To improve the way in which the Global Fund does its business and implements its programs, it needs to do 2 key things of which I am aware.

1) It must listen to the Manager of its own Malaria program, Mark Grabowsky; and

2) adhere to its own policies which recognize that the Global Fund, as its own webpage indicates, must sometimes “transform its policies and procedures to ensure that its processes are genuinely being effective”.

(above quote was copied from http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/files/publications/civilsociety/AnEvolvingPartnership_en.pdf)  

Although the Global Fund uniquely has a “country-based” approach to solving the illnesses it has targeted, there are instances where a “country-based” approach simply does not work. Gathering data on malaria, its extent and whether approaches of the Global Fund to implement programs to combat it are effective is one that does NOT work with a “country-based” approach. In fact, as the Global Fund’s own Malaria Manager has written in Nature magazine, in the February 2008 issue, unless some organization comes up with $10 million dollars annually, the BILLION DOLLAR ANTI-MALARIA EFFORT IS FLYING BLIND AND IS BEING WASTED. Here is the direct quote from the Global Fund’s Malaria Manager copied from the Nature Magazine:

"a country-based approach by itself is neither technically nor financially appropriate. There must also be regional laboratory networks that support country efforts, apply standardized monitoring techniques, rapidly share findings and manage coordinated responses. This is particularly essential for monitoring drug quality. It would cost about $10 million annually to get useful, monthly, surveillance data and to support regional monitoring, laboratory and surveillance networks. Without it the billion-dollar malaria effort is flying blind." (Copied from NATURE|Vol 451|28 February 2008,at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7182/full/4511051a.html).  

Can anyone tell me why the Global Fund hasn’t already changed its policy and spent some of the enormous amounts of cash (just $10 million annually) that it already has on hand to fight Malaria so that the whole effort is not flying blind?? After all, the Global Fund IS admittedly:

“the world’s largest external source of finance for malaria control programs” (copied from www.theglobalfund.org/en/files/malaria_information_sheet_en.pdf).

Why isn’t the Global Fund already bending it’s country-based approach in this circumstance where the need is so obvious that the Global Fund’s manager is the one telling the world about it, and where the Global Fund’s failure to make this exception makes its entire anti-malaria effort FLY BLIND? How silly is it that the world’s largest external source of finance for malaria control programs actually has to put out a plea to others for a $10 million dollar annual sum when they’re the ones with all the money?

Nobody can manage anything BLIND, in the dark, without sufficient data. So in short, I ask that the Global Fund listen to its own Malaria Manager and transform its country-wide policy for this one instance where not to do so means the rest of its Malaria efforts cannot be implemented effectively – because, as its own manager points out, they are now being implemented in the dark, blindly.

Dear Sir,

First of all thank you very much for sending me the mail in the regard of sharing ideas and experiences. I belong to poor and developing country that’s why called third world.

In my opinion, Global fund should (must) have to rethink about third world in compared to developed country for smoothly conduction of country program (designing and planning and formation of CCM as well.)

There is always centralized opinion and ideas within the country level so it must be decentralized and CCM should be consist of regional(province)representatives. So program should be offered on the basis of all interested and concerned representation.

Program staffs, (not only finance staffs) should be exposed in the exhibitions (inside and outside country)from PRs. And program must be planned in team approach. And every Program staffs must be trained capacity build)with their ownership and GFATM can provide feedbacks to the PRs in this regard.

On the basis of practical experiences it is felt that some of the finance staffs are making plans themselves (In country Nepal)-PR1. They are not consulting program staffs but even not having ownership, program staffs have to justify the program which they didn’t build in team. Finance staffs are themselves reviewing and sending the program that’s why it is felt difficulty to monitor in each program smoothly.

Regarding LFA:

It is very much important issue that LFA should be highly understood of Country program, or if his role is only disbursement of budget, he should be limit up to lilitation otherwise LFA must be independent program person (selection of LFA)and he may recruit the need base account staffs as per requirement so that it would be easy to monitor the program and finance both by LFA if it is urgent and necessary otherwise there is always gap that some program person (PR1) will play by using LFA's name who are reviewing all programs themselves and taking their whole ownership themselves and influencing the government Program managers by their own views in the closure plans to play easily. I think GFATM must rethink on it.

Otherwise in this context, some of the finance officers can influence the LFA who doesn’t have program knowledge and are stopping budget in the trimester time so it is difficult to achieve the target in time. Some finance officer have their own interest. And they are using the name of LFA and he will stop the budget.

So it is serious issue that GFATM should monitor that the national program is being made by existing program staffs or not who have been selected as a national experts. And program staffs should be given ownership and decisive power to implement needed base implementation.

Thank you very much. If you provide me more chance I will keep writing you.

Sincerely,

Manoj.

Read the introduction to this topic

Your answer could include (but does not have to be limited to): roles and functions of the Global Fund in-country structures (Country Coordinating Mechanisms, Principal Recipients, Sub Recipients, Local Fund Agents) and other partners should play; Global Fund processes; other existing mechanisms that fulfill similar functions to the Global Fund CCM model; ongoing reviews and reporting mechanisms; requirements to receive funding after a grant agreement has been signed; transparency of information; among others.

Reference material:

• How the Global Fund Works
• Guidelines on the Purpose, Structure, Composition and Funding of Country Coordinating Mechanisms and Requirements for Grant Eligibility (See page 8)