Structured Abstract
| Document Title: | Civil society participation in Global Fund governance: What difference does it make? Preliminary research findings. June 2004 |
| Institution: | International Center for Research on Women |
| Study funded by: | Ford Foundation |
| Objectives: |
|
| Methods: | The International Center for Research on Women has undertaken a two-year research and advocacy initiative, which involves a review of other consultative mechanisms and processes for civil society engagement, interviews with key informants, a review of GF documents. Recommendations spelled out during a civil society consultation held in Brussels in November 2001 are used as a baseline to provide input into decisions regarding the establishment of the GFATM. |
| Results: | The main findings and recommendations are presented and organised according to four questions (see Summary of preliminary findings):
|
Executive summary
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY FINDINGSI. To what extent does participation by civil society in the Global Fund governance influence decisions and outcomes ?
After a little more than two years of operations, it is clear that civil society participation in Global Fund governance has influenced decisions and outcomes related to institutional structures, policies, and practices. Civil society involvement in the process of establishing the Fund succeeded in securing two voting and one non-voting seats on the Board, inclusion in the Country Coordinating Mechanisms, and the establishment of a Partnership Forum. Membership on the Board has afforded civil society an opportunity to further influence decision making through participation in Board Committees. Civil society advocacy for public disclosure of all working documents of the Board, Secretariat, and Partnership Forum, as well as all proposals, interim and final reports, was instrumental in the Board's adoption of a Global Fund Documents Policy, which details 10 categories of documents that routinely will be made public.
II. What are the factors and mechanisms that facilitate meaningful and effective participation by civil socety ?
Depth of commitment of top leadership to meaningful and effective participation of civil society
The Executive Director and the Chair of the Board have demonstrated a clear commitment to enabling the participation of civil society representatives, an accessibility and a willingness to hear their concerns.
Global Fund commitment to transparency of decision making and operations
The Global Fund has worked diligently to ensure that its decision making is transparent. The main vehicle for implementing this commitment is its policy of posting all key documents on the website in a timely fashion. Key informants raised a number of concerns, including: (a) civil society Board and Committee members do not always receive key documents in a timely manner, (b) they often have significant technological difficulties in accessing the documents, (c) Board documents are not made public until after the Board meeting, (d) there has been no public disclosure of the scoring form used by the Technical Review Panel (TRP) to rate proposals, (e) the TRP report on proposals is not posted directly on the website, but constitutes a part of the Board docket and can be difficult to find, (f) the TRP report is not available prior to the Board meeting which limits the ability of civil society to have input into the final approval of proposals by the Board.
At the CCM level, (a) Principal Recipients do not always share progress updates with the CCMs and (b) there is a lack of clarity as to the role of different CCM members in monitoring of program implementation.
Evaluation of civil society participation in the Global Fund
The Global Fund adopted the civil society recommendation that a formal evaluation of the Fund be conducted after the first two years of operation. In addition, the Board instructed the Secretariat to develop a Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy. Both the Global Fund and civil society should find ways to systematize the monitoring and evaluation of civil society participation in Global Fund governance.
III. What are the constraints to meaningful participation by civil society in decision-making in the Global Fund ?
Financial resource limitations
Resources to support civil society participation in Global Fund governance are proving inadequate for the challenges that the global civil society faces in fulfilling its governance responsibilities, both at the Board level and at the country level.
Resource constraints, in particular, limit the amount of time civil society representatives can dedicate to fulfilling their responsibilities as Board members and alternates.
Resource limitations also underlie the lack of technology infrastructure and skills, which severely constrain participation by civil society from resource poor settings.
Inadequate flow of information among civil society participants and limited information technology capacity
Systems for a two-way flow of information between civil society participants on the Board and those at the country level are not well developed. This has resulted in a critical gap in communication between Board representatives and the broader civil society. The task of establishing communications networks and systems while simultaneously providing support for current Board operations is not manageable for the three civil society communications focal points.
Failure to acknowledge central importance of capacity strengthening to effective participation of civil society and to mobilize adequate resources for that purpose
Civil society organizations are required to develop new technical knowledge and strategic and process skills. In general, the Global Fund has relied on partners to support the strengthening of civil society's capacity to participate effectively at the Board and in the CCMs.
Lack of criteria for what constitutes meaningful and effective civil society participation at the country level
Civil society participation in CCMs has varied from country-to- country, but - on the whole - has been far less effective and meaningful than what has been advocated by civil society at the Board level. There is evidence that stigma and discrimination at the country level has led to exclusion of some affected groups, notably women and drug users. Currently, a review of CCM membership and the signature of members on the proposal submission are used as indicators for civil society involvement in the proposal development process.
IV. To what extent has the Global Fund integrated gender concerns into its policies and operations ? What role has civil society played with respect to the Global Fund's attention to gender concerns ?
A significant gap in the Global Fund's structure, policies and processes is the lack of a systematic focus on gender issues. The following concerns are raised:
- Women's organizations did not involve themselves in systematic way in the discussions leading to the establishment of the Global Fund.
- There has been no articulated agenda on key gender issues either by the Board or the Secretariat.
- What attention has been given to gender concerns has focused on gender balance in representation and not on ensuring gender expertise in decision making and operations. The Technical Review Panels and the CCMs are notably lacking in gender balance, with many CCMs lacking representation from Women's Ministry or women's NGOs.
- Among current civil society Board representatives, alternates, and focal points there is little gender expertise.
- Country proposals demonstrate scant evidence of any systematic attempt to address gender issues through program design. A preliminary scan of 37 countries indicates that primary emphasis of programs that target women is on MTCT. No reference is made to specific gender constraints in access to VCT or ARV treatment, for example. Proposals for education programs are silent with respect to gender norms that increase the vulnerability of men and women and how to address these factors.
- There is no focus on violence against women with the exception of a few proposals. Similarly, economic issues related to women's vulnerability or access to care and treatment are not mentioned.
- Sex disaggregated data is not uniformly collected.
