The Global Fund Secretariat just released a report looking at gender analysis (or lack thereof) in Round 8 HIV-specific proposals. Guidelines for Round 8 proposals were the first to encourage applicants to have an increased focus on gender issues. This encouragement was reinforced with a fact sheet on gender and a “Gender Equality Strategy” outlining the importance of scaling up gender sensitive responses, particularly to HIV. Because of our own report on gender, where we argue that donors’ global strategies and policies on gender fail to translate into systematic programming on the ground, the HIV/AIDS Monitor team has high interest in seeing how these and future proposals from the Fund address the relationship between gender inequality and HIV/AIDS.
Yet after evaluating all of the Round 8 proposals, the Secretariat noted that only a few actually had strong gender components. Most proposals classified as ‘gender neutral’, meaning the goals and objectives didn’t reinforce existing gender inequalities. In fact, the report found that FEWER Round 8 proposals were deemed gender sensitive or transformative than in Round 7 (20% and 35%, respectively). These findings support those already identified in the Technical Review Panel’s (TRP) review of the same proposals. And according to the TRP, the news from Round 9 proposals is just as bleak. While many proposals addressed overall gender issues by using the appropriate terminology, they did not include ‘situational analysis or attempt to develop strategies to address gender inequality issues’, nor did many proposals clearly describe the implementation strategies for their proposed gender sensitive interventions. One of our key recommendations—not yet systematically adopted by the Fund—calls for increased gender analysis in the situational assessments for proposals, which would then directly inform program design and planning.
This is not to say that the Global Fund has made no advances on gender. In fact, measured against our recommendations, they have taken initial good steps towards increasing their gender response. However, it seems that these changes are still not effectively translating into gender-responsive programming on the ground.
Whereas Round 7 proposals concentrated their gender response on prevention service interventions, Round 8 proposals were more global in their approach, focusing on treatment, care and civil society strengthening. But in order for gender analysis to truly reach the ground, gender sensitive interventions need to be developed, implemented and measured against the host country’s national analysis, goals and targets. What’s promising is that the Global Fund realizes this and intends to highlight the need for national gender analysis in the Round 10 proposal guidance form. This distinction in the guidance is important and will hopefully promote country and context-specific gender programming based on one, national gender plan. Once a plan is in place, it will also allow the Global Fund to coordinate their funds with other donors’ technical expertise around this comprehensive national analysis.
Whether or not these actions will translate to a greater focus on gender in the proposals for Round 10 is yet to be seen. But why, after two rounds of funding, have we not seen more positive results?
Yes, countries are beginning to include some gender analysis in their proposals, but few are actually designing interventions to respond to gender, and even less are addressing the underlying causes of gender inequality in their country contexts. While it is laudable that the Global Fund has made policy changes to reflect their commitment to improving their approach to gender, the slow uptake in countries may speak to the limitations in the Global Fund model’s definition of itself—a purely financing mechanism that makes decisions about funding based on performance. As a purely financing mechanism, the Global Fund cannot dictate the needs and priorities of recipient countries, nor guarantee that policy changes will be translated into country proposals let alone to on-the-ground programming. In addition, with no physical presence on-the-ground in the countries they fund, the Global Fund itself does not conduct gender analysis, design gender programs or measure results. Countries can only take policies so far without the necessary technical assistance to systematically diagnose gender-relevant problems, design programs that address them AND define and measure performance.
The Global Fund’s decision to support more and better gender responsive programs is a welcome change, but will likely be more effective if, and only if, countries seek technical assistance as needed from other partners such as the UNAIDS, WHO and the World Bank. Perhaps, in a future review of the next few proposal rounds, the Global Fund Secretariat can share examples of good technical cooperation between other partners and countries, as they evolve. Other countries can learn from these simple, but important descriptions of game-changing gender and HIV responses in some countries with Global Fund financing.
