Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Globalization and Health 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Tuberculosis | Research

Inclusive engagement for health and development or ‘political theatre’: results from case studies examining mechanisms for country ownership in Global Fund processes in Malawi, Tanzania and Zimbabwe

Authors: Russell Armstrong, Arlette Campbell White, Patrick Chinyamuchiko, Steven Chizimbi, Sarah Hamm Rush, Nana K. Poku

Published in: Globalization and Health | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

For many countries, including Malawi, Tanzania and Zimbabwe, 2017 was a transition year for support from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria as one funding cycle closed and another would begin in 2018. Since its inception in 2001, the Global Fund has required that countries demonstrate ownership and transparency in the development of their funding requests through specific processes for inclusive, deliberative engagement led by Country Coordinating Mechanisms (CCMs). In reporting results from case study research, the article explores whether, in the context of the three countries, such requirements continue to be fit-for-purpose given difficult choices to be made for financing and sustaining their HIV programmes.

Results

The findings show how complex, competing priorities for limited resources increasingly strain processes for inclusive deliberation, a core feature of the Global Fund model. Each country has chosen expansion of HIV treatment programmes as its main strategy for epidemic control relying almost exclusively on external funding sources for support. This step has, in effect, pre-committed HIV funding, whether available or not, well into the future. It has also largely pre-empted the results of inclusive dialogue on how to allocate Global Fund resources. As a result, such processes may be entering the realm of ‘political theatre,’ or processes for processes’ sake alone, rather than being important opportunities where critical decisions regarding priorities for national HIV programmes and how they are funded could or should be made.

Conclusion

To address this, the Global Fund has begun an initiative to shore-up the capabilities of CCMs, with specialised technical and financial support, so that they can both grasp and influence the overall financing and sustainability of HIV programmes, rather than focussing on Global Fund programmes alone. What stronger CCMs could achieve, given the growing HIV-treatment-related commitments in these three countries, remains to be seen. Starting in 2020, the three countries will discover what resources the Global Fund will have for them for the 2021–2023 period. The resource needs for expanding HIV treatment programmes for this period are already foreseeable leaving few if any options for future deliberation should funding from the Global Fund and others not grow at a similar pace.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
For the 2017–2019 period, the available amounts were US$408 million (Tanzania), US$406 million (Zimbabwe), and US$318 million (Malawi). These countries also receive funds for TB and malaria programmes, the amounts for which are not included in this analysis but are much lower. See: https://​www.​theglobalfund.​org/​en/​funding-model/​funding-process-steps/​allocations/​. Accessed: 8 Jan 2018.
 
2
Since 2014, the Global Fund has calculated on its own the total funds it is willing to offer a recipient country and informs the CCM of this amount in writing as the Fund Request development cycle begins. Countries are recommended to address their core HIV fundings needs within this allocated amount [7].
 
3
Since 2014, the Global Fund has allowed its recipient countries to submit funding requests that exceed what it has nominally committed to provide through its main funding allocations. In the 2017 funding cycle, these were called Prioritised Above Allocation Requests. The reason for this is to allow countries to demonstrate that effective management of their epidemics requires additional investments. The Global Fund approves the technical merits of these additional requests and commits that, should additional resources become available over the three-year funding cycle, some of these additional items may be funded [7, 34].
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference Bekker LG, Alleyne G, Baral S, Cepeda J, Daskalakis D, Dowdy D, et al. Advancing global health and strengthening the HIV response in the era of the sustainable development goals: the international AIDS society—lancet commission. Lancet. 2018;392:312–58.CrossRefPubMed Bekker LG, Alleyne G, Baral S, Cepeda J, Daskalakis D, Dowdy D, et al. Advancing global health and strengthening the HIV response in the era of the sustainable development goals: the international AIDS society—lancet commission. Lancet. 2018;392:312–58.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Atun F, Kazatchkine M. Promoting country ownership and stewardship of health programs: the Global Fund experience. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2009;52(Suppl 1):67–8.CrossRef Atun F, Kazatchkine M. Promoting country ownership and stewardship of health programs: the Global Fund experience. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2009;52(Suppl 1):67–8.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Brown GW. Safeguarding deliberative global governance: the case of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Rev Int Stud. 2010;36:511–30.CrossRef Brown GW. Safeguarding deliberative global governance: the case of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Rev Int Stud. 2010;36:511–30.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Kelly SL, Martin-Hughes R, Stuart RM, Yap XF, Kedziora DJ, Grantham KL, et al. The global optima HIV allocative efficiency model: targeting resources in efforts to end AIDS. Lancet HIV. 2018;5(4):E190–8.CrossRefPubMed Kelly SL, Martin-Hughes R, Stuart RM, Yap XF, Kedziora DJ, Grantham KL, et al. The global optima HIV allocative efficiency model: targeting resources in efforts to end AIDS. Lancet HIV. 2018;5(4):E190–8.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Mwisongo A, Nabyonga-Orem J. Global health initiatives in Africa—governance, priorities, harmonisation and alignment. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16 Supp 4:212.CrossRef Mwisongo A, Nabyonga-Orem J. Global health initiatives in Africa—governance, priorities, harmonisation and alignment. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16 Supp 4:212.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Warren A, Cordon R, Told M, de Savigny D, Kickbusch I, Tanner M. The Global Fund’s paradigm of oversight, monitoring and results in Mozambique. Glob Health. 2017;13:89.CrossRef Warren A, Cordon R, Told M, de Savigny D, Kickbusch I, Tanner M. The Global Fund’s paradigm of oversight, monitoring and results in Mozambique. Glob Health. 2017;13:89.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Oliveira Cruz V, McPake B. Global health initiatives and aid effectiveness: insights from a Uganda case study. Glob Health. 2011;7:20.CrossRefPubMed Oliveira Cruz V, McPake B. Global health initiatives and aid effectiveness: insights from a Uganda case study. Glob Health. 2011;7:20.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Harrison A, Colvin CJ, Kuo C, Swartz A, Luri M. Sustained high HIV incidence in young women in southern Africa: social, behavioral, and structural factors and emerging intervention approaches. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2015;12:207–15.CrossRefPubMed Harrison A, Colvin CJ, Kuo C, Swartz A, Luri M. Sustained high HIV incidence in young women in southern Africa: social, behavioral, and structural factors and emerging intervention approaches. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2015;12:207–15.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Heestermans T, Browne JL, Aitken SC, Vervoort SC, Klipstein-Grobusch K. Determinants of adherence to antiretroviral therapy among HIV-positive adults in sub- Saharan Africa: a systematic review. BMJ Glob Health. 2016;1:e000125.CrossRefPubMed Heestermans T, Browne JL, Aitken SC, Vervoort SC, Klipstein-Grobusch K. Determinants of adherence to antiretroviral therapy among HIV-positive adults in sub- Saharan Africa: a systematic review. BMJ Glob Health. 2016;1:e000125.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Global Burden of Disease Health Financing Collaborators Network. Spending on health and HIV/AIDS: domestic health spending and development assistance in 188 countries, 1995–2015. Lancet. 2018;391:1799–29. Global Burden of Disease Health Financing Collaborators Network. Spending on health and HIV/AIDS: domestic health spending and development assistance in 188 countries, 1995–2015. Lancet. 2018;391:1799–29.
27.
go back to reference Tanzania National AIDS Commission (TACAIDS). Tanzania investment case - final report. 2016. TACAIDS. 2016. Tanzania National AIDS Commission (TACAIDS). Tanzania investment case - final report. 2016. TACAIDS. 2016.
28.
go back to reference Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS (UNAIDS) Zimbabwe. The Zimbabwe HIV Investment Case. UNAIDS Zimbabwe. 2015. Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS (UNAIDS) Zimbabwe. The Zimbabwe HIV Investment Case. UNAIDS Zimbabwe. 2015.
32.
go back to reference Global Burden of Disease 2016 Causes of Death Collaborators. Global, regional, and national age-sex specific mortality for 264 causes of death, 1980–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet. 2016;390:1151–210. Global Burden of Disease 2016 Causes of Death Collaborators. Global, regional, and national age-sex specific mortality for 264 causes of death, 1980–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet. 2016;390:1151–210.
Metadata
Title
Inclusive engagement for health and development or ‘political theatre’: results from case studies examining mechanisms for country ownership in Global Fund processes in Malawi, Tanzania and Zimbabwe
Authors
Russell Armstrong
Arlette Campbell White
Patrick Chinyamuchiko
Steven Chizimbi
Sarah Hamm Rush
Nana K. Poku
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Globalization and Health / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1744-8603
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-019-0475-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Globalization and Health 1/2019 Go to the issue