2021-05-31-世界卫生组织-Evaluation_brief_for_the_Independent_Evaluation_of_WHO_s_Whole_of_Syria_Response_2页_194kb

WHO Evaluation Office Assessment Summary: Syria Response 2016-2020

Overall Response

Effectiveness: WHO provided an increasingly relevant and broadly effective response in extremely difficult circumstances, aligning with its humanitarian approach.
Key Challenges: Operations faced significant constraints including access issues, reduced flexible funding, authorization problems, and severe national health system damage.

Key Areas Reviewed (Purpose & Scope)

Relevance: Compatibility with government needs, population needs, and WHO’s GPW13 & SDG goals.
Effectiveness: Achievements against response objectives, particularly within crises.
Coverage: Reaching all affected segments of the population, especially the most vulnerable.
Efficiency: The efficient use of allocated financial, human, physical, and intellectual resources.

Key Lessons & Findings

Performance Across Criteria

Relevance: Demonstrated flexibility due to its operational structure but gaps exist regarding protracted crisis norms and global priority/investment guidance.
Coverage: Essential functions were fulfilled, but systematic procedures for targeting vulnerable groups were limited due to inadequate Response-level systems, internal coordination mechanisms, and policy frameworks addressing complex emergencies.
Effectiveness: Positive outcomes noted, but insufficient data for equitable progress tracking and limited Value for Money analysis hindered overall effectiveness.
Efficiency: Efficiency varied by program and context; partnerships aided design but staff vacancy issues and inflexible contracts hampered responsiveness. Rising operational costs were identified.

Limitations & Challenges

Insufficient Internal Systems: Lack of Response-level data and M&E precluded monitoring equitable coverage and service gaps effectively.
Access & Political Constraints: The highly politicized environment and access barriers severely hampered operations and full population reach.
Funding Issues: Decreasing flexible funds and lack of authorization led to Protocol gaps, staff contracts, and long wait times.
Coordination & Partnerships: While effective with partners, some coordination mechanisms had unclear accountability lines.

Recommendations (15)

Divided across WHO, Regional Office (EMRO), Country Office, and cross-border context. Key themes include:
Consolidate or Revise Frameworks: For Health Emergencies Programme and cluster coordination.
Conflict Sensitive Approaches: Enhance conflict analysis and coordination (Recommendations 3, 4).
Improve M&E & Financial Systems: Strengthen systems, data collection, VfM analysis, and guidelines for hubs (Recommendations 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10).
Adapt Staffing: Modify contract clauses for cross-border operations (Recommendation 12).
Redefine Procedures: Improve needs analysis, service targeting, and knowledge management (Recommendations 7, 11, 13, 14, 15).

Evaluation Report Details

Commissioned by: WHO Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean (EMRO), supported by the WHO Evaluation Office.
Covered Period: WHO’s response operations 2016-2020.
Assessment Area: No specific locations listed beyond the general context of Syria.