PartnersGF - 2005-03-01 

[partnersgf] Global Fund project in Honduras may be eliminated (4-5)
*******************

[Mods Note: The following two messages are in response to yesterday’s posting questioning the basis for the possible elimination of the Global Fund program in Honduras after two years of operation. (You can read the original posting and responses to it by clicking here http://eforums.healthdev.org/read/?forum=partnersgf).
Although the latest news on the Honduran case is that the Global Fund secretariat has reversed their recommendation to stop the project, we can use this opportunity to learn more about the criteria used by the fund to gauge ‘poor implementation’. Therefore, as per Dr. Stern’s comments (below), we would like to ask members of the Global Fund Secretariat and Board for their input on the criteria used to measure quality of implementation of a Global Fund project.]
**************

4. Simon Muchiru

As someone who has been involved in the development and operationalisation of the Botswana Global Fund proposal from the beginning, I offer the following input.

Poor implementation could mean several things. First: implementing activities that do not help to achieve identified and agreed performance indicators. Secondly, poor utilization of resources. This could mean failing to use the resources or using resources wastefully. Thirdly, lack of participation by those organisations both government and civil society organisations that were intended to be active partners. Fourthly, poor integration (where applicable) in existing programme activities. We should remember that the Global Fund aims to fill existing strategic gaps in on going national HIV/AIDS responses. And, finally, lack of or inability to remain focused.

Hope this helps.

Simon Muchiru
Director
Oakwood and Associates Consultants
smuchiru@botsnet.bw

*********************

5. Richard Stern

It is important to note that the issue of "poor implementation" is an issue that was defined and described by the Global Fund Secretariat during their evaluation of the Honduras project last October. They have these documents which refer to this evaluation, but Civil Society does not.

So my suggestion would be that the Partners Forum ask the Secretariat to define "poor implementation" which indeed might be very important for other projects as well.

(The good news about Honduras is that the Secretariat has reversed their recommendation to close the project, based on information forwarded from the MCP and PR, and will reevaluate the initial evaluation. No doubt, pressure from Civil Society also played a role in this, especially around the implications of canceling a project where 2,500 are receiving ARVs. As of this moment, however, the Honduras project is no longer cancelled although a review is continuing, but hopefully the results will be positive).

Sincerely,
Richard Stern
rastern@racsa.co.cr