Real Partnership

The second Global Fund Partnership Forum concluded yesterday in Durban, South Africa. About 400 people representing 118 countries from around the world attended. What was most remarkable about the Forum is that the Global Fund intentionally brought together not just its most vocal supporters but also its most strident critics, and then gave them two days to discuss what was working and what needs to be fixed. It says a lot about an organization when it intentionally creates opportunities to be criticized.Overall, the Global Fund appears to be doing quite well. A "360 Degree Stakeholder Review," a broadly circulated questionnaire that received over 900 responses, found that three-quarters of respondents thought the Fund was good at operational efficiency, measuring results, fostering country ownership, and investing in proven and effective programs. The Fund receives lower marks for the Local Fund Agent (LFA) model, alignment with national systems, flexibility, and engagement with the private sector. Interestingly, recipient countries think much higher of the Global Fund than bilateral and multilateral organizations. The survey also found that people think more highly of the Global Fund the more closely they work with it -- definitely a good sign. The LFA model emerged as a key weakness the Fund needs to improve, because many countries do not think the LFAs have the appropriate skills to audit or review their grants. Technical assistance is another major weakness. Although the Fund does not provide TA, it allows grant funds to be used for TA. Countries are not using TA enough, partially because the TA market is expensive and non-transparent. Systems are needed to clarify for countries what they should pay for TA, and to allow countries to learn more about a TA provider before they are engaged. Most countries want more South-South technical cooperation.Another weakness is the engagement of the private sector. There are some very effective public-private partnerships of the Global Fund, such as the Lubombo Spatial Initiative and the Red Campaign, but the private sector has not engaged fully with the Fund. Forum participants discussed the problem, although one proposal by the private sector -- allowing in-kind donations to the Fund -- was met with skepticism by other delegations.Last week, UNAIDS's Board recommended that Country Coordinating Mechanisms (CCMs) should be merged with National AIDS Council’s (NACs) where appropriate. This recommendation caused much concern at the Partnership Forum, because, while harmonization and reduction of duplicate coordinating mechanisms makes sense, NACs do not represent malaria or TB, they tend to report to their President (which would violate the Fund’s public-private partnership model), and they are weak on civil society participation.The second day of the Forum gave participants an opportunity to provide recommendations to the Policy and Strategy Committee (PSC) of the Board. Participants recommended a move from project to program funding, which would allow the Fund to approve projects out of the country’s national action plans, reducing program verticality. The PSC may also set a fixed date each year for funding rounds, which would improve planning and predictability.Immediately following the Partnership Forum, the mid-term replenishment review got underway. On the agenda: closing the funding gap for Round 6. The Fund needs more predictable and sustainable funding sources moving forward.Overall, the Partnership Forum was an engaging, thoughtful, and constructive event. It was very useful to bring together recipients, implementers and funders to exchange ideas. Now we need to stay tuned to ensure that the PSC, the Board and the Secretariat fully consider -- and act on -- the recommendations of the Partnership Forum.