PartnersGF - 2004-08-23

GF- Partnership Forum Draft Report [ 8]
************************************

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

[Key recommendations – continued]


2.7 Capacity building and technical support

All the working groups and most of the regional break-out sessions discussed the inter-linked issues of front-line delivery capacity, intermediary support capacity (that is, the ability of PRs and sub-PRs to appropriately channel funds, provide technical support, promote quality control, and ensure M & E), and south-south and international technical support. There was a broad consensus that these issues had not necessarily received enough attention in proposal design and approval to date, and delegates welcomed the recent decision of the Global Fund Board to establish a committee to focus on these issues.

While recognizing that the Global Fund is already willing to fund technical support and capacity building costs within proposals, most delegates expressed their belief that the Fund secretariat should more actively promote attention to these issues in proposal design, and that the Technical Review Panel (TRP) should assess attention to technical support and capacity building as part of its proposal assessment process. That said, a clear majority of the delegates did not believe that the Fund should itself be developing a technical support capacity. There is a clear consensus that the preferred technical support solution is to finance in-country providers through Global Fund proposals. To the extent to which supplementary support was also required, the Partnership Forum urged much more attention to strategic partnerships with agencies with the mandate and/or experience to provide such technical support, not only within the UN family but also amongst NGO and private sector providers, and through partnerships whereby bilateral agencies co-funded and/or co-provide technical assistance. It was recognized that it would often be difficult to include such costs within standard country proposals, and that consideration should be given to a special, limited, funding window for such activities.

Participants noted that when assessing capacity building needs, attention is needed to the capacity of governments to work with civil society and the private sector (and not just the inverse); to the capacity building needs of the CCM to provide proper governance and over-sight; in the ability of PRs and/or sub-PRs themselves to be technical support providers and/or to play a "quality control" function.

Action required:

- The Global Fund committee examining technical assistance issues should note the Partnership Forum consensus in support of in-country and south-south technical support whenever possible, the near consensus that the Global Fund should not itself become a provider of technical assistance, and the strong belief that international technical support (when needed) should be sourced from a wide variety of providers (based on suitability and cost), not just the UN family. The Committee should also consider opening of a special funding window for international technical support costs.