TWENTY YEARS LATER, LESSONS LEARNT SHOW COUNTRIES ARE STILL STRUGGLING WITH THEIR GLOBAL FUND APPLICATIONS

Author:

Editorial Team

Article Type:

Article Number: 1

More guidance than ever is provided, including a case study – but countries remain confused

This issue of the GFO brings you feedback regarding HIV prevention in Grant Cycle 7 applications and lessons learnt from those applications. We also touch on World Malaria Day, working with national audit institutions: what’s in it for the Global Fund, and the Office of the Inspector General audit of Global Fund grants in Bangladesh.

Dear subscribers

Welcome to spring!

And we launch this issue with a summary of the third UNAIDS-TSM workshop in the series, this time for the Asia & Pacific region (UNAIDS workshop on maximizing Global Fund processes in Asia and Pacific Region). Held for countries submitting in Windows 2 and 3, unlike the two earlier workshops in Kenya and Senegal, this region benefitted from lessons learnt from countries who had already submitted under Window 1. And a high-level summary of these lessons is provided in Article 3, Countries still grapple with translating HIV program ambitions into Global Fund funding requests.

It is beyond disappointing that many countries still have problems with the numerous forms and extra annexes, compounded with the fact that the Global Fund admits there may have been a few mistakes on their part resulting in some confusions and inconsistencies in some of the instructions. Nonetheless, the peer review of several draft funding requests showed clearly that countries were still not following the Global Fund guidance and instructions. Countries have their chance to have their say: the Global Fund has sent out a link to a questionnaire for all countries that submitted under Window 1 and is asking for honest feedback: if you fall into this category, and you have valid complaints and comments, do please ensure that you complete this online questionnaire that is being widely circulated to all country partners. If you do not fill in the survey, then you have no legitimate reason to whinge! And we will see the same mistakes being repeated over and over again.

Using the example of DRC, Article 4 looks at audit institutions and asks What would the Global Fund gain by working with national audit institutions in Africa?  And following this, we have our regular article on an Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report, this one based on an audit with the aim of Improving the effectiveness of Global Fund Grants in Bangladesh. 

Article 6 reminds us that 25 April is World Malaria Day. Among the rhetoric we ask that the abundance of malaria initiatives – siloed, vertical, repetitious – that exist be put aside and the malaria community come together to agree on a united way forward that does not repeat business as usual but brings new innovations to the efforts to combat malaria.

Article 7 bemoans the parlous state of HIV prevention in the Window 1 funding requests for which there have been peer reviews (HIV prevention in GC7 funding requests is still far from providing an adequate response to identified needs). The global guidance is there but unfortunately many draft funding requests have failed to reflect this urgency and, where they do, they often provide proposals for ambitious interventions but with no corresponding budget. Our article provides a Top Ten Checklist of ten steps countries can follow to ensure they get HIV prevention to the forefront of this applications.

Finally, we provide a brief summary of a new UNAIDS report, New UNAIDS report shows that fully funding the HIV response will get Africa back on track in terms of health, social and economic achievements.

So this issue of the GFO has several articles of interest to countries preparing their funding requests who are still to submit them; grab these lessons learnt and the Top Ten Prevention Checklist with both hands and ensure that your funding request is as good as it can possibly be because you are fortunate enough to build on the experiences of the countries who went before you under Window 1!

As ever, Aidspan and our editorial team, under the leadership of Ida Hakizinka, does its best to ensure the accuracy of data and statements in our published articles ― and hence our inclusion of hyperlinks ― but if you, the reader, identify an error or important omission, please notify us and provide us with your data source; and we shall be happy to publish a correction or amendment.

If you enjoy the GFO and find it relevant to your work, please encourage your colleagues to colleagues to subscribe!

Don’t forget: if you are aware of an interesting development relevant to disease programmes or health systems and that you feel is worthy of global discussion, do let me know together with the name of a person prepared to write about this. Suggestions and comments can be sent to us, Ida Hakizinka or Arlette Campbell White in English, French or Spanish at ida.hakizinka@aidspan.org or acampbell.white@aidspan.org.

The Aidspan Editorial Team