Apr 10, 2006

What should the Global Fund do to address the issues raised by grants coming to the natural end of their Phase 2 funding?

Lead Contributors:

Caroline (Switzerland), Indra Vythilingam (Malaysia), Basil Kransdorff, Pascalina Chanda (Zambia), Pinaki Mukherjee (Kolkata, India), Sisa Njikelana (South Africa) , Joseph Stephen Mambo (Tanzania), Rishi (UK), Ada B. (Ghana), Sammi Fredenburg (WA, USA), Njei Moses Timah (Cameroon), Jumoke Owoola (Nigeria), Vinod J, Saka Mohammed Jimoh (Nigeria), Amadou Galo (Gambia), Darren Fast (Canada), Oge Franklyn Nkemakolam (Owerri, Nigeria), Tarig Dafallah (Sudan), N Brunet, Remy Rohadian (Indonesia), Rachel Odede (Indonesia),, Firdosi Mehta (Indonesia), Firman Lubis (Indonesia), Jane Wilson (Indonesia).
French Forum: Dalil Adji (Chad), Adel Zeddam, Flavie Critie, Peter Kimbondo (Congo DR), Schombe Badouin;
Spanish Forum: Alfredo Mejia, Julio Aguilera, Alberto Colorado (CA, USA), Maria van der Linde (Peru);
Russian Forum: Gennady Roshchupkin (Russia), Viktoria (Russia), Samad (Russia).

An overwhelming number of participants focused on the need to assess the performance of individual grants in order to reward, withdraw funds or learn lessons from projects depending upon their outcomes. A few participants offered suggestions on solving specific issues raised by Phase 2 grants that are coming to the natural end of their funding cycle:

1.) The Global Fund should assess the total outcome of the grant/ programme to ascertain if significant progress was made (including general socio-economic progress within beneficiary populations, where appropriate). Partners should be categorized based on performance. If objectives were achieved, the CCM should be invited to propose again, with a view to further develop progress made. Where all funds were not disbursed the country should have the opportunity to present a proposal to acquire and absorb the outstanding funds to further their programme(s).
2.) If progress report is negative, funding should be stopped & transferred to other focus areas, unless very good reasons beyond the control of implementers exist to explain failure. Fostering accountability in the use of public funds acts as a lesson to others, & assures donors. An international standardization mechanism e.g. a ‘Global Health Fund ISO’ or audit team should be instituted to assess and promote progress continuously.
3.) The Fund should view these countries and grants as case studies or best practice models and learn lessons to build future grant mechanisms. They could provide input and "assistance" to new countries seeking funding, scale-ups or replication. Lessons could be learned in dealing with health systems, management capacities, stakeholder participation, political climate, and corruption.
4.) Donor Partners should be made to honour their pledges on time to ensure timely disbursement of funds. A common plan of action by donors, taking on board the needs of target countries needs to be put in place. It is also necessary to strengthen the spirit of ownership and partnership to ensure the sustainable funding of ongoing programmes and interventions. Move ahead to phase 3 and conduct assessments annually from now on.
5.) While implementers e.g. NGOs are delivering on the ground, they need to continually receive funding to develop local capacity and skills, and to ensure that management structures and capacity can be developed on a sustainable basis. A ‘STOP START’ approach where the funding comes to an end destroys capacity and ability to sustain delivery since management skills are blunted. Funding could be in the form of capital injections e.g. for 5 years after which the capital can be returned to the Global Fund or renewed for a further 5 years. What the local NGO would then receive would be the interest on the capital amount. Advantages of this system include the development of local sustainable solutions, hence local economies, and individual plus institutional capacity building. Disadvantages of this could be partly reduced by developing hybrid funding systems e.g. between current and proposed funding systems.
6.) Continue funding original PRs and build in systems that encourage them to network and pass-on their experience to others. Engage more grassroots organizations and People Living with HIV/AIDS in grant implementation.

From the Russian Forum:

In this week the participants’ discussion was dedicated to the involvement of the PLWA community at stage of the Phase 2 of Projects and NGOs with a non-medical “Mission”, but with rich professional experience in solving other social problems.

1. The Phase 2 of the projects, which are about to begin soon, must be dedicated, to a considerable extent, to the development of the PLWA community. Those people who suffer direct damage from the plague are the most interested sector in increasing the efficiency of resistance to the plague. E.g., according to the opinion of a participant from Russia (Gennady), if account is taken of the Russian and other NGOs on the territory of the former USSR, only 1 per cent of NGOs have been created under the initiative of PLWA.

In order to motivate PLWA it is necessary to involve them in the activities. The problem is that some organizations speak about the importance of solving the issues of reacting to with HIV/AIDS, but ignore the problem itself.

2. There is no sense in speaking about the feasibility of settling the issue of the three diseases without the participation of NGOs and the civil society. It is possible to invest huge financial resources, but they will not make any effect in the fight without a properly constructed model and management. It is necessary to also attract those NGOs which are dealing with not only medical issues, but other social problems as well. According to the opinion of another participant from Russia (Samad), 60% of labour efficiency in fighting the three diseases has to be ensured by that part of the civil society which has a non-medical “Mission”, but possesses wide professional experience in solving other social problems. This is especially important for the former Socialistic counties and Russia with its huge social and territorial ranges.
----

To continue to this week's discussion, please click on the link below:

http://forum.theglobalfund.org/en/viewtopic.php?t=104

Thank you all.