Transcript RBM Partnership - Roll Back Malaria

Communication
Working Group
4 + 5 September 2003
Dr. James Banda RBM Partnership Secretariat
An update on RBM Partnership
1. Background - Recent Developments
2.The RBM Partnership Board
3. The RBM Partnership Secretariat
4. Global Consensus mechanisms
5. Focusing efforts at country level
1. RBM Partnership
Developments in 2002
External evaluation identified the
following two major weaknesses of
the RBM partnership
– Lack of global consensus on better
practices to scale-up proven
interventions
– Lack of progress in implementation at
country levels
Reorienting the RBM Partnership
2002/2003
Improved management mechanisms
Creation of a Partnership Board
 Creation of a unified Partnership
Secretariat
• Global Secretariat hosted by WHO HQ
2. RBM Partnership Board
• Provides the mechanism for joint decisionmaking by, and partner accountability to, the
partnership.
• Approves and guides mid-term policies,
strategies and actions for its Secretariat and
partners in support of increased malaria
control action at country level; and
• Monitors and evaluates the performance of
the partnership and its secretariat.
RBM Partnership Board
Constituencies
19 members representing all RBM constituencies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3 founding partners (UNICEF, WB, WHO)
7 malaria endemic countries
3 OECD donor countries
1 NGO
1 Private Sector
1 Research and Academia
1 Foundation
GFATM Executive Director
RBM Executive Secretary
3. Unified RBM Partnership
Secretariat
• Ensures better coordination and planning by
partners at the global, regional, sub-regional and
country levels.
• Uses the comparative advantages of different
partners for better implementation of
partnership action plans, particularly those of
endemic countries.
• Supports Working Groups and keep the
partnership informed of outcomes from these
Groups.
4. Strengthening global consensus:
RBM Partnership Working Groups
• Country partnerships find it difficult to reach
consensus as to what constitutes good practice in
scaling-up interventions. This may be the result of
lack of global consensus.
• Board has adopted the TOR proposed by 6
Working Groups to help achieve consensus (Case
Management, ITN, MIP, M&E, Finance and RM,
Communication). A working group on Complex
Emergencies is under development.
• Board will review progress of Working Groups at
upcoming Board meetings.
Strengthening global consensus:
RBM Partnership Working Groups
Working Group TOR
• Purpose
– Identify better practices to scale-up available
recommended tools.
• Membership:
– All constituencies represented
• Chair:
– Working Group to elect
• Hosting:
– By RBM partners
• Next steps:
– Workplan with essential next steps 2003
5. Focussing efforts at country
level
Categorization of Country Support.
• Country readiness and availability of
resources for scaling-up will determine the
strategy for support.
• The Partnership recognizes three
categories:
– High readiness;
– Limited readiness with additional resources;
and
– Other countries (i.e. post-conflict, low disease
burden, and countries out of Africa).
Category I: Countries with high readiness to
work towards achieving national targets
West Africa
– Benin, Ghana, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal
East Africa and Horn of Africa
– Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, UR
Tanzania, Sudan
Southern Africa
– Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe
Category II: Countries with limited readiness
but with additional resources including GFATM
West Africa
• Burkina Faso
• Guinea
• Mauritania
Eastern Africa
• Burundi
• Comoros
• Somalia
Southern Africa
• Madagascar
• Mozambique
• Namibia
• South Africa
• Swaziland
Category III: Other countries
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Angola
Botswana
Cameroon
C.A.R.
Chad
Congo
Cote D’Ivoire
Djibouti
D.R. Congo
Equatorial Guinea
Gabon
Guinea Bissau
•
•
•
•
Liberia
Niger
Rwanda
Sao Tome and
Principe
• Sierra Leone
• The Gambia
• Togo
• Asian Countries
• Latin American
Countries
RBM Partnership Board meeting
March 2003 “Decisions on WG”
1. The Board mandated the EXS RBM to make
operational Working Groups, taking into
account cautions raised by Board.
2. The Board requested the EXS RBM to develop
criteria for the purpose of evaluating Working
Group effectiveness and report to the next
Board meeting.
3. The Board empowered the proposed Working
Groups and delegated the management of
these groups to the Secretariat.
RBM Partnership Board
“Recommendations on WG”
1.
RBM Partnership EXS to report to
September 2003 Board meeting on
progress of working groups.
2. RBM Partnership EXS to report to March
2004 Board meeting on “value added” by
Working Groups.
3. Working Groups be evaluated against the
availability of usable consensus strategies
at country level within 6 months.
Issues to be considered by CWG
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Chair – Working Group to identify
Secretariat - Working Group to identify
Hosting partner – financial implications
Membership - inclusive i.e. all constituencies
Workplan 2003
RBM Partnership Secretariat support