PartnersGF - 2004-08-22

GF- Partnership Forum Draft Report [ 6 ]
************************************

Draft report of the the Global Fund 'Partnership Forum'
[Bangkok, Thailand] 7th & 8th July 2004


[Key recommendations – continued]


2.5 Scope of Global Fund financing, the "round" system and fit of the Global Fund into overall architecture of health financing

Two working groups and one of the regional break-out groups considered some combination of the following issues: the scope of Global Fund financing, the strengths and drawbacks of the current proposal / round system and the fit of the Global Fund into the overall architecture of health financing for developing countries. In addition, all of the working groups had at least some discussion about the implications for the Global Fund of donor harmonization efforts in general, and for HIV/AIDS in particular, the UNAIDS promotion of "the three ones" (that is, promotion for each country of one agreed HIV/AIDS Action Framework that provides the basis for coordinating the work of all partners; one National AIDS Coordinating Authority, with a broad-based multisectoral mandate; and one agreed country-level Monitoring and Evaluation System.)

While the Partnership Forum did not develop and agree firm recommendations with regard to these issues, it clearly called on the Global Fund Board to launch a process of reflection and consultation that could lead to future policy changes. Specific issues flagged for consideration in such a process included the following:

- There was a strong consensus amongst Partnership Forum participants that the Global Fund should remain focused on AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. More specifically, however, a significant minority of participants strongly felt that there are short-comings in the Fund's current "responsive" approach to funding (i.e. the current lack of guidelines on proposal content and strategy). Some delegates felt that there should be stronger guidelines to influence the development of proposals (for example, drawing attention to specific concerns such as a focus on poverty, a responsiveness to gender inequity, or the desirability of stronger links between HIV and TB responses). A small minority called for more than guidelines, suggesting that the Fund should be quite proscriptive in indicating a preference for certain types of strategies or interventions deemed to be strategic.

- There is a desire to examine the strengths and weaknesses of the current "round & project proposal" system. Many participants believe that the Global Fund should consider a very different kind of project proposal system, with less attention to the detail of proposed activities, and more attention to how the proposal fills gaps, leverages additional resources (from both national and international sources), and contributes to national strategic objectives. Such an approach would also require more attention within proposals to an overall analysis of the "resource gap", "additionality" strategies, and the proposed systems within countries to subsequently re-allocate resources to specific projects or activities. The existing "round & project proposal" practice is perceived to have some important advantages, however, including its contribution to resource mobilization, advocacy and inclusion of different constituencies.

- The "three ones" initiative was broadly welcomed by people involved in HIV/AIDS work, and there was some call from malaria and tuberculosis constituencies for similar initiatives.

- A number of participants suggested that the Fund could make a significant additional contribution to countries if it was able to make longer term commitments of support (for example, over a period of ten years), even if such commitments were to remain conditional upon performance. This would provide yet another value to the Fund, in comparison with shorter-term bilateral financing.

- Despite the general support for the issues noted above, concern was expressed from a number of civil society and private sector representatives that any review and update of the Global Fund's project proposal and round system should lead to increasing opportunities for NGO and private sector participation (including through stand-alone proposals), rather than decreased involvement under the guise of "supporting national plans".

Action required:

- Global Fund Board and Technical Review Panel (TRP) to review strengths and weaknesses of the current proposal and round system, and the length of funding commitments, in 2005 (i.e. after a successful launch of Round 5 using the current system).

- Roll Back Malaria, Stop TB and other relevant stakeholders to consider lessons being learned from the current UNAIDS "three ones" campaign, with a view to considering similar initiatives in their fields.