Community Engagement in Global Fund Grants

Also available in: Español

By: Constanza Armas

On June 22, six regional Community, Rights and Gender (CRG) platforms organized a webinar entitled ”Community Engagement during Grant Cycle 7 Implementation Processes.”

National networks from around the world came together to share best practices and strategies for the Grant Cycle 7 of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund). These networks included the Eastern Africa National Networks of AIDS Service Organisation (EANNASO) from Arusha, Tanzania; the Asia Pacific Council of AIDS Service Organizations (APCASO) from Bangkok, Thailand; the Regional Network for Access to Essential Medicines (Réseau d’Accès aux Médicaments Essentiels, RAME) from Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso; the Eurasian Harm Reduction Association (EHRA) from Vilnius, Lithuania; the International Treatment Preparedness Coalition-MENA (ITPC-MENA) from Marrakech, Morocco; and, for the Latin America and Caribbean region, Via Libre – LAC Platform from Lima, Peru.

Svetlana Dupriez, a specialist from the Global Fund’s Access to Funding team, opened the event with an overview of the Global Fund’s minimum expectations on community engagement during the development of funding requests. She emphasized the importance of getting organized, i.e., having a plan (reflected in the documents submitted in March) that will lead to negotiations (at this time) and result in funding approval. In this sense, she emphasized one of the pillars of the Global Fund, namely “maximizing opportunities for communities and leaving no one behind.” The people affected by the three diseases and the networks that represent them must be transparently engaged at all stages of the grant process; this will make it easier for beneficiaries in each country to access funding and ensure a “more comprehensive outcome and better focus.”

Changes introduced for this grant cycle include a variety of feedback mechanisms. As the Country Coordinating Mechanisms (CCMs) –or Regional Coordinating Mechanisms (RCMs) in the case of a multi-country program– are responsible for organizing the country dialogue, it is proposed that there should be two feedback meetings with them during the grant process. In practice, this means a negotiation meeting between the country mechanisms and the main beneficiaries, which is why ensuring the visibility of civil society is essential. In addition, to facilitate feedback, it is suggested that CCMs and civil society visit the community at least once so that feedback is not a one-way street. This proposal is one way of promoting dialogue with civil society.

Following this clarification, Mary Ann Torres, Executive Director of ICASO, shared some lessons learned from past grants, summarized in a 10-step guide for effective community engagement in grant-making (available on page 21 of this report): “Everyone should be actively involved in the process.” Documentation should be kept to a minimum and a checklist should be used.

Alexis Bazlé, from the AIDSETTI organization, spoke about their experience in Burkina Faso. In a context very similar to that of Latin America, there are significant gaps in health care, stigma and discrimination against people living with HIV and key populations, as well as underpayment of health workers and a lack of technical infrastructure in health centers.

Lessons learned include the importance of identifying gaps that exist between population groups in current and future interventions. “Identifying potential needs in terms of resources of different groups” through consultations, and promoting engagement will allow for complementary interventions and ”developing intervention proposals to maximize impact efficiently,” Bazlé said.

Tonnie Lyimbazi, CCM Coordinator from Uganda, noted that starting early with community engagement is critical for proposals. Drawing on his experience from 2022, he emphasized that ensuring the continuity of stakeholders involved is essential for adequate follow-up: “Involving the working networks gives more confidence” to receive feedback “so that they know what is expected of them,” he stressed.

The speaker also noted the importance of using digital platforms to improve the flow of information. In his experience, digital platforms made it possible to involve other partners with “clear roles and responsibilities to have a more efficient structure.” Similarly, Lyimbazi pointed out that “the CCM leadership is key for them to know and understand what the structure is and how it is changing”; the involvement of technical advisors from Geneva enriched the human rights perspective of the proposal. As a self-evaluation, an aspect rarely seen in this type of presentation and therefore much appreciated, the speaker reflected that they should have worked with the affected communities beforehand (as they were not included in the budgeting) and should also have improved the timeframe for the delivery of documentation.

Asgar Satti, from the APCASO network, thanked for the multiple support received during the challenging process of working with all components (TB, HIV and malaria), which included three consultation processes involving 54 organizations and more than 100 people. In this experience, it was helpful to provide printed materials and to have organizational mechanisms to carry out “a regular consultation process (…) Priorities change, but it is necessary to ensure that agreements are addressed and respected,” he said.

In the same vein, Ángela León, from W4GF, concluded the activity by mentioning the challenge in Pakistan to engage women and girls in general and transgender women in particular. She emphasized the need to consider these populations: “The engagement of youth and women has not been possible, their organizations are marginalized, and we believe this can be improved (…) The CCM needs to be aware of transgender communities.” She also advocated the need for more resources and legislative support.

This activity led to sharing information and lessons learned from mistakes and successes. Undoubtedly, this model is worth replicating as it encourages reading, discussion and decision-making by the stakeholders involved.

In this line and from this space, we encourage more exchange activities, perhaps with fewer speakers, which will allow a deeper understanding of each topic and a better visualization of the what, how, when and where of each intervention. More is not always better. Let’s keep going!

Next, you can view the entire webinar:

Download the presentation:

Download