I will ask Project Accountants - Previously released Funds not adequately consumed, could prevent adequate scale-up. - Work Plan not objective. - Date line for proposals not met. - No satisfactory evidence of capacity to perform. - Also the application of strigent yardsticks/measures or rationale for accessing funds from the principle receipients prevent most ready/willing CSOs from accessing funds for program implementation. - Where funds are given, the process of program implementation become complicated and tight for proper implementation by CSOs, as Donors would want to dictate the activities and how it should be run instead of bringing the CSOs into the planning to get their own ideas/views as they are the ones at the grassroot. - Even when program is implemented, the process of Evaluation becomes a trouble zone as Donors would want a sustained evaluation from CSOs with no proper fund allocation.

Dear Fenna, I have the pleasure to receive your message on mail. There are two ways to work for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria 1. Prevention- by way of community development, awareness and other ways, where the role of the social organiation is essential. 2. Treatment and cure: Medical institutions governmental/non-governmental. The Global Fund has a vital role to initiate/activate the NGOs to create an environment of prevention. We are committed to accept all challenges against all vulnerability of human life. Thank you. Asima Chakraborty General Secretary The Organization for Peace Environment and HUman Rights [TOPER], Kolkata, India

Asima I support you 100% and hope that the GF is listening with ears wide open. I have listened to a myriad of complaints from grassroot organizations that came from the most rural communities. Thankfully we had access to special interpretors to allow me to understand their plight. It was in one word most heartbreaking for me as a Nurse and Public Health Educationist to hear what hell, havoc and deprivation CCMs have caused these disenfranchized people. Its like suffocating them by the throat. They fill out these phony reports to meet the continued funding criteria of the GF while the funding never reaches the grassroots. The larger local registered NGO's that know the ropes how to outsmart the small CBO's, do the proposal gathering, then tell the small mom and pap grassroot CBOs the funds never came. Some of these people never even took a bus to come to the city centre to see how it looks like so they believe everthing what is said. It's when we foreigners come to do speaking appointments in the rural communities and they develop confidence in us they cry long tears and we cry too. Some of them walk with the proposal and ask us to fund because they don't understand what happened and hear the same story every funding cycle. The CCM needs to be disbanded and we need a total independent body appointed with an auditing organization assigned by the GF that functions as a watchdog and does random spotchecks on the entire process to weed out corrupt vendors. There is no such mechanism in place and CCMs and their corrupt collaborators get away with murder every funding cycle. I was so touched and wept as they narrated their stories, what they have go through every funding cycle. Many CBO's wanted me to come to their communities to see how destitute they are for funds to help the infected and affected communities. I visited a few CBOs, but due to my time constraints I had to continue my personal missions. I will never forget how much our rural people touched my life. Thank you for your caring and dedication to the plight of CBO's. They know the struggle but lack technical expertise. That is where we as international organizations come in and can successfully partner with them so they can be directly funded. This requires the application process to is simplified. International organizations can directly partner with CBO's as their strong arm and implementing agents at the grassroots. CBO's know their communities best and can be most effective once they are given that opportunity to make a difference. Fenna E. Bacchus

Dear Forum Members, Global Fund has taken an important initiative to built up at relation among the organizations working for protection and prevention of HIV/AIDS, TB, Malaria. The voice of the people has come to this forum and observed every participant has expressed their value opinion. From the views of the members it is clear that there are other way to work with the community. The system of work of the Governments is not enough to protect people from the pandemic. The Governments have their own allocation on health in the Budget. There are a huge amount of expenditure at the pipeline and a reach a little to the infected persons. The Global Fund has been rising fund efficiently and distributing according to their decision. Social organizations, non-governmental organization and other medical institutions is engaged in awareness, community development, training, motivation and medical care. Then The Global Fund may · Allocate fund directly or by country Fund Consultants to facilitate the grass-root people from infection. · Simplify the process of grant application and conditions where new and small initiatives be encouraged. · CCM may be appointed to the governments and private agency. · Encourage to the organizations working with low cost of establishment. · Raise more fund from the stakeholders.. · Accountability and monitoring · Appoint Country level Fund Management to prevent corruption. Thank you, Asima Chakraborty General Secretary TOPER, KOLKATA, INDIA

We invite you to post your contributions directly onto the forums.

Dear members,

Alastair
e-Forum Facilitator

---

For a small nation with limited infrastructure and human resources, it is simple. The structure and systems are there but managers are not putting into practice themselves and therefore no expectations on staff and no regular monitoring. Yes we do have limited capacity and skills but if individuals and organisations are provided hands on mentoring support and regular guidance and monitoring to strengthen the governance systems then programs should be able to deliver and reach even the most isolated communities. Our country comes under a lot of pressure from external 'experts' who come in, do their own thing and leave the country with no skills transfer at all.  They prefer to drain the ideas and plans of the national staff, criticise the good work that is happening on the ground and go back and raise their flags for their own benefit and come up with quite often unrealistic recommendations (they are also in positions who can influence the donors on which way things should work for countries).  Most times, we don't even get to see the report from the visit, unless we persistently follow up. Approaches as such ruin coordination efforts and capacity building plans in countries.
 
To be able to scale up programs, the need to engage with wider stakeholders becomes a move in the right direction.  But to be able to get them involved, the first step to look at is the GF application forms and the bureaucratic process.  From experience Community based organisations and hospitals in the smaller and outer lying islands lose out due to the formats we are using for GF and therefore only the elite organisations get through. We currently have a program which is similar to the community strengthening component for the R8 proposal and targets those organisations who consistently lose out from this process. There are huge challenges and risks involved and very slow evidence of impact, however, it is very rewarding to see organisations whom you have been able to support grow into organisations or government departments who are able to access and manage their own funding in 3 to 4 years.....yes, it takes that long, changes do not happen overnight. 

Dear members of the forum,
 
Thank you for sharing your views on Global Fund processes for accessing funding and the effect these have on scaling-up to address the needs in your countries.
 

 

---

Dear colleagues:

I want to greet everyone and congratulate you all for your contributions. I always read all the comments and they are very interesting. I can learn from everything said and from everyone posting.
 
We live in different realities but communication gives us the opportunity to observe that all countries have gaps, but most are only taken into account when there’s neither support with regards to the political will of a country, nor agreement in the interests of different sectors. Luckily, for us Cubans, this is not the case.
 
We can not deny that the Fund has given an excellent and timely opportunity to advance, but results should be better than they are, nevertheless. For example, if the resources are available, why not include larger populations in the diagnosis or why not reach and have better coverage for treatments.

One requirement of the Fund is that when finishing a project, the programs become sustainable addressing the diseases, but we observe that there is nothing in writing to ensure this happens outside the CCM. Shouldn’t it be part of the documentation in the presentation of a project that we count on the agreement of the Ministry of Health, of key institutions like the academic sector, the mass media and other key sectors? I mean that something else should be done other than these same parties signing off on a project, confirming that it is good and that the beneficiaries are reliable or that the Action Plan and the budget are appropriate.
 
I think that what we do today in our countries is not enough, even if we declare that we are part of and support national programs, if there is no support in the field where we work or no guarantee of engagement and continuity to keep the projects going once the Global Fund funding has ended. It doesn’t mean that anyone can do whatever they want, it means that we each should do what we must as our own social responsibility.

Most proposals that are presented to the Global Fund haven’t lacked technical assistance to prepare them. But what is not always achieved is the consistency of multiple factors that need to be effective, for example, on the raising awareness with regards to PLWH (or those affected by other diseases), education, training of different personnel, and the influence in the behavioral change in the mass media, among others, regarding HIV/AIDS; or others related to TB and malaria.
 
I do not have the solutions to remedy this, as the actors vary from country to country, but we need to keep thinking about this issue and employing all methods available to consider these matters.
 
I do not think that there should be additional requirements for CCMs to access projects and the performance of such projects, because in many cases we would be setting limits to those that do not have the support but have the strength and will to work; they can cover good ground and raise awareness in the society.
 
Regards,
 

Mirta Villanueva.

 

[See original post in Spanish]

Global fund has done a lot to help curb Global problem such as HIV/AIDS Malaria Tuberculoses and other .but still there is more room for Improvement because their aim and objectives have not been fully met. The reasons are as follows:     Poor infrastructure in most Africa sub regions: This makes campaign to  the remote areas very difficult due to poor road and communication Networks. Illiteracy is another factor because asses to good education is dormant in Africa sub region . Therefore if there is access  to their problem, they may not know.  The few learned people exploit them by using the available funds to suit their own interest after few advert has been made. In adequate internal fund for private participation : Private sector is the engine for growth in every nation therefore if private sector fail to participate in a program of national interest achievement becomes questionable Also perception  of people as regard to the disease in question. In Africa if one contract disease such as HIV/AIDS people fear to be around him or her thinking that they may be infected.  Affected people are not respected because people  think that it is their evil doing that has served them right . These perception did not create good atmosphere for people to be tested voluntary. Complexity of private sector to have asses to GF: To qualify for GF takes a long bureaucratic procedure e.g. from Proposal to the last task which frustrate applicant committed to promote education on HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and Tuberculosis .  The chance rest in the hands of the government  who sometimes diversify the funds to solved economic problems. To end it all poverty, sanitation problems, environmental pollution, wars and lack of medicine to treat HIV/AIDS patient are the additional major hindrance to scale up programs such as HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and Tuberculosis  .

Thank you Cotienoo for sharing your points of view and recommendations in the e-Forum.

From your point of view are there any of Global Fund processes that are preventing the CCM to handle these effectively? What aspects of the processes do you think that could make them more inclusive? We look forward to hearing from you and other members of the forum.

We would also like to share with you the contribution from Beatrice, from Tanzania that we received by e-mail. We encourage members to post their contributions directly online.

Thank you,

Marcela.
e-Forum Facilitator

CCMs are not Independent Entities that maintain rational decisions in pushing the country forward. Many actors and especially the group that is committed to save the grassroots/ households/community and use the results to advocate for policy changes are shut down in the program development process.

Synergy building in addressing health issues does not exist. Every actor is looking for independent money for addressing community problems without looking into what other actors on what they can contribute in the problem that is being addressed.

In Africa the community is vulnerable to the three diseases .However because of the vertical/single handed approaches a lot of resources are wasted. Much more could have been done by a single actor in addressing households/community problems if an integrated approach could be used in addressing the three life threatening diseases.

I have not observed a single Forum where Program designers/ Implementing partners have a joint forum to learn on who is doing what and where and discuss on common problems that they can share in addressing  health issues.

Global Fund is becoming a resource  for the fittest. Genuine and Strong actors like NGOs/CBOs/FBOs are left out of the big game. Due to this problem the resource that reaches the needy has remained too small and for that matter limited results and competencies will be achieved in the short run if things won’t change.

Again in Africa Malaria is the most life threatening disease .This disease can be eliminated with the current existing tools. Most HIV/Aids/, Tuberculosis patients/children/pregnant women are loosing life prematurely because our efforts have been directed in addressing issue which may have no immediate results. With Malaria we can eliminate it this year if we decide to do so and save many lives. The HIV/Aids patients will live longer without malaria.

May I propose that countries(MOH)  inform all the public/project developers & implementers the gaps that they want to be addressed and allow the interested parties in country to develop proposals that are  addressing those gaps and forward them directly to GF. The GF should then look for an avenue to link on CCMs on the proposal the TR sees viable. This will increase the country based innovations by different actors in addressing issues/gaps that exists in their countries and scale up from genuine results.

The Condition of all country proposals to pass through CCMs which are biased block the scaling up initiatives.

Regards
Beatrice.

Click here to read the introduction to this theme
 

What aspects of the Global Fund’s current processes for accessing funding are preventing adequate scale-up to address the needs?
 

Your answer could include (but does not have to be limited to): Global Fund processes such as: the Rounds’ driven approach to applying for funding [pdf 580kb]; the process of developing grant proposals; follow-on proposals; challenges related to reprogramming; confusion about Global Fund policies; Phase 2 [108kb] (continuation of funding), Rolling Continuation Channel [pdf 155kb] (RCC) and the capacity of the CCM to manage these processes.