
92abd658328917e7e4ae16054b9e6bad.ppt
- Количество слайдов: 11
Increasing Country & Community Involvement in Global Health Policy Processes? The Case of the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Carlos Bruen Ruairí Brugha Department of Epidemiology & Public Health International Conference 2012
Presentation outline • • Aims & Methods Context Findings Discussion
Project Aims & Methods Global Perspectives: Evolution & Impact of Global Health Initiatives (GHIs) • Identify, track and evaluate evolution of GHIs: – Focus at the global level and global-country interface – Focus on issues of partnership, governance, influence of individuals, organizations and networks etc • Results: – Address rationales and evolving roles of GHIs – Document stakeholder perspectives on selected GHIs, e. g. i) role of individuals and organizations in shaping GHIs; ii) GHI impact on health systems of southern African countries • Methods include: – Documentary Reviews – Stakeholder mapping & in-depth telephone interviews of purposively selected people across 8 constituencies (n=36) (2009 -10)
Context: NGO Engagement in Global AIDS Treatment, Prevention & Related Interventions • 1980 -90 s: Gradual shift from Northern domestic to transnational AIDS civil society networks • 1996: UNAIDS launched, guided by a Programme Coordinating Board (PCB) that includes NGOs • 2000: International AIDS Conference, Durban • 2001: Organisation of African Unity summit on HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Other Infectious Diseases, Abuja; UNGASS • 2001: Launch of Transitional Working Group (TWG) that established the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, TB & Malaria • 2002: Global Fund launched & NGO inclusion guaranteed
NGOs & the Emergence of the Global Fund • Early discussions on global HIV financing initially shaped by donor priorities and contested positions – Infrastructure V Product investment? – Horizontal or vertical approach? • NGOs engaged in advocacy & lobbying of governments – Divided by similarly contested positions as donors • Northern AIDS treatment NGOs directly involved in negotiations through the Global Fund Transitional Working Group – “Political Entrepreneurs” with incentives and capacity to invest in creation of a new institution – Personal connections and positive reputation among influential actors – Consultation initially limited to network connections between small number of Northern NGOs and dominant NGOs in countries
Early Gains • NGOs move from the fringes to the core • Institutional access created greater potential for NGOs to influence agenda-setting, decision-making and organisational operations. • NGOs came to be considered a source of credible information for other Board members and Secretariat staff, winning over ‘doubters’ at senior levels • NGOs developed delegation systems to enhance representativeness, provide support and manage their relations • 2004: NGOs representing affected communities Delegation get voting rights • Through the Global Fund and in countries, facilitated significant scale-up of treatment and impact on three diseases
Early Challenges • Perception of undemocratic and anti-participatory processes at global level, exacerbated by: – Who had access to new technology or to the global centers of influence – Dominance of large NGO networking associations – Slow release of information – Resource constraints and expanding workload at global and country levels • Divisions and rivalries between NGOs/Civil Society groups, e. g. – Northern and Southern NGOs or between AIDS Treatment NGOs and Primary Health Care NGOs
Global Fund, NGOs and Evolving Relations • Influence at Board and Secretariat level, e. g. – Expansion of original Global Fund Framework document e. g. Community Systems Strengthening, gender & sexualities policies – Board decisions rejecting Secretariat-arranged drug donations • Increased funding & competition between NGOs – In some countries, a barrier to cooperation at country level, with implications for global level activities – Financing prioritized service delivery/implementation activities at expense of advocacy, research and other activities • NGOs concerned about donor co-option: – Diverting activities for sake of attracting finances? – Poachers turned gamekeepers? – Constraining advocacy and watchdog activities?
Lasting Challenges • Global activities perceived as disconnected from country and community realities – Distracting from community and country priorities & needs – Weak mechanisms for information sharing or community engagement and participation at national and global levels • Shifting landscape: – Dependency on larger Northern NGOs lessening & not as exclusively driven by AIDS treatment NGOs – Increasing cooperation at global level, creating conditions for coordination of resources across GHIs & reduction of ‘warring factions’, e. g. International Civil Society Support (ICSS) • NGO Accountability: To whom, for what, and how? – “What is important is to be aware that they are not observers standing on the sidelines with a watchdog function, figuring out what’s right to do. They also are similarly interested in finance from the Global Fund. That is often overlooked I think, and the Civil Society role as advocates and watchdog and drivers of fairness needs…to be looked at very carefully • C 28, Senior Donor/GHI Representative
Discussion Points • 2001 -2011 was a period of structured experimentation in global health governance and policy leading to many positive outcomes • However, need to continue the movement beyond consultations with civil society ‘leaders’ to develop structured mechanisms for participation from community level upwards to enhance community-based responses • Important to recognise that NGOs are increasingly part of the power structures
Acknowledgments • Special thanks to all participants who were willing to take part in consultations, interviews, and follow up queries. • Project colleagues – Impact of GHIs in Africa Project – Global HIV/AIDS Initiative Network (www. ghinet. org) • Funding Organisation – Funded by EU Framework 6 INCO-GHIs
92abd658328917e7e4ae16054b9e6bad.ppt