1. The Global Fund 2015 Partnership Forum Summary Report:
Addis Ababa (May, 2015), Bangkok (July, 2015) and Buenos
Aires (September, 2015)
Submitted to Viviana Mangiaterra, Senior Technical Coordinator
RMNCH and HSS, and, Olga Bornemisza, Technical Advisor HSS
Technical Advice and Partnership Department
Geneva, Switzerland – September 2015

2. Table of Contents
About the 2015 Partnership Forum & Summary Report ...............................................1
Community Systems Policy, Process & Funding Context.............................................2
Differentiation & Integration .........................................................................................3
Transition & Sustainability............................................................................................4
Prioritise for Investment: Measurement & Data Collection ..........................................5
Constituencies & Perspectives: Who is saying what? ...................................................6
Reference List ................................................................................................................9

3. 1
About the 2015 Partnership Forum & Summary Report
The 2015 Global Fund Partnership is particularly important for one main reason; it
facilitates multilateral interaction between various different actors, both from the state
and nonstate domain, to discuss and implement strategies that are intended to subdue
and, eventually, eradicate the three diseases worldwide. The Partnership Forum is
considered to be a fairly innovative model of consultation, where recommendations
are formulated and conveyed to the Board through its Strategy, Investment and Impact
Committee – a platform via which proposals are offered and incorporated within the
Global Fund’s own strategic direction and implementation framework. The
underlying scope concerning the Global Fund’s Partnership Forum is to branch out
beyond the conventional participants, so as to involve and hear upon those who do not
have a formal say in matters concerning HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and/or malaria.
Moreover, physical participation is not required, as the e-Forum allows those unable
to attend to also be part of the discussion by granting them access online. The e-
Forum is, therefore, considered to be an integral component to this extensive
consultation process.
In 2015, three Partnership Forum meetings took place: in May (7th/8th) in Addis
Ababa (African Constituencies), in July (24th/25th) in Bangkok (South-East Asian
Constituencies), and in September (3rd/4th) in Buenos Aires (South American
Constituencies). Those involved critically evaluated some of the limitations
concerning the Global Fund’s previous funding and development model, providing
practical input for the new strategy, which is sought to cover the period 2017-2021.
This summary report is intended to, above all, identify key themes and general trends
among the recommendations provided by those involved during these three
Partnership Forum meetings. While this approach does not diminish the importance of
devising and implementing interventions that are tailored to specific regional
requirements, it is equally important to recognise shared understandings and
experiences between each set of constituencies. Highlighting commonalities will
render future objectives more attainable, since the plan of action – in this case the
Global Fund’s new strategy and HSS – is already devised in accordance with these
overarching recommendations.

4. 2
Community Systems Policy, Process & Funding Context
1) Widespread agreement over the need for the Global Fund to work towards a more
cohesive and responsive policy environment for Community Systems
Strengthening (CSS) and community responses in general.
2) National efforts should be complemented with both regional and local ones,
especially targeting remote communities that are, in some cases, ignored by
large-scale government interventions.
3) Strong advocacy for community-based schemes that are directed mainly towards
discriminated individuals, particularly in terms of those living with HIV/AIDS
(e.g. sex workers and drug abusers), need to be reinforced and integrated within
Global Fund supported programmes.
4) Prioritising populations and communities over countries, urging the Global
Fund to concentrate specifically on high burden cases regardless of the fact that
they may be located in economically prosperous geographical areas.
5) However, there has been a tendency to review the amount of resources directed
countries that are in the process of or fall within in the middle-income status
(MIC), in order to give precedence to those that are financially incapable of
providing treatment to patients.
6) Funding should be primarily directed towards community-related initiatives,
especially concerning the strengthening and development of communal
institutions so as to equip them with the know-how and capacity to effectively
deliver services.
7) There needs to be greater emphasis on the role of civil society and its underlying
ability in channelling the financial as well as administrative resources provided
by the Global Fund.
8) The groups urged for more transparency between national coordinated efforts
and local governments, so that strategies intended to alleviate the burden of the
three diseases at a communal level can indeed take place without marginalised
communities being neglected. This has been referred to in both the Bangkok
Partnership Forum as well as the Buenos Aires Partnership Forum, where
governments are inclined to criminalise those who suffer from, in most cases,
HIV/AIDS and, as a result, further impinge upon the ability of these individuals
to receive adequate treatment from their respective health services.

5. 3
Differentiation & Integration
1) All constituencies agree on the need for a differentiated approach, stemming
directly from the notion of empowering individual communities within specific
geographical contexts so as to have greater impact for key populations
(mentioned in the previous section).
2) Broad consensus on the fact that Health System Strengthening (hereafter HSS)
and Community System Strengthening (hereafter CSS) discussions, particularly
with respect to conversations on sustainability and impact, are required to
incorporate considerations related to specific categorisations such as gender and
human rights.
3) Mutual agreement over the strategically restricted capacity associated with the
“one-size-fits-all” understanding of Global Fund procedures, leading to a lack of
flexibility, which might impinge upon the ability of both HSS and CSS to assist
with effective community responses.
4) Differentiation is facilitated if the investments made by the Global Fund
recognise country contexts, so that resilient and sustainable health systems can
emerge with the eventual possibility of leading to appropriate transitions.
5) In addition to devising and implementing an efficient differentiated approach
that takes into consideration structural variation among each country context,
participants in all three Partnership Forum meetings have advocated for greater
integration across disease programmes.
6) There has been widespread concern over the absence of a coordinated system
capable of prioritising investment areas regarding individual parallel systems by
diseases programmes.
7) Greater degrees of integration required within HSS and CSS structures in order to
prevent duplicate interventions from being introduced, since similar funding
requests often overlap and, ultimately, deduct much needed time and costs to
already existing systems.
8) For example, HIV/TB joint concept notes were discussed so as to increase
programme coordination, cost efficiency and crosscutting alignment.
9) A term that appeared prominently during the Partnership Forum meetings was
complementarity, indicating that greater integration is required between both
state and non-state actors in order to work towards the same outcomes.

6. 4
Transition & Sustainability
1) Clear consensus among all three Partnership Forum meetings on the need to
maintain effective investment towards HSS, as it was perceived in being critical
in achieving both sustainability and successful transition.
2) Participants agreed that the Global Fund’s ultimate task is to fund and promote
self-sufficient health systems as countries transition from low-income status to
the middle-income status.
3) The discussion surrounding transition and sustainability is closely associated to
that of community system policy and community system strengthening (as
previously mentioned), where constituents demand that the Global Fund both
acknowledges the possibility of middle-income countries to become autonomous
entities in their quest to end the three diseases but also continue to provide
support for key-affected populations (i.e. those individuals who are particularly
vulnerable to discrimination, especially once the reduced funding on behalf of the
Global Fund eventually terminates).
4) Several constituents proposed the idea that specific transition strategies for
individual countries and regions should be issued, in order to take into
consideration the state of their economic development.
5) Widespread agreement over the need to develop, introduce and, with time,
maintain a dedicated funding channel for CSS based on countries that have
managed to initiate their transition. The Global Fund has managed to
successfully address community responses, and it is thought that this support
should be continued following a country’s transitioning from Global Fund
funding.
6) Another point of concern mentioned by all constituencies was the notion that the
Global Fund should maintain a high degree of contact and engagement with
post-transition countries, particularly at the regional level in regards to advocacy
and technical support.
7) The sustainability of different health systems is ensured primarily when suited to
both the goals and objectives of the country at hand, and, more importantly, when
utilised as a preventive measure for eventual shortcomings regarding either
current or future interventions directed on behalf of the Global Fund.

7. 5
Prioritise for Investment: Measurement & Data Collection
1) A well-functioning health system (HSS and CSS combined) relies on accurate
measurements and relevant data deriving from the productivity and impact
generated by community responses.
2) There is widespread agreement over the need to quantify and qualify the data
from community responses in order to better incentivise and encourage
recognition and investment towards actors that are involved with key-affected
populations.
3) General acknowledgement over the notion that an integrated information
management system and data collection mechanism that assists with capturing the
role and contribution of the various actors will be considerably challenging,
since it requires complete participation from the host countries to supply
information regarding their efforts.
4) Broad consensuses on the necessity for both HSS and CSS to incorporate data-
collection mechanism that can, not only assess the performance of community
responses involved in the intervention, but also calculate the flow of funding and
its eventual impact.
5) The lack of outcome and impact indicators for HSS means it is difficult to
measure current achievements or track what has or has not been successful.
6) General tendency to perceive frameworks to measure outcome and impact as
particularly necessary in order to determine HSS and CSS efficiency, which
includes the development of appropriate indicators - The lack of ability to
attribute or link outcomes to community responses hinders investments.
7) On more practical terms, there has been particular emphasis on the idea to develop
and, eventually, implement less intricate models for direct investment/funding
to community responses with a strong focus towards sustainability.
8) There is a strong sentiment that investments must be tailored to the exact
specifications of each country – i.e. taking into account policies implemented by
each individual government that might restrict the operations of the Global Fund
when providing funding.
9) The information and data collected needs to be aligned with existing systems in
order to avoid parallel processes with a country – coordination needs to take place
with in-country stakeholders such as governments and communities above all.

8. 6
Constituencies & Perspectives: Who is saying what?
1) African Constituency – Addis Ababa, Ethiopia – 7/8 May 2015
 The main concern for the African constituencies was to invest sufficiently in HSS,
in order to yield the maximum impact of the Global Fund’s additional investments
in disease-specific programming.
 Agreed upon the fact that the Global Fund should identify and eventually develop
the right metrics and indicators for measuring health system performance that will
facilitate the case to its donors for greater investments in HSS.
 There needs to be greater emphasis on gender-oriented schemes regarding the
burden endured by both women and girls in the region, as they are bearing a
substantial portion of the disease burden and, simultaneously, driving the
epidemic.
 Most partners have expressed their concern over the ability of the Global Fund to
maintain its financial support in light of potential political, economic and social
turmoil – events that are an apparent reality throughout most of the African region.
The African constituencies have repeatedly mentioned the need for the Global
Fund to devise and implement institutional and operational frameworks that can
adapt to Challenging Operating Environments (hereafter referred to as COE) – i.e.
increasing the flexibility of the investments so that these are not halted in case of
disturbances.
 In regards to managing transitions from LI/LMIC to MIC status, the African
constituencies perceive this progression as an important component of the new
Global Fund strategy and are, consequently, unanimously in favour of it.
 A recurring theme highlighted by the discussions at the Addis Ababa Partnership
Forum was to keep key-affected populations within the loop of the Global Fund
HSS and CSS funding mechanism.
 Several spokespersons have emphasised upon the need for the Global Fund to
prioritise communities that may be stigmatised or discriminated by their own
respective governments – an issue that can become particularly prominent in
countries that experience transitions under a financial point of view, however, still
lack the organisational capacity or will to maintain their commitment to the
humanitarian cause.

9. 7
2) South-East Asian Constituency – Bangkok, Thailand – 24/25 June 2015
 Participants at the Bangkok Partnership Forum mentioned how both HSS and CSS
are inextricably linked, in terms of being constituted by an array of different
actors (government, private sector, and community responses) that allow them to
serve complementary, interlinked roles in the systems for health.
 The South-East Asian constituencies also raised the issue of developing prioritised
areas of investment to strengthen and coordinate the complementary nature of
responses by all sectors – in this case, the government, private sector, and
community.
 More importantly, the participants suggested the possibility of having dedicated
parts of a grant’s budget directed primarily to HSS, as a way to “reinforce the
need to use the disease programme as a platform to build on cross-cutting health
system needs”.
 Yet again, some CCM participants noted the potential benefit of an HSS
allocation as funding is currently pulled out of the allocations for the three disease
components.
 Ensure the strategic approach towards building resilient and sustainable systems
for health are coordinated with the need to differentiate based on country context
and aligned with the national strategic goal.
 Utilise local and international partnerships so that investments in systems for
health including community responses, are prioritised and coordinated.
 Invest in data and information systems that can reflect the role of various actors in
the systems for health.
 Similarly to the Partnership Forum meeting in Addis Ababa, the South-East Asian
constituencies often mentioned the importance of providing civil society and
communities with a greater say in the formal interactions between their respective
governments and the Global Fund.
 Many have advocated for a Global Fund that seeks to “invest in populations and
not in countries”, meaning that there is a strong desire on behalf of the participants
to witness greater dialogue and funding towards key affected populations through
multilateral forms of collaboration.
 In this case, civil society is perceived as being the means through which the
Global Fund can better access remote, and, often discriminated communities.

10. 8
3) South American Constituency – Buenos Aires, Argentina – 3/4 September 2015
 There has been a considerable amount of emphasis on the need for greater
coordination, harmonisation and dialogue between the different actors involved in
a system for health.
 This has led to the prioritisation of areas in which impact can be both considered
as achievable and, simultaneously, realistic while acknowledging the practical
limitations associated to the Global Fund’s modus operandi; these include,
barriers in governance, laws, policy and mindset.
 Such coordination, harmonisation and dialogue needs to be extended to
investments that take into consideration country or regional contexts and needs, as
well as promoting the inclusion of all actors – i.e. government, communities,
academia, and private sector.
 Similarly to the thoughts and understandings expressed at the Addis Ababa and
Bangkok Partnership Forum meetings, the South American constituencies were
equally determined the raise the issue regarding continued inclusion and
meaningful participation of communities in health-related decision-making and
governance.
 Strong and effective community responses have been identified as being vital in
facilitating transitions, allowing for communities to become self-sufficient if
governments become negligent in providing funds to their cause.
 Many partners have reiterated the need to develop and implement an accurate data
collection mechanism that can provide reliable information to the Global Fund
when concerned with HSS and CSS.
 This will allow a more effective form of knowledge management and sharing,
which are both considered to be important prerequisites when seeking to build
upon past successes and achievements.

11. 9
Reference List
Reports:
 Chiu, J. 2015. The Global Fund Partnership Forum in Bangkok, 24-25 June
2015: Work Group 1 Rapporteur Report Back. Geneva, The Global Fund.
 Chiu, J. 2015. The Global Fund Partnership Forum in Buenos Aires, 3-4
September 2015: Work Group 1 Rapporteur Report Back. Geneva, The Global
Fund.
 The Global Fund. 2015. The Global Fund e-Forum Strategy Consultation –
Summary Report 1. Geneva, The Global Fund.
 Traynor, D. 2015. The Global Fund Partnership Forum in Bangkok, 24-25
June 2015: Work Group 2 Rapporteur Report Back. Geneva, The Global Fund.
Websites:
 The Global Fund. 2015. Partnership Forum 2015. [Online]. [Accessed 23
September 2015]. Available from:
http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/partnershipforum/
 The Global Fund. 2015. Voices at the Partnership Forum (Addis Ababa).
[Online]. [Accessed 24 September 2015]. Available from:
http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/blog/2015-05-
08_Voices_at_the_Partnership_Forum_2015/
 The Global Fund. 2015. Voices at the Partnership Forum (Bangkok). [Online].
[Accessed 24 September 2015]. Available from:
http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/blog/2015-06-
24_Voices_at_the_Partnership_Forum_2015/
 The Global Fund. 2015. Voices at the Partnership Forum (Buenos Aires).
[Online]. [Accessed 25 September 2015]. Available from:
http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/blog/2015-09-
04_Voices_at_the_Partnership_Forum_2015/