You are here
Civil Society Has Had Limited Impact on Drug Policy Reform in Three Former Soviet Union Countries, Researchers Say
Editor’s note: In their paper, Andrew Harmer et al raise some interesting issues about the impact of Global Fund financing on civil society organisations not just in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, but also in other regions. Aidspan has created a Discussion Page on its website where GFO readers can engage in a discussion on these issues.
The Civil Society Principal Recipients Network (CSPRN) is inviting all civil society PRs to send representatives to the network’s annual meeting in Cape Town, South Africa, on 8–12 October 2012 (maximum two representatives per PR).
Twelve civil society organisations (CSOs), most of them from Eastern Europe and Central Asia, have submitted a joint position paper on the development of a new funding model for the Global Fund.
Concerns have been raised by civil society organisations (CSOs) about the process being followed to develop a new funding model for the Global Fund, and about the fact that most of the discussions have focused on formulas for allocating funding.
The cancellation of Round 11 by the Global Fund has had a significant impact on programmes to fight AIDS, TB and malaria including, in particular, programmes being implemented by civil society organisations (CSOs). Programme scale-up and even some essential life-saving interventions that were planned by countries were halted.
Specific concerns spelled out
To achieve maximum impact, the Global Fund needs the full engagement of civil society (CS). However, CS has not been meaningfully involved in the critical decisions currently being taken by the Fund.
A Chinese NGO has called on the Global Fund to "continue to freeze" funding to the Chinese government for HIV.
When is the Global Fund finally going to make it easier for Non-CCMs to apply to the Fund to address the needs of vulnerable populations that have been left out of the national response?
People living with HIV are present on CCMs, but often lack genuine access to decision-making. Key affected populations are often absent from CCMs. CCM members (not just government representatives) are often unable or unwilling to create the conditions needed for the meaningful participation of these populations.