Hi dear all,
I'm quite happy to read the draft on Gender Equality Strategy of the GF while the issue is not at all easy to solve overnight and GF is not being the usual donor, still trying to address the issue pragmatically through the opportunity of combating 3-diseases. Moreover, GF financing is yet to experience a decade of programming however trying to improve the overall implementation what should be praiseworthy. The 5 Strategy are okay only let we keep remember that counting 'heads' (female or male) might not solve the root cause of gender related anomalies, otherwise, it is well articulated with certain values. My specific responses are as follows-
How can CCMs be encouraged to ensure meaningful representation of women with skills and voice amongst membership and leadership, including those from beyond the health sector?
CCM to be continually alert on the issue.
There quite good female officials in the existing structure and gradually they can be encouraged to be the member of CCM.
Appropriate and senior officials of the Ministry of Women and Social Affairs can be included as a mandatory-member of CCM; and similarly one senior gender expert from civil society can also be included.
How can the Global Fund build the capacity of CCMs so that gender equality issues are understood and appropriately managed within the proposal development process through access to high quality gender expertise?
Further detailing the proposal guidelines.
There can be a mandatory section where the CCM to write the “gender-analysis of epidemic” and probable measures to over come the root causes.
Or,
Gender-analysis of the epidemic and review 3-4 underlying main causes of gender inequalities in relation with the 3-diseases, and at least address one major issue in the proposal.
Introduction of self-scoring gender-evaluation sheet/format that has to be filled in by the CCM and has to reflect the gender sensitivity score in the proposal. (Format/Guidelines will be required). There could be some criteria that certain score to be attained (say 75%).
Training/orientation of the CCM.
Support CCM with gender-expert during proposal development phase.
Should gender and age disaggregated data be required in the epidemiological background provided by applicants in proposals to the Global Fund??
Yes, indeed. And GF might facilitate such reporting keeping other relevant global partners on the board. Operational researches can be done in different country within the existing funding to get better mechanisms.
How should the Global Fund ensure that the TRP is appropriately resourced with recognized gender expertise?
The full-information on the issue to the TRP members might be helpful. However, Info-sheet, fact-sheet kind of thing may be more helpful for the TRP members. Like, regional gender inequality info-sheet with examples of good practices.
Continue scoring the proposal on the basis of gender equality (‘mock TRP’); or formal introduction of gender-scoring sheet for the TRP.
Should the TRP review criteria be revised to put more emphasis on gender equality elements of programs and interventions?
Yes.
What should be the consequences for a proposal that does not sufficiently address gender, but in all other respects is ‘technically sound’?
Return to the concern country for re-submission (TRP can be flexible about the time-line).
What gender equality service delivery areas should become available for Global Fund grants (e.g. gender-based violence, micro-finance etc)?
Number one priority can be the micro-finance, and then any thing else. Since, this might lead to overall empowerment of the women what might minimize gender-based violence and other disparity considerably.
Should the Global Fund require reporting of sex and age disaggregated data for its key indicators?
Yes.
How can country reporting systems be best supported to include better gender and age evaluation and analysis (role of partners, evaluations, and operational research agenda)?
UNAIDS and GF to support the issue jointly.
Should the Board provide an extra funding line for countries to access at Phase 2 in order to improve the gender equality orientation of existing grants?
Indeed YES, late is better than never.
Are there mechanisms other than MOUs and agreements with which to hold partners accountable for their role in supporting programs that address gender inequalities in Global Fund grants?
Continue to work closely and also try to fulfill other global partners’ mandate on gender equality as much as possible within the framework of GF, this might automatically better responses by other partners beyond the MoU.
Thnak you very much.
Ali