Mar 06, 2006

What other ways could or should the Global Fund consider, to increase and make more effective its global work with Civil Society (NGOs, CBOs, etc.) and the Private Sector (businesses and foundations)?

What other ways, that are consistent with the Global Fund's mission and its raison d’etre as a financing mechanism, should/could the Global Fund explore to work more effectively with Civil Society and the Private Sector?

Currently the Global Fund depends a great deal upon the support and goodwill of Civil Society and the Private Sector globally especially around:
• Advocacy and resource mobilization for the Global Fund - primarily this involves the Fund in providing information, clarifying resource needs and facilitating, where possible, a broad common platform for advocacy
• Supporting specific issues for example, supporting the inclusion of Orphans and Vulnerable Children in country priorities through liaison on proposal guidelines, etc.
• Advocating for broad-based support by donors and recipient country governments to both the Global Fund and to Civil Society and Private Sector efforts for their increased and effective involvement in Global Fund processes.

It would also be helpful to understand ways in which the current approach / activities can be improved.

hicham9669 - Mar 12, 2006

Hi,

Getting to know the experiences of the others will greatly help and save time and energy. And you may agree with me too that collaboration will make results powerful.

The same question was asked in a questionaire made by Global Call Against Poverty. If the Global Fund collaborates with this organisation, this will help. The result of the survey is published, so interested people may contact this link below to ask for the result.

info@whiteband.org

Here is the site too http://www.whiteband.org/

Hicham FILALI ZEHRI

Tshering - Mar 12, 2006

Let me start with this phrase: “Health is everybody’s business” So, it is essential to work in cooperation with the government, all forms of NGOs (Big International NGOs [BINGOs], Local NGOs [LNGOs], Government –Run NGOs [GRINGO], Commercial NGOs – set up by business [CONGO] ), private sectors to religious faith group. It is important to understand and acknowledge: who and which kinds of group are more influential in the country – could be faith groups, government or NGOs. The countries where better understandings of partnership and good leadership have managed to save and promote health and wellbeing of their people. For example, Uganda and Senegal where government team-up with NGOs and International donors managed to reduce HIV prevalence dramatically over the short period of time. In many countries there are more tension between government and NGOs and other stakeholders. There is great need of communal responsibility rather than competing with each other. For example: the government and NGOs are competing for same funds to fight the same disease of the same group of people.

I do get feeling that many haven’t understood what NGOs and civil societies are all about. In many country NGOs have become a source of income generation - best and easiest way to earn money rather than for humanitarian propose. People still believe and act as if NGOs are anti-government rather than necessary to government for overall devolvement of the nation. NGOs are there to fill the gaps where government are weaker and couldn’t reach the population rather than being a substitute for the public services. In developing countries every day there are new NGOs are registering (to-date 11,000 NGOs are registered in Nepal) and their income source and resource are foreign donors – and wait till funds come through, if funds stop they stop their work too – “SORRY FUNDING STOPS” what an easy excuse to leave vulnerable groups – making them more vulnerable to the disease and to the situation.

I strongly support the GF to fund those projects and NGOs who are really working for the people and being a voice for the people not only to lobby international donors but to the government to change policy too. There are several cases that NGOs have been a cause for brain drain for several professionals in developing countries for high salaries, benefits, luxuries to latest designed cars, and latest design buildings. I am not saying all these are bad but there is a great need to check and balance policy as several times money is not really going to the people who really in need it.

I am sure the GF has its own criteria for funding projects- however, the Funds should focus on sustainability of the project and creating partnership within the country and internationally.

Thanks

Tshering

alina_pawlowska - Mar 10, 2006

I revised the participants list at the regional meeting last December. There was an impressive number of delegates, but not many CSO's reps. I have particularly missed reps from women, students, youth associations faith orgs and trade unions. There are quite a few of those in any Independent State. They might not be in image of western associations, but it doesn't mean you can't work with. The GF might want to carry out with help from CCMs an information survey what CSO's are out there. You need a large information base first, then to incorporate it into coutries action plans. The extension of CCMs membership is a priority, but deadlines to achieve it are definitely over-optimistic. Three to six months are not enough to bring up CSOs to work together. Good luck to all working in the region.
_________________
Alina Pawlowska

Dr. Saka Mohammed Jimoh - Mar 10, 2006

In the process of implementation, at the intial stage of proposal developmet steps to funding, I suggest for review of the steps to reduce cost and effort. Also according to my experence having a good proposal does not traslate to doing well in the filed, why must there be an option for appeals?.

I will suggest GF incooporate fact finding missions at first stage prior to proposal developmet and grants, by this it is assumed the foundation is well laid.
_________________
Dr. Saka Mohammed Jimoh

steve knowles - Mar 09, 2006

The fund should make more use of the infrastructure which the private sector can provide for projects. The private sector ( especially in remote areas) can provide facilities such as accommodation, lab, communications etc at no real costs to themselves. In fact , in return for research and community information about the area in which they operate, or the supply of material for the project, the private sector could be a partner in suppling the infrastructure, support services and labour.
Private sector companies have highly skilled, experienced project management teams, used to operating in remote areas, and through their finance and auditing systems, the private sector can also implement the nessessary checks and balances, which so often derail projects.
_________________
Steve Knowles
Manager: Malaria Programme
AngloGold Ashanti
Obuasi, Ghana
Tel: (0233) 582 40407 Ext 1745
Mobile: +233 (0)243710871
E-mail: sknowles@anglogoldashanti.com.gh

barry coleman - Mar 09, 2006

The Global Fund is by no means alone in finding it difficult to identify partners who can be more-or-less relied upon to produce an effective (and cost-effective) outcome. There are some perfectly proper reasons for this -- among them is that we work in a field of deprivation and despair and the natural human response of wishing to help is not always allied to a real and lasting capacity to do so. And failure, where the motivation is simply human good will and human decency, is not seriously accountable. So historically we have created a very confusing situation, one in which mistrust and doubt (in the nicest possible way) are dominating features.

I suggest we think about encouraging people (the UN?, someone) to create a harsh but effective 'due diligence' process akin to the sort of thing used in the private sector when takeovers and mergers are taking place. When millions, maybe billions of somebody else's money is involved, people tend a)to ask very hard questions and b)have pretty reliable techniques for making sure they are getting the right answers. This by the way is because theft, fraud and misleading statements about performance are by no means unheard of. Far from it -- hence the whole due diligence process.

There is a process in development that mimics due diligence but it tends to be weak, paper-heavy and to miss the point. I think experts should be appointed from the private sector, briefed to produce a system that will work in development and then commissioned to get on with it. It wouldn't produce a perfect result but it might take a lot of the doubt and mistrust out of the way we do it now. The upshot would not only be that bodies like GF escape bad investment -- they would also find good but probably unexpected new ones. Thus, they would be able to work effectively with civil society bodies and the private sector while applying the same standards and the same expectations to both.

Barry Coleman



Moderator: The Global Fund appreciates the immense efforts that its partners have put in the implementation process and in support of its activities. This week's question simply seeks to find suggestions for improving the effectiveness of the implementation process, by brainstorming together on innovative or other ways in which the Global Fund, civil society and private sector may collaborate even more effectively.

The Global Fund has been relying on Local Funding Agents, who for the most part are leaders in their field, from the private sector, to perform financial audits for its grants. This is besides most of the technical auditing which every potential project undergoes, with the help of the CCM as a whole and Civil Society. For more on the Global Fund's proposals process, please click here:

http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/apply/proposals/

This week's question therefore reflects an attempt to improve a functioning system , i.e. 'tweak' or 'fine tune' a functioning system, rather than a corrective measure. We thank you all for your very insightful remarks, and encourage you to continue exchanging your perceptive messages, through which we are benefiting a great deal.

Dr. Saka Mohammed Jimoh - Mar 09, 2006

I agree to this parthnership with drug manufactring companies including drug regulatory agencies in a focal area.

It is also good to partner with service delivery (servicom) for improved quality service delivery not only for HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria. This service delivery partnership will be linked to performace indictors.

In any way GF should not forget community coalition for grass root service dlivery.
_________________
Dr. Saka Mohammed Jimoh

Darren Fast - Mar 09, 2006

I think as part of the solution, the Global Fund should encourage and support the private sector solutions to disease treatment. This could take the form of helping get locally run private clinics off the ground which could be (if appropriately structured), an economic engine for some of the poorer areas. In addition, perhaps it is time for some of the manufacture of drug products to occur close to areas hardest hit by disease. This again, would have the benefit of being an economic driver for the regions and could lead to development of new industries in these regions which would provide hope and many new jobs for the regions, thus providing the means to ensure avoidance of disease sources rather than trying to treat the diseases that have already occured. This would both the importance and availability of education and provide many economic spinoffs. I agree with some of the previous posters who indicated that the private sector may have more credibility and can move more quickly than government organizations.

Darren Fast, Ph.D.
dfast@solalta.com
www.solalta.com

Njei Moses Timah - Mar 08, 2006

In countries where corruption is endemic, the Global Fund should consider distancing herself from government bureaucrats and work more with the private sector. This can be done by negotiating with the government of a recipient country to waive taxes on the non-profit services rendered by a chosen private sector company. A nominal service fee paid to a private- sector company to efficiently handle the services of the Global Fund is less expensive in the long run compared to letting corrupt state bureaucrats participate in running the show for 'free'.
_________________
Njei Moses Timah
P.O Box 1443, Douala, Cameroon
Tel (237) 776 1918
Visit My website at:
http://www.njeitimah-outlook.com

Dr. Saka Mohammed Jimoh - Mar 08, 2006

The Global Fund has performed a lot of its work with Civil society organisations (CSOs) and private sectors; improvement will come by responding to challenges it faces with these organisations.

GF role with CSOs could be better be in the area of organisation capacity assessment (OCA), an initial and important step to identfy any cedible CSOs, NGOs to implement program activities. Observation has shown that most projects failed because of the incopetence of CSOs.

GF can be more effective in its global work in the area of Strengthening or creating enabling environments for projects in all project sites. This includes but is not limited to advocacy, community linkages, upgrading service delivery centers and establishment of project advisory committees.

Expanded demand ( expanded access?) for improved services is another area: what can GF do to create more demand during specific popular events, festivals, ceremonies, through the use of BCC/ and other communication strategies including adoption of marketing strategies?
_________________
Dr. Saka Mohammed Jimoh

bilal hasan - Mar 07, 2006

This is my first reply; please forgive me in case of any unawareness/backdated answer. I think any international network / organization / platform may be more effective in order to benefit target group / population etc by adopting the below approaches in any developing country:

-Direct linkages with NGOs/CBOs/private sector without or with little involvement of respective governments.

-Needs and general assessments of contracted organizations by considering domestic scenario and culture.

-Direct funding for potential programs/projects//initiatives with criteria that are easy (to meet); only make sure of appropriation of objectives, required results and impacts.

Sammi Fredenburg - Mar 07, 2006

Quoting ''Jerry": ''Orphans with HIV are discriminated and have no opportunities in Education for economic liberty.''


Seems I'm reading quite a bit lately of the lack of value placed on children in a number of countries, the sexual and myriad other abuses that are accepted as a norm by the local population. The abuses of women have long been noted and lately occasions such as the Brazil carnival and other venues are being used to channel these concerns, especially to the west. The response from many westerners is disturbing due to presuppositions that children and people in general in these countries practice and enjoy the same rights and freedoms that we do.

Possibly, campaigning, education or lobbying on behalf of those that are relegated to the lower societal classes may be something to address? Especially now with the commercial infusion of items from (red) and rock artists using their platforms for the plight of the affected nations, maybe it's time to expose more and more the injustices and travesties, and to bring fresh perspective on the value of every human being no matter where they live and their age. Bono and U2 have used their venues to bring these issues to the forefront of their audiences, and that is awesome. Maybe global health is more than medicine, but mental and social health perspectives as well.

Thank You,
Sammi Fredenburg

Jerry - Mar 07, 2006

The Post-HIV affects to society must be linked to long term sustainable models in Education, Training, Public Health Management and Nutrition.

Orphans with HIV are discriminated and have no opportunities in Education for economic liberty.

The Civil Society and the Private Sectors must contribute to the Sustainability.

 Mar 07, 2006

Message by Neeta Mahanti,

It is encouraging to note that; the Global Fund has included the "Special Support to orphans and vulnerable children in country priorities through liaison on Proposal Guidelines". We very strongly feel that this clause should also include Primary Funding, for atleast three to five years for such projects in country priority basis. We look forward to participating in this process with the Global Fund Forum.

Neeti Mahanti

Moderator: Just to clarify, the phrase: ''"Special Support to orphans and vulnerable children in country priorities through liaison on Proposal Guidelines," illustrates just one way in which the Civil Society has supported Global Fund processes and work in the past.