Seeking to turn the page on a financial scandal involving the National AIDS Commission, Malawi has appointed new principal recipients to administer the $574 million it was allocated to fight HIV.
You are here
While turning the page on a financial scandal, Malawi still confronting challenges in prioritizing HIV interventions
The concept note delivered on 8 September for Russia's last HIV grant from the Global Fund was a perfect illustration of the conundrum facing a growing number of Eastern European/Central Asian countries: how to do more with less to fight a widening HIV epidemic.
Malawi's ability to control the spread of HIV will be undermined by the structural barriers that prevent access to services by key populations: this was the message delivered to stakeholders participating in country dialogue to develop the southern African nation's HIV concept note.
Communication between the Global Fund and organizations working on male sexual health issues in the Asia-Pacific is the biggest obstacle keeping at-risk populations from joining the conversation on how to respond to HIV, according to the Asia Pacific Coalition on Male Sexual Health (APCOM).
Stakeholders representing civil society, government, key affected populations and technical partners met on 14-15 January in Kinshasa for the final country dialogue meeting for Democratic Republic of Congo to validate the content and priorities of an HIV concept note under the Global Fund’s new funding model (NFM).
The International Council of AIDS Service Organizations (ICASO) has released a guide on applications under the new funding model (NFM). The guide targets civil society and focuses primarily on standard applicants (i.e. applicants that are not involved in the transition phase but that may apply when the NFM is fully rolled out, likely at the beginning of 2014).
The initial draft of the concept note that Zimbabwe was planning to submit to the Global Fund included funding for studies on the population sizes of sex workers and men who have sex with men (MSM), but did not include specific interventions that could address the needs of these groups while the data were being collected.
As the Global Fund describes it, the “country dialogue” is not something that the Fund created. The Fund says that the term describes a dialogue that already occurs, or at least should be occurring, among the country coordinating mechanism (CCM), implementers, technical partners, donors, governments, civil society and key affected populations.