12
Global Advocacy Working Group Second report back

Global Advocacy Working Group Second report back

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Global Advocacy Working Group Second report back

Global Advocacy Working Group

Second report back

Page 2: Global Advocacy Working Group Second report back

Responding to country feedback

The CCM is left out once the proposals are submitted--until Phase 2 submission

Action: raise issue with Secretariat CCM team as a priority for 2008: operationalize CCM’s ‘oversight of implementation’ role

Lack of accurate country data might undermine a good proposal

Action: FHI will assemble and help synthesize country data for 10 countries in initiative

Page 3: Global Advocacy Working Group Second report back

Responding to country feedback

Need evidence and information on cost effectiveness and value for money of prevention interventions

Action: Rapid internal assessment of usable data from Cochrane Report, released May 2008

Action: Assemble data for countries to use on cost effectiveness of range of RH interventions

Page 4: Global Advocacy Working Group Second report back

Opportunities for progress and victory in 2008

• Side meetings during Implementers meeting: June 2008 – Action: find out if there will be a linkages session; ask

GF to hold another post-implementers meeting session

• August 2008 Mexico City– Action: meeting with new champions and Secretariat—

discuss progress and problems in implementation

Page 5: Global Advocacy Working Group Second report back

Opportunities for progress and victory in 2008

• May 2008 Release of Cochrane Report– Will include best practices along with ‘gold

standard’ of evidence– Action: first step will be an internal community

analysis, to make sure the findings do not undermine our efforts

Page 6: Global Advocacy Working Group Second report back

Further discussion of Gender Strategy Framework…

• What experience do we want to see in a Gender Champion?– Real experience: Implementing programs, ‘minimum of x years in

country implementation,’ RH expertise, people with HIV encouraged to apply,

– What about someone with a global profile? – What can NGOs bring to the discussion? The Private Sector?

– Move away from people we have been hearing from for 20 years

Page 7: Global Advocacy Working Group Second report back

Further discussion of Gender Strategy Framework…

• What do we want the Champions to do?

– Operational focus– Engaging with countries, assessing what is actually happening at country level – Internal and external advocate– Ongoing training for Global Fund staff especially Fund Portfolio Managers– Measure/track implementation of gender and SRH/HIV organizational goals– Annual reporting and external communication on progress and problems – Focus is not only on women

Page 8: Global Advocacy Working Group Second report back

Further discussion of Gender Strategy Framework…

• Where should the Champions be located? – Executive Directors office, with a link to

Operations/Country Programs, the CCM Team, and the Performance Evaluation and Policy Team

Page 9: Global Advocacy Working Group Second report back

Further discussion of Gender Strategy Framework…

• What would success look like? – Improve impact of existing programs and new programs on reducing

vulnerabilities of women, girls and sexual minorities: the team of Champions should have a catalytic effect

– Question: should there be a monetary target? ($XX invested in programs reducing vulnerabilities)

– Question: identify a short list of ‘priority countries’ where the Champions will work for change

– Question: what should the operational targets and Key Performance Indicators against which the Global Fund measures success be?

Page 10: Global Advocacy Working Group Second report back

UN Family

• Global Implementation Support Team (GIST) works in parallel with RH supply coalition addressing similar procurement and supply management issues – Action: use opportunities of GIST and CIST ToR

revision, and UNFPA’s chairing of GIST to link PSM strengthening done by RH communities

Page 11: Global Advocacy Working Group Second report back

Technical Review Panel (TRP)

• Persistently, 40% HIV proposals recommended for approval:– Action: for Round 8 there will be coordination of TS provision

among several WHO departments, not only HIV/AIDS• TRP vacancies filled this year

– Action: Forward names of experts to Secretariat with gender expertise, and SRH/HIV expertise

• Increasing overall TRP capacity – Action: organize TRP integration training day outside of the

proposal review process; set a target proportion for TRP members who go through that training?

Page 12: Global Advocacy Working Group Second report back

Mobilizing RH/HIV Integration Global Advocacy Working

Group

--Conduct joint advocacy to advance RH/HIV integration targeting the Global Fund and UN Family

--Respond to priority issues identified from country and regional partners

[email protected]