09-06-2008 2:20 AM
|
-
Fenna E. Bacchus
 -
Kenya
Not currently affiliated with the Global Fund
- Posts 147
|
Re: Week 3: Civil society participation in proposal development
Sir,
Sir, I commend you on the eloquency of speech and oratory skills. I now you have the best of intent and sincerity and I commend you for that. I can follow your content but feel you are not reaching over 95% of the audience that can benefit from your submission. My experiences have been that those words "fly over the simple man's or woman's head" and end up not grasping what you wish to communicate. There are very few university professors on this e-forum and it they are around. they have learnt that there is a way to reach your audience and effectively communicate without letting anyone know how advanced their language skills are. This is most evident by the simplicity of their presentations.
Can you please break this down for participants that don't have the high level of advanced literacy and competencies that they can really understand what you are saying? Our mission should be to be inclusive and to communicate in such a way that all can benefit from the presentation. This is actually a critical measure that Civil society can participate in proposal development by being welcoming as a CCM represeted on this e-forum and to choose your words to attract the CBO and NGO' from India to be strongly represented on the e-forum. They are the ones to talk about you how effective you are as a CCM in getting them to be an integral part of the proposal development process. Sometimes we are perceived to "sound bookish" and more "idealism". It will show how well your people at the grassroots are reached. On this e-forum you may sound as the perfect one when it comes to submission but lets get real with the realities on the ground and attract our people. Let our CBOs and NGOs praise us for our simple way of presenting complex things so that they can speak of us as being the pillars that hold them up and we in turn we become the pillars of pride for them to lean on.
Thank you for allowing me to address this matter with you again.
Fenna E. Bacchus
|
|
|
09-05-2008 9:29 PM
|
-
dralabsi
 -
Yemen
Principal Recipient (PR)
- Posts 4
|
Re: Week 3: Civil society participation in proposal development
Its very important issue to involve Civil society(civil organisations or NGOs) in proposal development process.I think we need to do major efforts in order to build capacity building of these NGOs to be able to participate more effectively in the future.in case of Yemen,TB Proposal from our experience i can say sure that one of the Civil Societies had participated to some extent in the all steps of the proposal developmen process.We are expecting more collaboration and participation either during the performance or in new proposals development in the future. Dr Amin Al-Absi / Yemen NTCP / MOPH&P
|
|
|
09-05-2008 8:08 PM
|
-
Sanjeev Kumar
 -
India
Consultant
- Posts 9
|
Re: Week 3: Civil society participation in proposal development
Dear Forum members, I think the key word is "fair opportunity" to participate in the CCM proposal development process. It has to be seen at several different levels. In India atleast it is neither "fair" nor "opportunity". Yes, of course the process is there and also followed (for all record sake) but since nobody dares question the CCM (nee Government and Ministry) it is very obvious that they dictate the terms of participation and also select who can and should participate using and abusing the very same process. In india, till atleast round 3 there was no information on CSO participation in the bidding. I do not remember if there were any proposals invited or submitted by the civil society. From round 4 civil society has been made a partner in the process (fair or not, transparent or not one does not know.) Round 5 there was participation but nothing came of it. Round 6,round 7 and round 8 has been eye opender for the increasing game playing the CCM and the disease control ministries/departments have resorted to. Of course CSO always face a second class status in the camp of biggies of Ministries, UN partners and bilaterals. In R 8 India CCM has been not only unfair, non trasparent and partisan but also fradulent in favouring another ministry/department including UNAIDS and some bilaterals interests. The part played by CSOs (or given to CSOs) in proposal developmemnt is even minimal. the Capacity building of CSOs by CCM directly or through a TA process is very tokenistic. The process of screening, TRC, choosing the PR and SRs is highly loaded against CSOs. the dual tracking mechnism has also been manipulated so that the clearance is easy by including a CSO in the proposal when the real PR is the Ministry. Third, the participation and represnettaion of CSOs in the CCM is also manipulated either by getting the softer CSOs on board or even going to the shady process of getting the process manipulated to get their "candidate" who happening to be a CSO member on board. The information sharing and ensuring that the CSOs are given sufficient time and opportunity is small enough and yet complex enough so that they get rejected in the process filters. Last they even resort to pitchinh CSO pitch against each other so as to eliminate both sides. I think the way for GFATM for real, fair, transparent, opportunity for CSO partnership is to have a CCM sub committee that is constituted of Non UN, Bilaterals and No government representattives because the power equation between them a CSO is very unevenly balanaced against CSOs. Second, GFATM needs to build capacity of the CSOs to more effectively and practively participate in the proposal development process. More to come... thanks Dr Sanjeev Kumar Independent Consultant, New Delhi, India
Dear Forum,
Let me focus on what needs to be done in this situation where governments, CCM and biggies mutual admiration group of UN system, Bilaterals, International NGOs and Foundation are on one side and CSO are on another.
There are several steps and stages as far as proposal development is concerned, so let us see it one by one and see where CSO partnership can be made effective, fair, transparent, meaningful and open.
1. Pre announcement of GFATM round to be made more visible, accessible not only through formal advertisements and web annaouncements but also through database, e groups, and through partners agencies including UN, Bilaterals, Foundations, etc.
2. Capacity building workshops and orientation workshops by govt and GFATM facilitators should be more accessible and not remain closed and limited invitation events only.
3. The briefing of the focus of the proposed proposal thematic should be presented more seriously and by the top official of the disease control programme. The rationale and gap analysis done by the department must be presented as a paper/backgrounder. This should be available on all information platforms and channels for easy access and download. It must be made a prerequsite by GFTAM as a key qualifying criteria for the country proposal to be considered.
4. Usually the NGOs/CBOs do not have access to data and reports at the national level or sometime even the state levels and that becomes a detererent for them to come up with a rigrous proposition. the updated reports, documents and results should be made easily accessible.
5. The coordinator at CCM as well as the names of the nodal persons at the respective diease control programmes/deprtments and ministries should be made available to NGOs/CBOs, propspective applicants.
Dr Sanjeev KumarNew Delhi India
|
|
|
09-05-2008 5:04 PM
|
-
sharon
 -
Jamaica
Country Coordinating Mechanism (CCM)
- Posts 2
|
Re: Week 3: Civil society participation in proposal development
In my country, the CCM does make every effort to maximize participation among members of civil society. This is evident through the collective efforts on the part of the Secretariat to provide opportunities for involvement at the level of proposal development. Advertisements are placed in the print media to solicit wide-scale and representative participation in the National HIV/STI Programme. There are also regularly scheduled meetings of sub-committees and combined CCM meetings to discuss matters related to the prevention, treatment and care issues realting ot gender equality and gender roles, ethics, issues relating to stigma & discrimination and the creation of an enabling environment and universal access issues among variables. The extent of the participation of civil society can be measured in various ways to determine the effectiveness of the CCM. In my opinion, the interest levels need to heightened to increase participation as much more needs to be done to reduce the numbers of new HIV infections. Despite the considerable amount of work taking place, there is still the need to foster 'buy in' of those members of civil society that have not yet come on board. I would suggest that the Global Fund could package the product in an attractive way and offer incentives (not neccessarily of a monetary nature) to groups. The process of transparency through effective dissemination of information is very crucial as well as the issue of long-term sustainability should be treated a matter of urgency. Vigorous research on the link between gender, gender-based and the spread of HIV/AIDS is critical to the control of the spread of the virus. Comprehensive gender analyses are also critical to the success of the CCM and the efforts to combat HIV/AIDS globally.
|
|
|
09-05-2008 4:59 PM
|
-
Marcela Alejandra Rojo
-
Switzerland
Global Fund Secretariat
- Posts 187
|
Re: Week 3: Civil society participation in proposal development
 debbie_k:.... Working together, we can accomplish the goals of The Global Fund. AS ONE, debbie :) PS: If there is ever any way that I can help raise public support for The Global Fund in the USA. please contact me.
Hi Debbie,
thanks for your post and your recommendations.
Just wanted to give you a little information about Friends of the Global Fight, in the US:
Friends of the Global Fight Against AIDS, TB and Malaria is an advocacy organization dedicated to sustaining and expanding U.S. support for the Global Fund's life-saving work around the world.
Created in 2004 by Edward W. Scott, the late Jack Valenti, and Adam Waldman and led by Executive Director Natasha Bilimoria, Friends supports the Global Fund by raising awareness about its lifesaving work with policy leaders and decision makers in Washington, DC, as well as the media and the advocacy community. The goal of these efforts is to achieve both sustained governmental funding and meaningful public policy on the Global Fund and the three diseases.
Friends is the leading source of accurate, objective and timely information about the Global Fund in the United States. It rapidly addresses issues and concerns that have been raised about the Global Fund in the media and on Capitol Hill. Because of these actions, Friends has also helped build an environment of partnership and mutual support between the Global Fund and the U.S. Government's bilateral AIDS and malaria programs.
While working with a variety of organizations that support the Global Fund, Friends plays an important role within the advocacy community through its unique relationship with the Global Fund, its policy and legislative expertise, and ability to provide up-to-the-minute information about Global Fund programs to policymakers and their staff, the media as well as the larger advocacy community. Because of this partnership, Friends provides strategic direction and counsel to the Global Fund's Secretariat and tightly integrates its education and communications activities with those of the Global Fund. It also acts as an important conduit between the Global Fund and the U.S. government, fostering a strong relationship between both entities.
|
|
|
09-05-2008 4:52 PM
|
-
medimangr
 -
United States
Not currently affiliated with the Global Fund
- Posts 4
|
Re: Week 3: Civil society participation in proposal development
The role of promoting more civil society involvement must begin at the level of society most impacted by the problems. The future must include capacity development from the bottom. Creating groups of community people interacting directly with CCM groups and feeling empowered to create change.
|
|
|
09-05-2008 2:49 PM
|
-
bvplaetse
-
Lesotho
Not currently affiliated with the Global Fund
- Posts 1
|
Re: Week 3: Civil society participation in proposal development
In my experience- based not only on my current residence- it is necessary to instil some more confidence in what happens once the proposal is formulated. Will CSO's have equal & fair access to funding once the proposal is finalised and accepted for funding? A large part centres on managing perceptions and building trusting relationships between CCM and CSO's. To illustrate this point, it is not uncommon to hear the CCM being referred to as not distinct from a government department. Secondly, there are substantive differences in organisational culture between the governmental policy makers-planners and those managing CSO's. Going through a months long process of day-long after day-long planning meetings is not exactly what many CSO's are used to or should be coerced to do. Thirdly there is the egg and chicken issue. The GF formatting of plans, the rules& regulations, however fair and adequate they may be, can be overwhelming for under-resourced and sometimes capacity constrained CSO's. A shift in approach could be to find a vehicle to identify well performing CSO's, and partly score the CCM proposal on its strength to include high-performers (and include pertinent capacity building for non superfluous but not yet optimally performing organisations.) This should provide extra incentives to shift the process, so that CCM's can be better equipped to assure inclusion of essential partners. Kind Regards Bart
|
|
|
09-05-2008 2:35 PM
|
-
deborahmcsmith
-
United States
Consultant
- Posts 2
|
Re: Week 3: Civil society participation in proposal development
In May of this year I was part of the writing team for a GFATM Round 8 HIV proposal to be submitted to the CCM in a country in east Africa. The CCM includes civil society representation, and there were 3 writing team members who represented various FBOs and CBOs in the country. They were good colleagues and had good knowledge of barriers, challenges, needs and resources at the local level. However, they had no familiarity with the Global Fund proposal template and attachments, or experience with costing medicines and other supplies, and limited experience with costing activities.
It would be helpful to add orientations to the Global Fund proposal development process to strategies to increase civil society's capacity to contribute. Not sure whose role this is; often CCMs are new to Global Fund processes and not yet ready to orient their own members or in country stakeholders. Perhaps this orientation and proposal writing preparation could be included in CQI TORs for consultants, or perhaps it could be provided by Principal Recipients as part of their leadership responsibilities.
|
|
|
09-05-2008 1:54 PM
|
-
tree
-
Bangladesh
Not currently affiliated with the Global Fund
- Posts 7
|
Re: Week 3: Civil society participation in proposal development
May be it is much more important to start Global Fund Literacy Program around the world including civil society (so called). So far I can realize from outside of the fund recently, many of community people don’t know how to deal with and how important they are! Still I can remember formulation of these funding opportunity and interesting directions that comes from many of us here in this forum. Please, try to understand that people who are really huge in number suffering from problems they are not in a position to understand many of us, our language and articulation.
|
|
|
09-05-2008 12:41 PM
|
-
paul Moses
 -
Kenya
Country Coordinating Mechanism (CCM)
- Posts 11
|
Re: Week 3: Civil society participation in proposal development
CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT
The UN definition of the civil society is all inclusive of all social groups without discrimination on basis of cultural practices, sex orientation, age or economic status i.e sexual minorities, injection drug users, sex workers, women and girls.
Denial of legitimacy in various countries by governments of these groups enhance stigmatization an obstacle to universal access to prevention, treatment, care and support and other essential health services. This contributes to high increase of HIV infections and co- infections - double tragedy.
The Global Fund recognizes rights of these groups and the need for their representation in policy development.They can play a great role in reduction of HIV prevalence creating the need for their participation in CCM's, and in proposals development as part and parcel of the civil society. This will scale up their capacity in implementation of programmes related to their needs and help in reduction of stigma an obstacle that has been a challenge in the war against HIV.
Thanks,
Paul Moses
|
|
|
09-05-2008 11:52 AM
|
-
Ngunju
 -
Kenya
Not currently affiliated with the Global Fund
- Posts 6
|
Re: Week 3: Civil society participation in proposal development
Subject:CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN PROPOSALS DEVELOPMENT.
Following the definition provided by United Nations, Civil Society has often been misconceived in various quarters, particularly at the grassroots level due to the overlapping roles that they play e.g. involvement in sensitive political issues in hostile political environments and mistaken for unpopular revolutionary activists. In deed the civil society in accordance to the United Nations has made a major contribution as watch dogs on various issues e.g. violations of fundamental human rights, legal reforms and creating democratic space for the marginalized and disadvantaged communities. It is equally important to educate communities on the noble roles played by the civil society so that they can also partner in their activities for efficient and effective results of programs and funding mechanisms i.e. making it easy for the communities to access Global funds by advocating for lessened conditions in the proposal forms, free of complicated terminologies and the need for their participation in proposals development. Communities can push National governments to create space for the civil society. Despite preparedness for civil society to participate in the CCM proposal development processes there exists lack of adequate commitment by other partners for their involvement either to maintain the status quo or by arguing they lack the required capacity to develop proposals hence cannot make worthy contributions. The Global fund need not only to encourage countries to make the process inclusive but concentrate more on building capacity of the civil society for effective participation. Otherwise, their inclusion will be of insignificant value. Thanks Joseph Ngunju
|
|
|
09-04-2008 3:40 PM
|
-
Robson Olwe
 -
Uganda
Not currently affiliated with the Global Fund
- Posts 22
|
Re: Week 3: Civil society participation in proposal development
Dear e Forum;
The composition of CCM should constitute the main bodies that are responsible for articulating the formulation and execution of policies guiding the GF. Each member state should be responsible for providing administrative support in the coordination of projects and programmes in one or more country sectors constituting the GF. CCM should work in close liaison with relevant Ministries in their respective countries and various project implementation agencies in each country, region, and where relevant with agencies from outside the region. CCM coordinating units and other specialised technical committees should propose to the council of Ministers GF sectoral policy issues projects and programmes within overall GF framework. I had noted that CCM include a high proportion of institutional levels through which proposals, recommendations and decisions are taken. This has lengthen communication chains contributing to long delays between project formulation, sourcing of funds and implementation. In addition the concept of consensus which belies decisions taken by each country implies that much consultations and compromise is necessitated at every institutional levels.
Management and control over activities and the pace of growth of the GF has remained weak as no particular institutions is held accountable for this important and fundamental role. Also the main document setting on the key objectives of GF has not provided strategic direction for their achievement. This has been left to sectoral units to develop individually, a position which has also meant that GF growth and resource allocation have remained inconsistent and have not been optimised accross each of the various sectors. The dual role and interests pursued by most countries who are also signatories to the GF have not been addressed to ensure that conflict and confusion does not undermine achievement of GF objectives.
Therefore the significance of civil society participation in proposal development process with CCM is crucial. This is aim at setting in place a framework for the development of strategies and improving overall GF management at institutional level. In particular:
- Civil societies are in more intimate touch with community based organizations which terminates into direct connections with communities, target groups, families and households, hence information acqusistion pertaining to situational analysis at the grassroots can easily be accessed than through only the CCM.
- Civil societies participation in proposal development process brings about appropriate channels to be taken by government in policy formulation pertaining to various development oriented proposal submitted to donors by the CCM.
- Civil societies representation on the CCM in proposal development process has for long been marginalised and in cases where representation has occured issues and voices from the grassroot has not been taken as priority. This obviously jeopardise project implementation by proposals being developed bt only CCM.
- CSOs have worked with and not for communities, target groups, families and households, clearly and concisely understanding their socio-economic back grounds, organize micro project implementation teams with very cost effective budget since the clients are at the grassroots than those organized by only the CCM/
- CSOs are very quick, strategic, target minded with less or no beauracratic tendencies in taking actions pertaining to project implementation, hence very beneficial in analysing the viable project logical frame work particularly the time frame in conforming with project inputs and maximum expected outputs than when it is conducted by only CCM.
- CSOs have got a bottom top approach enriched with participatory learning methodologies at every stage of project proposal development which in itself ensures projects sustainability by the beneficiaries even when donor funding ceases.
- CSOs understand their capabilities to deliver services and goods to the intended target groups, gauge their thematic areas of strength and weaknesses within themselves, hence can easily and objectively form demand driven partnerships which can not easily be laid out in a proposal when developed by only CCM.
- CSOs are non profit making and take no political party inclinations, hence can very effectively and efficiently develop and implement the desired projects at all levels. We may in one way or another have some political party inclination in CCM but which can be comfortably submerged when CSOs are fully brought on board during proposal formulation
- CSOs are well placed and informed to develop proposals addressing social cultural beliefs and cultures which prove to be a challenge to project implementors using guidelines of proposals development as a result of sidelining CSOs.
While I would not advocate the dilution of consultation, I believe that CCM should be left to the coordination of fewer institutions. For example, the GF secretariat could be delegated overall responsibility for this aspect working closely with sectoral units, sectoral ans national contact points and implementing agencies. In addition, development of project proposals and their approval be carried out by CCM and CSOs, whilst the standing committees would act as"watch dog" to ensure that key GF aims and priorities are being followed.
Greater flexibility be given to CCM and CSOs which will be a major development of existing arrangements. It however has immense advantages including the re-allocation of supervisory responsibilities to a more permanent and cohesive unit which is also more likely to be objective in the distribution of development resources. Once key GF management responsibilities are delegated to an effective/permanent institution basis, the issue of consensus would be achieve on the basis of objectively presented proposals and realistic assessment of capacities for implementing project proposals. Therefore GF should ensure that CCM work in partnership with CSOs in proposal development process.
Most CCM representation is sort of cerermonial with no target roles and majority of them have political inclination which biased proposal development. The composition of CCM does not sideline CSOs and therefore must include regional CSOs committees. Since CSOs operate very closely with the marginalized committees and understand community problems very well therefore GF should provide technical support to the CSOs which can be replicated with a multiplier nationwide.Finally there is a saying that " Proposal written for foundations and those written for federal grants will differ markedly in final form. Foundations usually require a brief letter; federal agencies usually require you to complete an extensive array of forms and possibly attach your own narrative" Robson Olwe
|
|
|
09-04-2008 12:32 PM
|
-
clearconscience
-
Cameroon
Not currently affiliated with the Global Fund
- Posts 23
|
Re: Week 3: Civil society participation in proposal development
Dear mr Jaap,
Thank you very much for your observations and useful comments.CCM in every developing country, especially in Africa functions almost in the same manners.As you may know, they have all the powers to decides which organisation they can forward their proposal to the GF for approval.If you look at the whole scenario, you will discover that, the ccm has not respected the conditions for projects proposal process stipulated by the GF.The project proposals are carried out in in secret. In country civil societies are not contacted at all, unless those organisations that are their friends who use to receive the GF grants for hiv/ids, TB,malaris almost every year.The rural comminities NGOS are not considered at all, and if you contact them with your project proposal may not even reply you. In my second suggestion, i will propose the GF modifies the law that establish ed or set up the country CCM.inorder to reduce their powers.
Please, i would like other members of this forum to comment on the effects of the powers of the CCM in implementing the GF projects on hiv/aids, TB and malaria to the most affected communities in the developing countries-the rural poor.
|
|
|
09-04-2008 9:24 AM
|
-
ASHISH SRIVASTAVA
-
India
Not currently affiliated with the Global Fund
- Posts 85
|
Re: Week 3: Civil society participation in proposal development
To e-Forum(Civil-society participation)
In CCM proposals development process,civil-society could give social representation of govt, legal, economical, constitutional institutional mechanism in countries.For above development process degree of civil- society definition,structure,&function might differ in various culture religion& ethnic values based countries. Definition of civil-society could be understood by democratic values, advanced cultural & social institution addressing gender sensitive approaches,reduction of conflict,disagreement,&problematic judgement by assessment of civil rights & liberties. In CCM proposals development process,if civil-society gets opportunity for participation than it should represent with constitutional, ethical,& formal interaction of community,groups & organisation. Civil-society participation could give rationalism in proposals development process with socio-legal structure exists in countries. Civil-society could interact with grassroot,rural,&affected population for providing civil-rights,articles,judgement,general equilibrium analysis of socio-economic indicators& factors(accessibility of products/services/resources/awareness of economical structures i.e.
market,specification,&standardization,agriculture,industry,social structure including hospital,schools,college,family welfare centers, housing,NGO,welfare agencies. GF has complete formal components like CCM,CSS,country proposals, government,&GF secretariat for presentation of GF principles.
Distribution of funding component could include development of GF banking provision,community construction with basic hosing, micro-finance based on gender education ,family welfare & universal coverage of basic health infrastructure to affected population in countries,could encourage countries to make CCM proposals development process more inclusive. GF could encourage civil-society for cost-effective measures, relevant solution,use of technology,geographical connectivity for affected population,adequate medical & health services through civil distribution of channels,health insurance & financial products. GF could encourage participation of civil-society for gender equality strategy by providing funding decision based upon non-formal education,functional literacy,general education with vocational courses,constitutional gender organisation for addressing social injustice,provision of community construction & shelter for agricultural labour,unhygienic slums attributed diseases in many countries.
Thanking you
ASHISH SRIVASTAVA
ex-International Marketing
(SEAR-INDIA)81237
|
|
|
09-03-2008 6:50 PM
|
-
jaap schep
-
Switzerland
Not currently affiliated with the Global Fund
- Posts 3
|
Re: Week 3: Civil society participation in proposal development
1. Is civil society being given a fair opportunity to participate in the CCM proposal development process? 2. What could the Global Fund do to encourage countries to make this process more inclusive? As a global membership organization of 141 national churches the Lutheran World Federation works with 25 churches in Africa, 20 in Asia, 12 in Latin America and 6 in Eastern Europe/Russia so that they become useful and active national participants in the fight against HIV. We are experiencing various obstacles in our efforts to effectively link the churches as a FBO to their respective CCMs. We are getting reports from these countries and I would like to share an overview of these experiences as part of a response to question 1. a) In 5 countries the Lutheran church is clearly on board in the work of the CCM. However, this has not yet led to a situation in which a fair part of their HIV work and services is integrated in the CCM proposals b) In many countries we hear that the process for preparation of proposals (for the respective rounds) is not a well planned, clearly advertized and transparent procedure c) Very short time lines do not allow sufficient participation and input especially from organizations that are not present in the capital city (often the case for Lutheran churches and many CBOs). d) There are frequent reports of ‘political’ elite circles monopolizing access. e) We have many reports of access only granted to a limited circle of ‘friends’ and associates. f) We have reports of (screening and other selection) processes being not transparent. g) In many cases requests have ended in a black hole. This picture does not suggest a “fair opportunity” as indicated in the question. Secondly, I would say that the verb used in the question (‘participate’), goes beyond the ‘right to submit proposals’ which is covered in the above observations. Participation suggests a process of cooperation, of building up the total quality of the proposal through a multi-stakeholder approach. This does not yet seem to be guaranteed by clear guidelines and guarantees for participation. And if these guidelines exist they seem not to be implemented in a large part of the countries. These guidelines should ensure adequate and ample time lines, transparency, clear communication / public announcement processes, etc. If all of the above has not yet ensured ‘fair opportunities’ and ‘participation’, I think it is time for an independent study in a particular country into the functioning of the CCM on the ground. These studies should be carried out by independent researchers (who speak the national language) on a country by country approach. Countries with a high level of complaints from civil society with respect to their CCM’s accessibility and transparency should be implemented first. The findings should contribute to two levels: 1) directly lead to addressing the observed obstacles in the country, and 2) provide input for an improved funding architecture of GFATM
|
|
|