After more than a decade of major achievements, the AIDS response is at a crucial juncture, both in terms of its immediate trajectory and its sustainability, as well as its place in the new global health and development agendas. In May 2013, the UNAIDS-Lancet Commission – a diverse group of experts in HIV, health, and development, young people, people living with HIV and affected communities, activists, and political leaders— was established to investigate how the AIDS response could evolve in a new era of sustainable development. The UNAIDS-Lancet Commission has come together at a moment when the lessons of the AIDS response, including its whole-of-society perspective, can be informative and even transformational for other spheres of global health. The path to ending AIDS as a public health threat by 2030, as set out in this report, should be a major part of the post-2015 developme...
Publisher: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
On January 23, 2011, the Associated Press (AP) released an article titled “Fraud Plagues Global Health Fund”. Picked up by news agencies across the globe, it extrapolated from reports of the inspector general of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria (Global Fund) in 2010 to imply endemic corruption across the Global Fund system. Even though widely discredited, the article nevertheless set off a firestorm that is just now being fully extinguished. It provoked an existential crisis. The response the article precipitated was swift and dramatic, and thankfully resulted in a stronger and better run Global Fund. While some of the circumstances are specific to the Global Fund and its mode of governance, there are important lessons here for other international organizations, including the World Health Organization, itself facing considerable cr...
Publisher: Mookherji et al., Globalization and Health (2015) 11:21
Objective/Background: The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis & Malaria (GF) strives for high value for money, encouraging countries to integrate synergistic services and systems strengthening to maximize investments. The GF needs to show how, and how much, its grants support more than just HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria. Sexual and Reproductive Health (SRH) has been part of HIV/AIDS grants since 2007. Previous studies showed the GF PBF system does not allow resource tracking for SRH integration within HIV/AIDS grants. We present findings from a resource tracking case study using primary data collected at country level.
Results: All HIV/AIDS grants in Ethiopia support SRH integration activities (12-100%). Using activities within SDAs, expenditures directly supporting SRH integration increased from 25% to 66% for th...
This short paper explores the extent to which key affected populations are represented within country coordinating mechanisms in Southern Africa. The paper, which includes a series of policy recommendations and observations drawn from extensive qualitative anonymized interviews with stakeholders in six countries (Swaziland, Lesotho, South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe, and Zambia) to understand how the CCMs interact with KAP representatives.
The 2015 Partnership Forum provides a unique opportunity for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis & Malaria to reach out to a wide range of stakeholders for consultation and inputs as it develops its 2017 – 2021 Strategy. The theme of the 2015 Partnership Forum is “Shaping our future: Collaborating for a Healthier World” .
The Bangkok Partnership Forum, the second in this series of consultations, will bring together 130 participants from countries in the Middle East and North Africa*, West and South Asia, East Asia and the Pacific. Participation at the Partnership Forum is by invitation only, and stakeholders are invited to put forward nominations.
The Partnership Forum will include key Global Fund stakeholders — including civil society and community representatives, representatives of implementers and in-country stakeholders,...
In April 2015, the Open Society Public Health Program convened a consultation of experts and advocates concerned about the future of the Global Fund, particularly in these key areas:
preserving support to important programs in middle-income countries
realizing the Global Fund’s human rights objectives
supporting access to essential medicines
Without concerted and well-informed efforts by advocates the Global Fund risks repudiating its own history, undermining its investments, and damaging its stature as a leader in global health. Furthermore, the Global Fund’s ambitious strategy to end the epidemics by 2030 will be a pipe dream without a reinvigoration of commitments in these three key areas.