy document to be adopted.
  4. Further suggested that only EG members with a certain level of credibility should be appointed, and that the EG issues should also always be discussed at CSR level, so that the quality of work could be ensured and that topics would also be further discussed within the national structures.

The Head of the Secretariat of the WGCC: