We know from our work that evaluations are essential for supporting evidence-informed decisions – be they big or small, on aspects related to design or implementation, whether routine or more complex.
An IOD PARC-led evaluation, finalised in 2025, played a critical role in helping development partners in global health make a difficult but ultimately necessary decision about the future of the SDG3 Global Action Plan (SDG3 GAP).
Launched in 2019 by 13 multilateral agencies,[1] the SDG3 GAP aimed to reduce fragmentation in global health, improve multilateral coordination and accelerate progress toward health-related Sustainable Development Goals. While the initial ambition was strong, the context in which the initiative operated changed dramatically following the COVID-19 pandemic, raising questions about whether the GAP was still fit for purpose.
Designed from the outset to support accountability and learning, the 2024 joint evaluation – preceded by a Joint Evaluability Assessment – provided an independent assessment of the initiative, focusing on coherence, effectiveness, and sustainability. Using interviews, surveys, country case studies, and document reviews, we examined how the SDG3 GAP operated in practice and how it was experienced at country level. Our findings were clear and rigorous, highlighting a lack of shared understanding among partners about the SDG3 GAP’s purpose and limited adaptation to country contexts. Furthermore, it did not address key structural disincentives limiting coordination and collaboration, such as competition for resources between agencies or donor coordination. As a result, the initiative struggled to demonstrate the impact envisaged.
For the organisations involved, the evaluation created a clear moment of analysis and insight. We outlined a range of realistic options, including closing out the SDG3 GAP within a defined period or fundamentally redesigning it by retaining selected elements that had shown progress, such as digital health, primary health care, and sustainable financing. After careful deliberation, partners agreed that the existing framework could not be sustained and decided to close the initiative.
The evaluation helped shift the conversation from ambition to effectiveness. By acting on evidence, the 13 signatory agencies demonstrated accountability, adaptability, and the courage to change course, learn lessons and make difficult decisions.
Across our projects, we provide development organisations with the evidence they need to make decisions, adapt in times of transition, and work in increasingly complex global contexts. Now, more than ever, in the context of diminishing resources, rigorous, insightful monitoring, evaluation and learning are needed to inform decision-making. If you’re interested in finding out more about what we do, get in touch.
Read the Evaluation Report here.
[1] Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance; Global Financing Facility for Women, Children and Adolescents (GFF); Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria; International Labour Organization (ILO); Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS); United Nations Development Programme (UNDP); United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA); United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF); Unitaid; United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women); World Bank Group; the World Food Programme (WFP) and the World Health Organization (WHO)
