Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary of country-level perceptions of the Global Fund’s paradigm

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