GLOBAL FUND OBSERVER (GFO) - Issue 142: 17 March 2011

[Guest guest]

GLOBAL FUND OBSERVER (GFO), an

independent newsletter about the Global Fund provided by Aidspan to over 8,000

subscribers in 170 countries.

Issue 142: 17 March 2011. (For formatted web,

Word and PDF versions of this and other issues, see www.aidspan.org/gfo.)

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

+ + +

CONTENTS

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

1. NEWS: Round 10

Screening Panel Screened Out Five CCM Applications

Five of the 92

applications submitted by country coordinating mechanisms (CCMs) were deemed to

be ineligible forconsideration by the Technical Review Panel (TRP) as a

result of the Round 10 screening process. In Round 9, seven applications from

CCMs were screened out.

2. NEWS: Global

Fund Reports that the Number of People Receiving Services Continues to Rise

Sharply

By December 2010,

programmes supported by the Global Fund were providing antiretroviral (ARV)

treatment to 3.0 million people living with HIV, and directly observed therapy

short course (DOTS) to 7.7 million people with TB. The number of malaria cases

treated in 2010 was 170 million.

3. COMMENTARY:

Improving Communications Between the FPM and the PR Would Strengthen Grant

Performance

" Measuring and

rewarding relationship management, setting customer service expectations for

fund portfolio managers (FPMs) and the Secretariat, and clarifying the time

needed to review and approve key documents would streamline procedures and

reduce transaction costs, thus contributing to better grant performance "

writes Garmaise.

4. NEWS: Global

Fund Selects Co-Chairs for Panel of Experts on Corruption Issues

The Global Fund has

selected two prominent people to co-chair the panel of experts that will be

conducting an independent review of the Fund's financial safeguards: Former

President of Botswana Festus Mogae and former U.S. Health and Human Services

Secretary O. Leavitt.

5. NEWS: Round 11

Applicants Will Be Able to Submit a Separate HSS Component

Future applicants to the

Global Fund will be able to submit a separate cross-cutting health systems

strengthening (HSS) component in their proposals. This means that a Round

11 proposal could contain any combination of four components: HIV, TB, malaria

and cross-cutting HSS.

6. NEWS: Global

Fund to Develop Guidance on Strengthening MNCH Content of Funded Programmes

The Global Fund will

develop guidance for countries on how to strengthen the maternal, newborn and

child health (MNCH) content of their HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and

health systems strengthening programmes. The guidance will include indicators

specific to MNCH.

+ + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

1. NEWS: Round 10 Screening Panel Screened Out

Five CCM Applications

Two of 14 regional applications also screened

out

Many applicants had difficulty with the PR

nomination requirements

Five of the 92

applications submitted by country coordinating mechanisms (CCMs) were screened

out as a result of the Round 10 screening process. This information comes from

a report on the screening process prepared by the Global Fund's Screening

Review Panel (SRP) and recently released.

(The screening is done when the applications are

first submitted. Applications that don't meet the Global Fund's eligibility

requirements are screened out, which means that they are deemed ineligible for consideration

by the Technical Review Panel (TRP) and are not forwarded to the TRP for

review.)

The five CCM applications screened out in Round

10 was two less than the number of CCM applications screened out in Round 9.

In Round 10, two of the fourteen applications

from regional organisations (ROs) were screened out . However, all five

applications from sub-national country coordinating mechanisms (Sub-CCMs) and

regional coordinating mechanisms (RCMs) were screened in (i.e., deemed

eligible).

There was only one application from a Non-CCM,

the Somalia Aid Coordination Body, and it was screened in. In contrast, in

Round 9, all 14 applications from Non-CCMs were screened out. (Non-CCMs are

national organisations other than the CCM - usually NGOs or faith-based

organisations [FBOs].)

This article provides information on the

screening process, which took place in September 2010, and the results of the

screening. (This article is not about which proposals were recommended for approval by the TRP and

later approved by the Board; this topic was covered in GFO 135,

available at www.aidspan.org/gfo.)

This article is divided into the following

sections:

Introduction

Applications from

coordinating mechanisms

Multi-country

applicants

Observations and

lessons learned

Introduction

All 112 applications submitted in Round 10 were

screened for eligibility. Only proposals deemed to be eligible were passed on

to the TRP for review. There are a number of eligibility criteria; they vary,

depending on the type of applicant.

The screening was a two-part process. First, the

applications were reviewed by the Global Fund Secretariat's Country Proposals

Team. This initial screening team applied one of three possible ratings to each

application: fully compliant (FC), indeterminate compliant (IC) or

non-compliant (NC). An " IC " rating meant that the members of the

initial screening team had some doubts concerning whether the application met

one or more of the eligibility criteria. The team rated 73 applications as FC,

39 as IC and none as NC. Second, the SRP reviewed the applications and the

recommendations of the initial screening team. The SRP was made up of senior

representatives of several different units in the Global Fund Secretariat.

For those applications rated FC by the initial

screening team, the SRP reviewed a small sample of the applications. The SRP

was satisfied that the screening team had rigorously and appropriately reviewed

the sample, so it voted to accept all FC recommendations as a block. For the 39

applications rated IC by the initial screening team, the SRP examined each one

individually.

Of the 112 applications, 105 were ultimately

determined to be eligible. A breakdown of the numbers is shown in the Table 1.

Table

1: Results of the Round 10 screening process

Applicant type

No. of

applications submitted

Results of

initial screening

Final

determination by the SRP

FC

IC

NC

FC

NC

CCM

92

61

31

0

87

5

Sub-CCM

2

2

0

0

2

0

RCM

3

2

1

0

3

0

RO

14

7

7

0

12

2

Non-CCM

1

1

0

0

1

0

TOTAL

112

73

39

0

105

7

FC =

fully compliant IC = indeterminate compliant NC = non-compliant

Below, we provide more information from the

SRP's report on the screening process for (a) applications from coordinating

mechanisms and ( applications from regional organisations.

Applications from

coordinating mechanisms

In its report, the SRP provided details of the

screening that was done for the 97 applications submitted by coordinating

mechanisms. The initial screening team and the SRP assessed whether applicants

met a number of criteria related to (a) the composition and operations of the

coordinating mechanisms; ( the proposal development process; and © the

nomination of the principal recipient (PR). These criteria, known as " the

six CCM minimum requirements, " are as follows:

1. CCM members representing the non-government sectors must be

selected by their own sector(s) based on a documented, transparent process,

developed within each sector.

2. All CCMs are required to show evidence of membership of people

living with and/or affected by the diseases.

3. CCMs are required to put in place and maintain a transparent,

documented process to solicit and review submissions for possible integration

into the proposal, and ensure the input of a broad range of stakeholders, including

CCM and non-members, in the proposal development process.

4. CCMs are required to put in place and maintain a transparent,

documented process to nominate PRs.

5. CCMs are required to put in place and maintain a transparent,

documented process to ensure the input of a broad range of stakeholders,

including CCM members and non-members, in the grant oversight process.

6. When the PRs and Chair or Vice-Chair of the CCM are the same

entity, the CCM must have a written plan in place to mitigate this inherent

conflict of interest.

CCMs found to be

non-compliant

Five CCMs were found to be non-compliant with

one or more of these requirements and, as a result, their applications were

deemed ineligible. Table 2 provides a list of these countries and identifies

which requirements they failed to meet.

Table

2: CCMs ineligible for Round 10, showing requirements met and not met

CCM

Requirements

1.

Non-government members selected by

own sector

2.

Membership of people living with

the diseases

3.

Process to solicit and review

submissions

4.

Process to nominate PRs

5.

Process for grant oversight

6.

Written conflict of interest

policy

Albania

Met

Met

Met

NOT MET

Met

Met

Belarus

Met

Met

Met

NOT MET

Met

Met

Bhutan

Met

Met

Met

NOT MET

Met

Met

Bolivia

Met

Met

NOT MET

NOT MET

Met

Met

Egypt

NOT MET

Met

NOT MET

Met

Met

Met

The applications from these five countries

contained a total of 10 disease components. Four of the five countries deemed

ineligible had problems meeting Requirement 4 - i.e., that CCMs put in place

and maintain a transparent, documented process to nominate the PR. This is

similar to the pattern observed in the Round 9 screening.

For three of these four countries, the SRP cited

inadequate management of conflicts of interest involving the CCM chair or

vice-chair and a nominated PR. With respect to Albania, the CCM chair and the nominated PR were both from the same

organisation, yet the chair presided over the meeting where the PR was

nominated, and the chair participated in the vote. The CCM's COI policy was not

applied. In Belarus, the CCM vice-chair and one of the nominated PRs were both from

the same organisation, yet the vice-chair participated in the selection

process, and the CCM's COI policy was not applied. In Bhutan, it was exactly the same story, except that it was the chair and

not the vice-chair that had the conflict. In addition, the SRP said that the

process in Bhutan

was not sufficiently transparent because only the Ministry of Health was

considered for the PR post.

With respect to Bolivia, the SRP said that the process for nominating the PR for Bolivia's HIV

and TB proposals was not sufficiently transparent or documented. For the HIV

proposal, no documentation was provided, so there was no evidence that a

transparent process took place. For the TB proposal, the nomination was

determined by a CCM sub-committee and endorsed by the CCM's executive

committee. CCM meeting minutes documenting the PR nomination process were not

provided, nor was there any information on the membership of the executive

committee. Also, for both the HIV and TB proposals, the CCM failed to respond

to numerous requests for information from the Global Fund Secretariat.

Two CCMs failed to meet Requirement 3 - i.e.,

that the CCM put in place and maintain a transparent, documented process to

solicit and review submissions for possible integration into the proposal, and

ensure the input of a broad range of stakeholders, including CCM and

non-members, in the proposal development process. In the case of Bolivia, the SRP said that the process for proposal development was not

sufficiently transparent or documented. No documentation was provided, so there

was no evidence that a transparent process took place or that a broad range of

stakeholders was involved. As was the case with Requirement 4, described above,

the Bolivia CCM failed to respond to requests for information. The SRP said

that Egypt's TB proposal development process was not sufficiently

transparent. The CCM did not make an open call for proposals. And the proposal

was developed by a technical committee consisting of only five CCM members. In

the opinion of the SRP, the process failed to ensure the input of a broad range

of stakeholders.

One CCM - Egypt -

failed to meet Requirement 1 - i.e., that CCM members representing the

non-government sectors be selected by their own sector(s) based on a

documented, transparent process, developed within each sector. The SRP

determined that the process was inadequate. In spite of repeated requests, no

documentation was provided to demonstrate how the non-government members were

selected for the CCM by their own sectors.

Deliberations of the

SRP on applications initially designated " indeterminate compliant "

A section of the report described the

deliberations of the SRP with respect to the 27 coordinating mechanisms that

the initial screening team classified as indeterminate compliant (IC) and that

the SRP eventually decided were fully compliant (FC).

In most instances, the SRP relied on additional

information obtained from applicants. Sometimes, the SRP consulted the regional

teams in the Secretariat's Country Programs Cluster and with LFAs. In a few

cases, the SRP concluded that the application was essentially a re-submission

of a Round 9 proposal, and that the CCMs involved had already been determined

to have met the requirements at the time of the Round 9 screening.

In a number of cases, the SRP gave applicants

the benefit of the doubt. For example:

Cape Verde. While

its proposal was being developed, the CCM made a public call through the

newspaper, radio and online, requesting interested stakeholders to submit

ideas for possible inclusion in its proposal. Various civil society

organizations were directly contacted by email. Seven submissions were

received, five from the public sector and two from non-government

entities. An existing CCM technical committee was mandated to analyse the

submissions. However, the committee met to review the submissions only a

few days before the proposal deadline, when most of the proposal had

already been developed. In response to requests for clarification, the CCM

said that proposals from government bodies were incorporated into the

proposal during its development, and that the two submissions from the

non-government sector " would be incorporated into the proposal

through its implementation. "

Bangladesh. The

CCM submitted

a consolidated TB proposal for Round 10. It nominated the same PRs that

were currently implementing their Round 8 grants. As a result the CCM

agreed to continue with the same PRs - BRAC Bangladesh and the Ministry of

Health. No additional or alternative PR candidates were considered by the

CCM. As well, there was no evidence that the CCM's conflict of interest

policy was applied to the PR nomination process. Responding to a request

for clarification, the CCM said that a transparent and documented process

for PR nomination had taken place when the PRs were originally selected

for their Round 8 proposal, and that the conflict of interest policy was

applied at the time. In its report, the SRP noted that all of the CCM

requirements apply to consolidated proposals, and that consolidation

should not be confused with a resubmission. Nevertheless, the SRP decided

that although the CCM's PR nomination process was not ideal, " this

history was not sufficient to determine the CCM non-compliant. "

Eritrea. The

Chair of the CCM in Eritrea,

the Minister of National Development, was out of the country when PR

selection took place. In his absence, the Minister of Health filled in as

chair for the meeting at which the Ministry of Health was nominated to be

PR. The SRP said that this was a conflict of interest situation but added

that, technically, the current CCM requirement only restricts the CCM

chair and/or vice-chair (not an acting chair) from taking part in the PR

nomination process. So, the CCM was determined to be compliant.

Honduras. The

CCM formed a committee of three non-CCM members to evaluate two PR

candidates for its TB proposal, one NGO and one government. At the time of

proposal submission, the committee had not yet presented its report to the

CCM and the CCM had not yet nominated the PR. Since the CCM was not

scheduled to meet before the close of the SRP's sessions, the CCM decided

to select the PR by email. The CCM nominated the Coverage and Financing

Extension Unit of the Ministry of Health to be PR. The SRP's report did

not contain any information on the composition of the selection committee,

or on who participated in the email exchange.

Indonesia. The

Ministry of Health was nominated as PR for Indonesia's TB proposal. The

CCM chair, who is arepresentative from the Ministry of Health, took part

in the selection process and voted. When asked for clarification, the CCM

stated that there was no conflict of interest because the CCM Chair and

the PR work for two different departments within the Ministry of Health.

In finding the CCM fully compliant with Requirement 4, the SRP took into

account the fact that the team responsible for reviewing PR candidates

represented a broad range of stakeholders and did not include a

representative from the Ministry of Health or any other PR candidate.

Benin. One of

the CCM's two vice-chair positions is held by the Ministry of Economy and

Finance. One of the nominated PRs was the Ministry of Health, which

receives government financial resources directly from the Ministry of

Economy and Finance. In spite of this inherent conflict of interest, the

CCM does not have a documented conflict of interest plan. The SRP deemed

the Benin CCM to be fully compliant with the COI requirement (Requirement

6) on the basis of the fact that, in an effort to mitigate conflict of

interest, the CCM vice-chair from the Ministry of Economy and Finance did

not take part in the PR nomination process.

Multi-country

applications

In its report, the

Global Fund provided details of the screening that was done for the three

applications submitted by RCMs and the 14 applications from ROs. RCMs have to

meet the same requirements as CCMs. In addition, they have to obtain the

endorsement of the CCMs in all countries included in their proposals. For their

part, ROs have to obtain endorsements from the CCMs in all of the countries

included in their proposals.

The SRP reviewed eight applications from RCMs

and ROs that the initial screening team had classified as IC. The SRP

determined that the sole RCM applicant in this group and five of the seven RO

applicants were fully compliant, while two of the RO applicants - Réseau

Africane de Formation sur le VIH and the University of West Indies - were

deemed to be non-compliant. In both cases, the ROs failed to secure

endorsements from the CCMs in all of the countries included in their proposals.

The Réseau obtained endorsements from only one of four CCMs, and the University

got endorsements from only two of 10 CCMs.

Observations and lessons

learned

In its report, the SRP made some observations

concerning lessons learned from the Round 10 screening. The SRP noted that some

applicants need support to institute more rigorous processes and stronger

documentation to enable them to comply with the requirements. According to the

SRP, in 2011 the Global Fund Secretariat will provide technical support to

applicants, where appropriate, giving priority to the 39 applicants found

indeterminate compliant during the initial screening process for Round 10, five

of which were ultimately deemed to be non-compliant.

The SRP identified two areas where applicants

faced considerable challenges in Round 10: (1) the need to have a conflict of

interest policy in relation to PR nomination; and (2) the capacity of

non-government constituencies to organize a transparent and well-documented

process to select their representatives.

Requirement 4, concerning the PR nomination process,

posed the greatest challenge to Round 10 applicants. Twenty-one CCMs had

trouble with this requirement, four of which were ultimately deemed

non-compliant. The SRP said that many applicants had weak documentation on how

the nomination of the PR took place and who took part in the discussions and

voting.

The SRP said that while Round 10 applicants

generally provided strong documentation to demonstrate that public calls were

made to solicit submissions for possible integration into the CCM's proposal, often

applicants were weak in describing their process to review submissions and

detailing how the inputs were reflected in the final proposals (Requirement 3).

The SRP said that to fulfil Requirement 3, applicants should " reach beyond

known networks of stakeholders to acquire nationwide input into the proposal

development process " and that most-at-risk populations should be included

in this process.

To assess compliance with Requirement 5, the SRP

verified that all applicants had a documented plan to oversee programme

implementation, and that the plan outlined the role of a

broad range of stakeholders in carrying out specific oversight activities. The

SRP said that Round 10 was the first time that all applicants have been

determined fully compliant with this requirement.

With respect to regional applications, the SRP

noted that ROs and, to a lesser extent, RCMs, have found it challenging to

secure endorsements from all of the relevant national CCMs. " Regional

applicants cite inaccessibility of CCMs as the major obstacle to securing

endorsements, while CCMs note that regional applicants often submit proposals

for endorsement very late in the proposal development process, especially at a

time when CCMs are focused on their own national proposals. "

The SRP said that proposals from RCMs and ROs

are useful in situations where several countries can address AIDS, TB and

malaria more effectively as a group rather than only on a national basis - one

example of this is the small island states in the Caribbean

and the Pacific. The SRP also said that proposals from RCMs and ROs can provide

additional value to already existing national programmes, such as cross-border

malaria initiatives. Finally, the SRP said that multi-country proposals can

help address needs ignored by some national programmes due to unfavourable

policies on key and vulnerable populations including injecting drug users, men

having sex with men, and sex workers.

The SRP noted that the number of Non-CCM

applications in Round 10 was significantly lower compared to previous rounds,

but that Non-CCM applications in both Rounds 9 and 10 have had more success in

meeting the relevant eligibility criteria. The SRP said that

" the Global Fund

Secretariat recognizes that the Non-CCM application option remains an important

opportunity for groups highly marginalized and/or criminalized as a result of

severe stigma and discrimination in government policies, particularly regarding

proposals addressing HIV/AIDS. "

The SRP added that the Global Fund is working to

provide Non-CCM applicants with improved guidance on the documentation and

processes required to support funding requests outside the CCM model.

The information for this

article is from the " Report of the Round 10 Screening Review Panel. "

Global Fund, January 2011, atwww.theglobalfund.org/en/ccm/documents (see " SRP Reports " ).

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

2. NEWS: Global Fund Reports that the Number of

People Receiving Services Continues to Rise Sharply

By December 2010, programmes supported by the

Global Fund were providing antiretroviral (ARV) treatment to 3.0 million people

living with HIV, an increase of 20% compared to December 2009, according to

data provided by the Fund. Global Fund-supported programmes were also providing

directly observed therapy short course (DOTS) to 7.7 million people with TB, an

increase of 28%; and had distributed 160 million insecticide-treated mosquito

bed nets, an increase of 53%. In 2010 alone, 56 million bed nets were

distributed. The number of malaria cases treated rose to 170 million in 2010

from 108 million in 2009, an increase of 77%.

As a result, the Global Fund says, more than 6.5

million lives have been saved. Each day, 4,400 deaths are averted.

Since the Global Fund started in 2002,

programmes supported by the Fund have provided one million pregnant women with

a complete course of antiretrovirals to prevent transmission of HIV from

mothers to their children. In addition, 5.0 million basic care and support

services have been provided to AIDS orphans and vulnerable children; 150

million sessions of HIV counselling and testing have been provided; and 2.7

billion condoms have been distributed.

The Global Fund says that it now provides

one-fifth of international resources to fight AIDS, as well as 63% of

international funding to fight tuberculosis and 60% of international funding to

fight malaria.

Note: As indicated above,

these accomplishments are attributable to programmes that the Global Fund has

supported. This does not mean that the Global Fund alone can take credit for

this; many of these programmes have also been supported by national governments

and other donors.

Most of the information for

this article was obtained from " Global

Fund-Supported Programs Deliver AIDS Treatment For 3 Million People, "

Global Fund press release, 1 December 2010.

+ + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

3. COMMENTARY: Improving Communications Between the FPM and the PR Would

Strengthen Grant Performance

FPMs may have the hardest job at the Secretariat

Global Fund should set time standards for the

review of key documents

by Garmaise

The Global Fund was set

up to be fast and light, but over the years management of the Fund's grants has

become more complicated. At the core of the Fund's model is the relationship

between the fund portfolio manager (FPM) and the principal recipient (PR). As

the Global Fund Secretariat and Board work on reforms, they should include a

focus on improving the working relationship between FPMs and PRs.

FPMs have the most important - and possibly the

hardest - job at the Secretariat. They are responsible for negotiating with

other departments at the Secretariat and with all in-country partners. But,

often, FPMs are undertrained and overworked. Many PRs are very frustrated by the

long waits for FPMs to respond to emails and to approve key documents, and by

the constant iterations of budgets and performance frameworks. It is common for

a PR, or a proposed PR, to wait 6-8 weeks for a document to be reviewed, and

then to receive from the FPM an updated draft with a request that feedback be

provided within 48 hours. Even when major issues of stockouts, questionable

expenditures or funding shortages emerge, often FPMs are slow to communicate

with PRs or to respond to messages from PRs.

The Global Fund Secretariat should establish

standard response times for emails and phone calls to FPMs from in-country

stakeholders. The Secretariat should specify that FPMs should acknowledge

receipt of all emails and phone messages within 48 hours, and should state by

when a full response will be provided.

In addition, the Secretariat should set

standards for review of key documents. For example, the Secretariat could

decide that Progress Updates and Disbursement Requests (PU/DRs) should be

reviewed within two weeks, and procurement and supply management plans within

four weeks. Publishing these standards would clarify expectations for PRs and

other key partners. Ideally, the FPM and PR would also agree on a " grant

signature calendar " that identifies all key grant documents and when they

will be submitted, reviewed, and finalised. In a few countries, FPMs and PRs

have developed such calendars in advance of grant signature, with good results.

FPMs should also be rewarded for working well

with their countries. Many FPMs have excellent relationships with their

implementers, but are not recognised for their efforts. Instead, they are

measured only on signing grants and disbursing funds. The Secretariat should

revise FPMs' Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to measure their ability to work

with in-country partners. This could be done many ways, including conducting

satisfaction interviews with implementers and measuring response times for key

deliverables.

The Global Fund's reform efforts are an

excellent opportunity to strengthen the working relationship between FPMs and

PRs. The suggestions made here - measuring and rewarding relationship

management, setting customer service expectations for FPMs and the Secretariat,

and clarifying the time needed to review and approve key documents - are common

practice in the private sector and would streamline procedures and reduce

transaction costs, thus contributing to better grant performance.

Garmaise (david.garmaise@...)

is a senior analyst with Aidspan.

+ + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

4.

NEWS: Global Fund Selects Co-Chairs for Panel of Experts on Corruption Issues

The Global Fund has

selected two prominent people to co-chair the panel of experts that will be

conducting an independent review of the Fund's financial safeguards: Former

President of Botswana Festus Mogae and former U.S. Health and Human Services

Secretary O. Leavitt.

The panel is part of a broader set of measures

that the Global Fund is implementing to strengthen the Fund's financial and

risk management systems. Some of these measures, including the panel, were in

response to the recent media coverage of corruption in the administration of

Global Fund grants in a few sub-Saharan African countries, and to the reaction

of some donors to the corruption stories.

The co-chairs will select a small group of

eminent persons and experts to join the panel. The Global Fund says that the

panel will assess the Fund's current practices in financial oversight, and will

make recommendations to help strengthen the Global Fund's fiscal controls and

anti-corruption measures.

" The Global Fund is the world's most

powerful tool in the fight against AIDS, TB and malaria, " said Leavitt.

" It will be my job as co-chair of this independent review to make certain

that the Global Fund's financial controls meet high standards of

professionalism and that, if necessary, improvements are made to increase the

Fund's ability to improve lives. "

The Associated Press reported that

the choice of an ex-president from a nation often seen as a beacon of

democratic hope in Africa, together with a popular former Republican governor

from Utah who was also a member of former President W. Bush's cabinet,

is a two-pronged bid to ensure cooperation from African grant recipients and

gain legitimacy with those Republicans in the U.S. Congress who have questioned

the Fund's programmes.

The independent review panel will report to the

Board of the Global Fund. When the idea of the panel was first announced by the

Fund in February, the plan had been that the panel would report to the Board in

time for the May board meeting. But the Fund now says that the panel's work

will last " several months. " As with all Global Fund reports, the

panel's report will be made public.

Festus Mogae was President of Botswana from 1998

to 2008. He won the 2008 Ibrahim Prize for Achievement in African leadership in

recognition of his record of good governance as President. O. Leavitt

served under President W. Bush as Secretary of Health and Human Services

from 2005 to 2009. During his three terms as Governor of Utah, the state was

recognized six times as one of the U.S.'s best-managed.

Some of the information for

this article was taken from a Global Fund press release,

16 March 2011.

+ + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

5. NEWS: Round 11 Applicants Will Be Able to Submit a

Separate HSS Component

Starting in Round 11, Global Fund applicants

will be able to submit a separate cross-cutting health systems strengthening

(HSS) component in their proposals. For the last few rounds of funding,

cross-cutting HSS requests had to be attached to a disease component; this will

no longer be a requirement. This decision was made by the Board at its meeting

in December 2010.

This means that a proposal may now contain any

combination of four components: HIV, TB, malaria and cross-cutting HSS. For

example, in Round11, an applicant could submit one proposal containing a TB

component, an HIV component and a cross-cutting HSS component. It will also be

possible for an applicant to submit a proposal containing only a cross-cutting

HSS component.

The Global Fund says that requiring that

cross-cutting HSS requests be attached to a disease component did not fit very

well with the new grant architecture. Under the new policy, it will be much

easier to consolidate cross-cutting HSS activities into single streams of

funding.

The Board reiterated that applicants are

encouraged, wherever possible, to integrate requests for funding HSS actions

within individual disease components. The cross-cutting HSS component is

intended only for HSS activities that cut across two diseases, or all three

diseases. The Global Fund does not expect the new policy to change the current

scale of funding for HSS activities; it considers the new policy to be more of

a " technical correction. "

Finally, the Board asked its working group on

eligibility, cost-sharing and prioritisation to develop criteria specifically

for cross-cutting HSS applications in time for the launch of the Round 11 call

for proposals. Round 11 is scheduled to be launched on 15 August 2011, with a

15 December 2011 deadline for submission of applications.

Information for this article

was taken from the Report of the Policy and Strategy Committee, Document

GF/B22/4, and from Decision Point 4 in the Board decision points paper for its

22nd meeting, Document GF/B22/DP1. Both documents are

atwww.theglobalfund.org/en/board/meetings/twentysecond.

+ + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

6. NEWS: Global Fund to Develop Guidance on Strengthening MNCH Content of Funded

Programmes

The Global Fund will develop guidance for

countries on how to strengthen the maternal, newborn and child health (MNCH)

content of their HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and health systems

strengthening programmes. The guidance will include indicators specific to

MNCH. These decisions were adopted by the Global Fund Board at its meeting in

December 2010. Exactly when this guidance will be available is not known. It may

or may not available in time to inform the preparation of Round 11 proposals.

The Board also decided that a discussion around

possible additional, longer-term measures to increase the Global Fund's

engagement in MNCH will take place during the development of the Global Fund's

new strategic plan, which is underway now and is scheduled to be completed by

the end of 2011. Prior to the December Board meeting, the Board's Policy and

Strategy Committee (PSC) had discussed possible long-term measures, but had failed

to reach a consensus.

The PSC explored three options for channelling

new funding to MNCH. Option 1 involved the Global Fund hosting a dedicated

initiative to fund MNCH, separate from the rounds-based system. Option 2

entailed using the Health Systems Funding Platform to invest in MNCH. Option 3

involved accelerating funding for MNCH from within existing systems. No

agreement was reached concerning which option would be preferable. In addition,

some PSC members wanted to see expanding the Global Fund's mandate included as

a possible option.

The discussion concerning the various options

will likely continue during the consultations that will be undertaken related

to the development of the Global Fund's new strategic plan.

Information for this article

was taken from Decision Point 4 in the Board decision points paper for its 22nd meeting, Document GF/B22/DP1, at www.theglobalfund.org/en/board/meetings/twentysecond;

and " Enhancing Global Fund Support to Maternal, Newborn and Child

Health, " October 2010, submitted by the Secretariat to the Policy and

Strategy Committee. The latter is not available on the Fund's website.

" Reproduced from the Global Fund

Observer Newsletter (www.aidspan.org/gfo), a service of Aidspan. "

Forwarded by:

---------------------------

Yours in Global Concern,

A.SANKAR

Executive

Director- EMPOWER INDIA - Professional Civil Society Organisation

Founder and General Secretary - Confederation of

Indian Civil Society Organisation’s (CICSO)

National Convener- National Alliance for Health,

Environment and Rights ( NAFHER)

107J

/ 133E, puram

TUTICORIN-628

008, TN, INDIA

Telefax:

91 461 2310151; Mobile: 91 94431 48599: www.empowerindia.org

·

You are invited to join an E

FORUM AIDS-TN. To join this free E Forum kindly send an e mail

to AIDS-TN-subscribe

·

This e Forum moderated by EMPOWER, a Non-profit,

Non-Political, Voluntary and Professional Civil Society Organisation.

P

Please don't print this

e-mail unless you really need to.

S.v.p. ne pas imprimer ce courriel à moins

d’en avoir vraiment besoin.