Transcript RBM Partnership - Roll Back Malaria

Working Group on ITNs
September 8&9, 2003
Thomas Teuscher
RBM Partnership Secretariat
An update on RBM Partnership
1. The RBM Partnership Board
2. The RBM Partnership Secretariat
3. Global Consensus mechanisms
4. Focusing efforts at country level
RBM Partnership
The state of development in 2002
External evaluation identified the
following two major weaknesses of
the RBM partnership
– Partners’ roles and responsibilities
unclear
– Global consensus on better practices to
scale-up proven interventions
– Progress of implementation at country
levels
Reorienting the RBM partnership
Partnership to improve on transparent
management mechanisms
1. Creation of a Partnership Board
2. Creation of a unified Partnership
Secretariat
• Hosting of global Secretariat provided by
WHO HQ
1. RBM Partnership Board
The Board provides the mechanism for
joint decision-making by, and partner
accountability to the partnership.
The Board approves and guides mid-term policies,
strategies and actions for its Secretariat and other
partner groupings or individual partner organisations
in support of increased malaria control action at
country level; and
The Board monitors and evaluates the performance of
the partnership and its secretariat.
1. RBM Partnership Board
Constituencies
• 19 members representing all RBM constituencies
• 3 founding partners (UNICEF, WB, WHO)
• 6 malaria endemic countries (Ghana, India, Senegal, Zambia;
+Central Africa, +Horn of Africa, Venezuela)
• 3 OECD donor countries (Italy, Netherlands, USA)
• 1 NGOs (interim member CORE & alternate IFRC)
• 1 Private Sector (member Bayer, alternate Pfizer)
• 1 Research and Academia (MIM Secretariat)
• 1 Foundations TBD
• GFATM Executive Director
• RBM Executive Secretary
2. Unified RBM Partnership
Secretariat
• Ensure better coordination and planning by
partners at the global, regional, sub-regional and
country levels.
• Use the comparative advantages of different
partners for better implementation of
partnership action plans, particularly those of
endemic countries.
• Support Working Groups and keep the partnership
informed of outcomes from these Groups.
3. Strengthen 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 (case management, ITN, MIP,
M&E, Finance and RM, Communications). A working
group on Complex Emergencies is under
development.
• Board will review progress of Working Groups at
the April 2004 Board meetings.
3. Strengthen global consensus
RBM Partnership Working Groups
Working Group TOR
• Purpose
– Identify better practices to scale-up available
recommended tools.
– Promote through sub-regional networks better practices.
• Membership:
– All constituencies represented
• Chair:
– Working Group to elect
• Hosting:
– By RBM partners
• Next steps:
– Workplan with essential next steps 2003
3. Strengthen global consensus
RBM Partnership Working Groups
The Secretariat expects the Working Group
members to:
•





synthesize knowledge and disseminate best practices
provide operational framework with costing
clear set of products regularly updated
finalize and clear documents before they go on RBM website
promote consensus frameworks with subregional networks
co-ordinate with other global initiatives, Working Groups or
other committees to ensure consensus on best practices to
scale
• through Secretariat's support backstop sub regional networks
for provision of programmatic assistance to country
Partnership
4. Focussing efforts at country
level
Categorization of Country Support.
Country readiness and availability of
resources for scaling-up will determine the
strategy of 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
“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 meeting
“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
April(?) 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 consider by ITN WG
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Permanent 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
Issues to consider by ITN WG
Issues to consider in the 2003
workplan
• Promote good practice for MIP in 14
focus countries to allow reaching
Abuja goals
• Compile success stories and
disseminate evidence base