PartnersGF - 2004-11-18 

Are we advocating for the right things in Arusha?
Anonymous
*********

"I JUST WISH TO GET THINGS PURGED FROM THE POLITICALLY CORRECT AND GET STRAIGHT TO WHAT WORKS"

Dear colleagues and friends,

Allow me to be a bit provocative, not for the fun of it, but to keep promoting this important debate.

The HDN facilitator is correct; this coming GFATM Board meting in Arusha is a very important one that will indeed "include decisions that could fundamentally revise the vision of the Fund..."

Here are a few foods for thought...

On the launching of the Round 5:

I must admit that I fail to understand the reason for such a strong pressure for the launch of the Round 5. I do understand and agree for the pressure made on the Fund to keep going strong on fund raising, but not for the "Round 5-at-any-cost!"

It is the overall Round system that I contest. I do understand the psychological and political aim to keep the pressure on donors so as to keep the momentum, but I fail to see the benefit of it for the countries. At present, a very large number of countries start to be stretched to the limit of their capacities with their existing GFATM grants. To push for always more new round proposals will simply lead to bottlenecks and subsequent failure.

The round system is also causing intense pressure on countries and on technical partners. It indeed implies that the need for technical assistance is everywhere at the same time, and within tight deadline. What would be the trouble of having countries applying whenever they want, when they are ready, preparing proposals at their own pace, and having the TRP meeting at given dates to review these proposals received? This would give everybody - CCM, TWG, WHO and other technical partners, and the GFATM Secretariat - all the time necessary to prepare better proposals, and in a much more serene atmosphere.

I am concerned that this "new-round-at-any-cost" advocacy may lead to nowhere except a bottleneck. It may also raise donors' concerns, who may want to see results first before moving any further. The Round system puts also the GFATM Portfolio Managers under pressure, to pressure at their turn the countries themselves to always apply, but at the end of the day the countries that manage best to get grants are not the ones that need most.

I believe we should continue to strongly advocate for a continued aggressive fund raising by the GFATM Board, so as to constitute a real "war chest" (if I recall well Mr. Kofi Anan's original expression) able to fund well the fight against the three diseases; but I challenge the wisdom of this advocacy for always a new round. The country should apply for the fund whenever they are ready for it, not whenever the GFATM call for a round.

On the CCM composition:

The GFATM probably made a real breakthrough in imposing a collegial model of supervision that includes the maximum stakeholders, and in particular civil society (CS), and people living with the 3 diseases. But I feel the current debate around the composition of the CCM somewhat too "politically-correct".

We want more civil society participation, and the latter having more power, fine. But what matters is not the number of civil society (CS) representatives and/or their percentage in the CCM, but to what extent they can influence the decision making, and what exact decision-making power they can have in the CCM. What CS should advocate is the decision making system at the CCM. The voting system for instance - preferably through secret ballot - should not be "by the members", but "by the constituency" represented. As such the one vote of 3 or 4 representatives of the "civil society constituency" will have exactly the same weigh as the one vote of 6 or 7 government officials representing the "government constituency". How much have the civil society debated the CCM operational procedure, including the decision making procedure?

One civil society leader with charisma and strong substantiated argumentation can have more influence sometimes than 10 representatives sitting and keeping quiet. What matters most is not the number but the quality of the people and to what extent they represent their constituency.

As for the representation of the "People living with the diseases", let's stop the hypocrisy, we mean here "People living with HIV/AIDS". I haven't seen so far any CCM with representation of people living with TB or malaria. And I don't know whether we should cry about it. Because what matters most is that the interests and the views of the people living with the diseases are well expressed at the CCM, whether it is by themselves, or by others.

Please, do not mistake me, wherever there are people living with the diseases who can be strong and outspoken advocates for their peers, this is definitely the best solution. But when given the choice between quiet and shy people living with the diseases, and strong and outspoken advocates for them (but who do not have the diseases), I'll choose the second one. Because what we need is their interest defended, not tokens. And, isn't this exactly what civil society is supposed to be? Speaking for the voiceless...

I hope I haven't hurt any sensibilities, as was not my intention. I just wish to get things purged from the politically correct and get straight to "what works".

Kind regards to all

Anonymous

(I do need to stay anonymous, as I cannot represent my organization here in any way. Apologies)