Request for Phase 2 Funding for a Zanzibar HIV Grant Is Turned Down

5. NEWS
15 Nov 2010

In October 2010, the Global Fund Board rejected a request for funding for Phase 2 of a Round 6 HIV grant in Zanzibar (Tanzania), based on a recommendation from the Global Fund Secretariat. (This is referred to as a “No-Go” recommendation.) Some Board members opposed the decision. This is only the second time in more than three years that the Global Fund has declined to approve a Phase 2 request. The first time was just a couple of months ago (see Board Rejects Request for Phase 2 Funding from Sri Lanka” in GFO 130).

In line with Board policy, in May 2010 the Secretariat notified the Zanzibar Sub-CCM that it was planning to make a No-Go recommendation to the Board, and the Sub-CCM had an opportunity to respond. After considering the response, the Secretariat re-affirmed its No-Go recommendation and the Board accepted the recommendation in an electronic vote.

The Secretariat said that the recommendation not to continue the grant was made strictly in accordance with the principles of performance-based funding. According to the Secretariat, results were well short of target; the performance of the principal recipient (PR), the Zanzibar AIDS Commission, was clearly inadequate (for example, there were significant weakness in human resource management, sub-recipient management, M&E and reporting); and the PR consistently failed to address the underlying causes of that poor performance.

The Secretariat said that although it regularly reiterated the need for long-term technical assistance and capacity building to address grant challenges, the Sub-CCM did not attempt to secure technical support from local or international partners in a timely manner.

The Secretariat stated that the discontinuation of this grant will not lead to interruptions in antiretroviral treatment (ART) or to new ART patients being turned away, because ART activities will continue to be supported by another Round 6 HIV grant with the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare.

When the Board made its decision, there were some dissenting votes, but not enough to block the No-Go recommendation from going through. (See the commentary below.)

Share |

Laissez un commentaire

Leave a comment