AIDSPAN has produced another valuable issue of the Global Fund Observer (GFO) that reports and analyzes the challenges of implementing Global Fund grants. Three of the main articles address serious gaps in various areas of programming.
The first gap is one of funding. As we discussed recently, even with an overall increase in pledges to the GFATM, the amounts are inadequate to achieve goals. The inability to raise funds at all level shows serious weaknesses in commitment and planning. AIDSPAN notes consequences of this such that for example …
In fact, though, this week’s pledges provide only $2.9 billion for Rounds 10, 11 and 12. The current estimate of the cost of Phase 1 of Round 10 is $2.0 billion. So the prospects for adequately funding Rounds 11 and 12, and Phase 2 of Round 10, are currently bleak, unless funds significantly in excess of this week’s pledges end up being raised.
The second gap is in oversight of procurement and supply management (PSM). “Deficiencies in the oversight of procurement and supply management (PSM) arrangements may be exposing Global Fund grants to unnecessary and unacceptable risks. This is one of the conclusions of an audit report released by the Fund’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in April 2010.”
Some of the main PSM deficiencies as summarized by GFO are –
- weak forecasting of requirements for drugs and health product
- weak technical specifications for procurement
- absence of, or weak, procurement policies and procedures
- poor inventory management
- poor storage and transportation facilities at national and sub-national level
- weak procurement planning resulting in frequent emergency procurements and
- inadequate management information systems
The third major gap reported in the GFO is lack of civil society participation in County Coordinating Mechanisms (CCMs) for global fund grants. The article highlights the Civil Society Action Team’s recent report. This report documented the fact that while persons affected by the three diseases in theory have representation on CCMs, they often do not take part in the real decision making.
In particular, “civil society representatives often lack the capacity and expertise to fully engage in CCM processes and to properly represent their constituents.” Lack of participation threatens the relevance and acceptability of programs.
These gaps focus on weaknesses basic health systems management processes and competencies. It is not enough to point out these gaps. Serious efforts are needed to strengthen health systems. Unless these three gaps are closed, partner interest in pursuing the noble goals of disease control and elimination will be threatened.