How an Evaluation helped UNICEF and partners make a difficult but necessary decision
An evaluation led UNICEF and partners to close the SDG3 GAP—showing that accountability and adaptability matter as much as ambition.
In global health, collaboration is often hailed as the key to progress. But what happens when a well-intentioned partnership does not deliver? In 2019, thirteen multilateral agencies came together under the Global Action Plan for Healthy Lives and Well-being for All (SDG3 GAP), a bold initiative to reduce fragmentation and accelerate progress toward health-related Sustainable Development Goals.
The ambition was clear: work better together to support countries in achieving SDG3. But by 2024, the world had changed. The COVID-19 pandemic had strained health systems, reversed hard-won gains, and exposed deep cracks in global coordination. As countries struggled to recover, questions emerged: Was SDG3 GAP helping? Was it fit for purpose in a post-pandemic world?
To understand the impact of the SDG3 GAP, a joint evaluation was launched in 2024; planned from the outset to ensure accountability and learning. This followed a Joint Evaluability Assessment (JEA), which had already identified risks and gaps in the initiative’s design, recognizing the complexity and visibility of the multi-stakeholder partnership. The evaluation team used a mix of interviews, country case studies, surveys, and document reviews to build a clear picture of how the GAP was performing on the ground.
The findings were candid, revealing that the SDG3 GAP lacked a shared understanding of its purpose and was not well adapted to country contexts. The result was an initiative that struggled to deliver meaningful impact.
Acting on evidence
Faced with this evidence, the signatory agencies looked inward.
The evaluation offered two possible pathways; sunset or close-out the current GAP within a six- to twelve-month period or develop a new framework that retained selected GAP elements. After thoughtful deliberation, the agencies reached a consensus: the SDG3 GAP, as it was designed, could not be sustained. They agreed to close the framework and retire the brand.
It was not an easy decision, but it was the right one. The agencies acknowledged the effort and progress made especially in areas like primary health care and sustainable financing. But they also recognized that continuing with an underperforming model would do more harm than good. By choosing to act on evidence, they demonstrated a deep commitment to development effectiveness and learning.
This story is not about failure. It is about responsiveness, accountability, and the courage to change course when the data calls for it. It is a reminder that in developmental work, success is not just about launching new programmes, it is knowing when to adapt, evolve, or step back. And when partners listen to evidence, they build trust not just with each other, but with the communities they serve.
