Measles Initiative Management and FinancingSeptember 13, 2011

Overview

MI management and finance mechanism – strengths and challenges

Financial update

MI Process

0

Monitoring and evaluation

Reporting

Review, consolidate and prioritize

Fundraising

0

Implementation

Annual country plans

Disbursement

Management

Management - Strengths Country driven

No secretariat

Flexible

Transparent

Defined roles and responsibilities: with shared responsibility and credit

Well coordinated: avoids programme fragmentation

Clearly defined monitoring and evaluation indicators and process

Accountable: accurate & detailed reporting of results & resources on annual basis

Management

Balance needs of each partner agency with needs of the MI

MI communication/advocacy support hired

MI branded communication tools

– MI.org, Facebook, Twitter, Storify, etc.

Challenge Tactic

Management

Raise awareness of partnership and goals

Advocacy survey– Inform direction of MI advocacy

team

MI advocacy team (MIAT)– Finalizing TORs, structure and

management, short-term workplan

Challenge Tactic

“The Measles Fund”

Financial MechanismARC CDC

UNF (matching funds)

UNFIP

WHO/HQ UNICEF/NY UNICEF/Supply

WHO/Country UNICEF/Country

MOH, Red Cross/Crescent Societies, Lions, LDS and other NGOsICC

(Donor Partners)

(UN Partners)

(In-Country Partners)

OperationalCosts, Technical Assistance, and

Lab/Surveillance

CountryPlans

Vaccine/SyringesC

ount

ry P

lans

Note: Funds are released when ICC-approved country plans are approved by partners.

Other Donors

Financial Mechanism - StrengthsFlexible

Rapid and full disbursement of funds

Able to balance WHO and UNICEF funding needs in different settings

Low overhead costs

Low transaction costs for donors, partners and countries (one pooled donor fund, one proposal, one report)

Streamlined: joint resource mobilization

Financial Mechanism

Decline in funds available Additional resource mobilization support

– TORS developed, interviews underway

New partners

Measles mortality reduction investment case (Dec. 2011)

Eradication investment case (Apr. 2012)

High net worth individuals investment case (near final)

Challenge Tactic

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

$ U

S M

illio

n

Donations

Measles Initiative Annual Donations, 2001-2011*

*Excluding country contributions

Financial Mechanism

Large outbreaks that require emergency ORI– $30m in 2010 and in 2011

Sufficient funds for high quality preventative campaigns

Ongoing discussions regarding outbreak response fund

Coordination with other humanitarian agencies

Challenge Tactic

Measles Case Distribution by Month, Sub-Saharan Africa 2006-2010

Financial Mechanism

Non-binding agreement with countries to finance 50% of SIA costs

On-going discussions with GAVI and other partners to explore common standards for implementing country co-financing

MI advocacy team to focus on raising political and financial commitment from implementing countries

Challenge Tactic

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

Am

ount

of m

oney

rais

ed lo

cally

(USD

per

chi

ld ta

rget

ed)

~ 50% of ops costs (USD 0.32 per child)

Financial Update

Historic Measles Initiative Support

Technical– Vaccination and surveillance strategies– Program planning, implementation, M and E

Financial– Bundled vaccine– SIA operational costs

• 100% catch-up campaigns• 50% for follow-up campaigns

– Lab and surveillance– Technical assistance

Advocacy and communication

Additional Cost Elements to Achieve GoalsResearch

Outbreak response

Routine– Scale up of MCV1– MCV2 introduction

Rubella – Catch-up campaigns– Introduction into routine

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

$ U

S M

illio

n

Donations Projected Donations Funding Gap

Funding Gap 2012: $43.4 million

Annual Donations 2001-2011 and Financial Resource Requirements, Projections, Funding Gap 2012

* Excluding country contributions

CDC

ARC*

IFFIm UNICEF

CIDA

UNF**

GAVI

NorwayBMGF

LDSJapan

Merck

Total: $987 million (excluding country contributions for follow-up SIAs, & intro. of MCV2)

*includes ARC and partners: ARC chapter contributions, Anne Ray Charitable Trust, BD, Herman and Katherine Peters Foundation, and others

** includes UNF and partners

External Contributions, Projected Contributions and Funding Gap for 2001-2012

2012 funding gap US$43.4 m

Next StepsFinancial resource requirements, 2011-2015

Measles eradication investment case– global burden of disease – expected benefits, risks, and costs of the eradication and

comparator options (i.e., control)– social, political, and economic challenges – ethical considerations– operational and other research needs – different financial instruments and funding mechanisms – options for management and governance

Anne Ray Charitable Trust