From: The Global Fund’s paradigm of oversight, monitoring, and results in Mozambique
Aspect of paradigm | Perceived country-level result | Respondent(s) |
---|---|---|
Performance-based financing | • Recipients’ focus on disbursement rather than results | OECDPartner10 |
• Burdensome administrative requirements | GFCountryStructure4 | |
• Duplication of reporting efforts from the ground all the way to central level | Multilateral3 | |
Emphasis on financial technicalities | • Staff with financial rather than development background who lack country experience | GFBoard4 |
Lack of country office | • Other partners doing monitoring for the Global Fund | OECDPartner2 |
• Global Fund is not engaged in country-level coordination | Coordination1, OECDPartner3 | |
• Forces partners to coordinate among themselves more | Multilateral2 | |
• Frequent deadlines and time stress | GFSecretariat5 | |
• Over-worked staff, communication challenges, out-of-touch with realities on the ground | GFSecretariat5 | |
• Dependent on expertise and interest of single person (Fund Portfolio Manager) | GFBoard4, GFCountryStructure1, GF Secretariat5 | |
Partnerships | • Reliance on external consultants to develop proposals | Multilateral2 |
• Early identification of gaps and provision of additional support | OECDPartner6 | |
• Undefined roles and concerns about accountability | GFBoard2, GFCountryStructure4 | |
• Potential for agenda alignment with single partner and less coordinated/multilateral approach | GFBoard1, GFCountryStructure2, GFSecretariat5, OECDPartners2, 3, and 10 |