Mar 28, 2006

Key Contents from the English forum: Week 10

Question: What parts of the Global Fund’s financing model (including the rounds system and the Comprehensive Funding Policy) and the Global Fund’s architecture (including CCMs, PRs, LFAs and the TRP) might need to be examined to reduce transaction costs and improve coordination with global and local partners?

Lead Contributors

Mina (Switzerland), Alliance2015_DWHH, (Germany), Pascalina Chanda (Zambia), Vanessa Marenco (DC, USA), Sammi Fredenburg (WA, USA), Joseph Stephen Mambo(Tanzania), Mohammed Saka Jimoh (Nigeria) , Timothy Mbugua (Canada), Ogenke Makolam (Nigeria), Sudhakar Malpe (Mumbai, India), Saiki Shegun (Nigeria), Bhava Narayana (Hyderabad, India), Pinaki Mukherjee (Kolkata, India), Mohamed Ould Bneijara (Mauritania), Souleymane Traore (Ivory Coast), Athanase Loshima, Birindwa Nkafu'esheba, Ricardo Maidana (Argentina), I Allende (Paraguay), Diego Postigo (Spain), Miryan Espinola (Spain), Samad (Russia), Azamat (Kyrgyzstan


1. Within the Global Fund’s architecture, the CCM’s initial processes need to be made more efficient, transparent, less bureaucratic and accountable. Proposed solutions are: capacity building and definition of roles and mandates e.g. between the CCM and PRs, between the Ministry of Health and CCM.

2. On the Comprehensive Funding Policy, http://forum.theglobalfund.org/en/viewtopic.php?t=78 , in the first week there was a proposal to amend paragraph 3 to reduce the 5 year duration of each approved proposal hence ensure wider population coverage and avoid exclusivity in number of differentiated organizations funded- however there was a counter argument, that one of the Global Fund’s unique advantages is its approval of proposals for 5 years, hence ensuring attainability of impact for HIV/AIDS programmes. There was a suggestion for even longer term planning cycles: 10 years. This week, a few suggestions were proposed that could reduce the disadvantages noted in paragraphs 3, 7 and 8:

i.) Explore the possibility of establishing differentiated funding mechanisms, e.g. the Cotonou EDF A and B envelopes (The B envelope funding enables the EU to allocate funds more directly without going through the national governments, if there is lack of performance, e.g. in crisis and post-crisis countries.)

ii.) Set up an account to fund "pre-investment" activities including good planning processes, enabling local partners to cooperate in assessing needs, gaps, stakeholder response capacity, and explore accountable, simple and alternative funds management arrangements in countries or regions.

(iii) Invest in systems development that links all stakeholders,

(iv) Institute a rapid response mechanism to address bottlenecks and reduce delays.

3. There is need to balance accountability and efficiency while reducing transaction costs during implementation: The Global Fund could learn from other organizations, and adopt their models. These organizations include: United Way, whose model includes leading organizations who ‘Donate’ leaders and communities take charge of projects. Other organizations to learn from include Packard, Mc Arthur, Ford, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundations, and the Micro-Enterprise Cluster Development Programmes (MECDP).

4. The Global Fund should develop a financing system that will ensure effective reach / population coverage at the local levels using credible and capable civil society organizations including grassroots and non-governmental organizations to deliver health products and implement programs.

5. LFA’s could be established / selected based on competence and efficient management, so that inefficient bureaucracies are weaned if they do not meet objectives.

6. The Global Fund should decentralize program operations and administration to country levels with the headquarters acting as a back stop for regional or country implementation. Storm analysis of line item activities e.g. advocacy, legislature, service delivery could be done at HQ.

7. The e- forum can continuously be used as a feed back mechanism for GF activities, institutional capacity building and research.


Other language forums:

8. The Global Fund is a structure which aims to ensure the implementation and control of processes. And within this structure operates the mechanism of “people’s control”. It is only necessary to consolidate its positive achievements.

9. In order to achieve efficiency in the implementation of the announced targets, a flexible, opportune and transparent management is required. In the existing situation an efficient model may only evolve with time, and not be expected to appear suddenly. However, the Global Fund structure seems to be complex, a factor which, according to one participant, inhibits the formation of an efficient model.

10. Field knowledge and transparecy: The Global fund should review its regional structures. The success of projects largely depends on transparency in local representation and in choice of NGOs. Civil Society has been weakened by inadequacy the of their engagement at all programme leadership levels.

11. Accountability: It is not enough for the Global Fund to simply increase the amount of funding available to Civil Society; it should also implant efficient accountability structures to monitor not only the use of funds and the results achieved, but also the efficiency of personnel.

Thank You All !!
---------------------------

To read and respond to the current question, please click on the link below:

http://forum.theglobalfund.org/en/viewtopic.php?t=85