You are on page 1of 11
Technical support availability and gaps for civil society in five regions Civil Society Action Team/International

Technical support availability and gaps for civil society in five regions

Civil Society Action Team/International Council of AIDS Service Organizations (ICASO), November 2010

About CSAT Civil Society Action Team (CSAT) is a civil society-led global initiative that aims to coordinate, broker and advocate for technical support to civil society Organizations implementing or seeking grants from the Global Fund. It is hosted by the International Council of AIDS Service Organizations (ICASO) and operates through existing civil society Organizations that serve as Hubs in Asia-Pacific, Sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East and North Africa, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. More information:

Acknowledgements ICASO would like to thank the CSAT regional Hubs and experts engaged in gathering information on technical support providers, providing insights through interviews and reviewing the analysis and recommendations:


Vincent Crisostomo & Kanna Dharmarajal, 7 Sisters

East, Central, Southern and West Africa

Anita Sandstrom, SAT Innocent Laison, AfriCASO Titus Twesige, EANNASO

Eastern Europe and Central Asia

Shona Schonning, Marija Subataite & Seva Lee, EHRN, experts from ECUO, All-Ukrainian Network of PLHIV and others

Latin America & the Caribbean

Lidice Lopez & Enrique Chavez, Aid for AIDS Ian Knight & Ivan Cruickshank, Caribbean Vulnerable Communities (CVC)

Middle East and North Africa

Nadia Rafif, ALCS

This report would not be possible without financial support from UNAIDS and inspiration and coordination of Mary Ann Torres, Robert Carr and Kieran Daly from ICASO. Writer: Raminta Stuikyte.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction


2. Methodology and limitations


3. Met and unmet needs in 5 areas of expertise


3.1. Technical expertise for HIV and TB services


3.2. Organizational development


3.3. Advocacy and policy dialogue


3.4. Networking, communication, training


3.5. Global Fund related


4. TS providers


4.1. Landscape


4.2. Accessibility, quality and coordination


5. Funding for TS


6. TS tools


7. CSAT role


8. Recommendations


Annex 1. Expertise profile of the organizations and individuals providing technical support and capacity development for civil society groups related to the GFATM




Civil Society Action Team


Community Systems Strengthening


Eastern Europe and Central Asia


Grant Management Solutions


International Council of AIDS Service Organizations


International Network of People who Use Drugs


Latin America and the Caribbean


Monitoring and Evaluation


Middle East and North Africa


Men who have Sex with Men


Global Forum on MSM & HIV


People Living with HIV






The Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria


Technical Support


Technical Support Facility (established with UNAIDS support and operates at regional levels)



Community and broader civil society groups have distinct needs for developing their organizations, services, advocacy, networking and direct engagement with the Global Fund-related processes. Those needs are as diverse as civil society and its work. This report describes priority areas in which community groups feel the greatest gaps in technical support and capacity building exist. It reviews the technical support available currently and how this could be improved in order to meet the needs of civil society. The review draws on the unique experience of regional groups working to support greater civil society involvement in the Global Fund processes through the Civil Society Action Team (CSAT) in five regions of the world. 1

The report starts with an overview of how needs in the five areas of expertise are met, followed by a review of the landscape of technical support providers, donors and technical support tools, and concludes with recommendations. The document targets an audience consisting of groups which plan, provide and/or fund technical support and capacity building at international, regional and national levels.

2. Methodology and limitations

Needs for technical support and capacity building as well as expertise of providers in 5 categories including:

service delivery; organizational capacity; advocacy; networking, representation and communication; and direct engagement with the Global Fund’s processes were analysed. (See Annex 1). During March and mid-April 2010, ninety-two (92) technical support providers recommended by civil society groups of and/or working with key population groups provided information enabling the creation of a profile of each technical support provider. It was used to populate a database, which enabled the identification of key gaps in technical support

and capacity building services available. Six qualitative un-structured interviews with CSAT regional focal points were conducted to capture insights from their two-year work within CSAT to enhance civil society involvement

in the Global Fund programs including their access to technical support.

A number of limitations must be taken into account in interpreting the findings. Within the limited time, not all recommended technical support providers were able to provide the data for the provider database and a broad

assessment of civil society needs was not possible within scope of the research. In some regions, CSAT regional Hubs do not cover the geographical areas evenly and therefore the needs of the Pacific region and the Balkans

in Eastern Europe are not well reflected in the analysis. Since the Hubs operate to address needs of civil society

and gaps in available support, their specific focus varies: some targeting Global Fund’s sub-recipients or sub-

sub-recipients with a few also working with Principal Recipients or community-driven groups. The thematic scope of the research was limited to the field of HIV and community systems strengthening. There was not an attempt to encompass the full landscape of technical support providers but rather to focus on those that are recommended by civil society working with key populations 2 as ‘civil society and key population friendly.’

3. Met and unmet needs in five areas of expertise

In order to request technical support, an organization must understand its own needs and know how to use

existing mechanisms for support. This in itself is something that many community-based groups and some civil society organizations in all the regions researched need help with. They need to better understand their capacity building needs and priorities and also how to plan and receive assistance as well as how to navigate donor and technical support provider systems in all five areas of expertise.

Generally, all the areas of expertise are covered to some extent in the five regions analysed. The levels, however, vary a great deal. Some regions have exceptionally interesting practices that might be useful for other regions. In some regions, like Middle East and North Africa (MENA), there is generally less technical support

1 CSAT covers the following regions: Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia-Pacific, West and Central Africa, Southern Africa, Eastern Africa, and the Middle East and North Africa. 2 ICASO’s definition of key populations includes: people living with HIV, orphans and vulnerable children, women and girls, youth, sex workers, injecting drug users, men who have sex with men, transgender people, migrants, refugees, and prisoners.

available and civil society is less developed especially in very conservative societies, for example Jordan and Syria.

3.1. Technical expertise for HIV and TB services

Needs for technical support for HIV and TB services are addressed relatively well at local and national levels particularly for groups already engaged in the implementation of the projects supported by the Global Fund (TGF). There are though some limitations. For example, support is rarely delivered according to a demand- driven model. Rather, support is often defined and procured by Principle Recipients without room for sub- recipients and sub-sub-recipients to request support for specific needs. Support is often delivered through trainings, without mentoring and long-term capacity building. Impact of technical support is not assessed systematically.

Some regions have developed technical support “hubs” on specific topic areas. For example, in MENA and Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA), there are Knowledge Hubs providing technical support for work with people who inject drugs. But areas of great need remain unaddressed. For example, in EECA there is an increasing need for support for working with men who have sex with men (MSM) but there are almost no technical support providers capable of addressing this. In some other fields and regions, networks of people living with HIV, key populations, as well as broader civil society groups address at least some technical expertise needs.

3.2. Organizational development

Needs related to developing institutional capacity were named as the key area in all the regions. Hubs in EECA and Sub-Saharan Africa both mentioned that there is a need for community organizations to develop their own visions and strategic plans to move beyond the problem of being “organizations that revolve around one person” and/or being purely “project-driven”. This could be addressed by increasing knowledge and skills on how to conduct participative strategic planning, develop programmatic activities, plan resources and fundraise or even how to formalize and register organizations, as emphasized in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) and the MENA region. This is not only true for smaller community groups. Organizations that are planning to become principal recipients, sub-recipients and sub-sub-recipients have distinct needs related to institutional development. In this area too, the needs for organizational development to meet the demands of participating in TGF structures might not all be clear to the civil society organizations themselves or this realization may come late. Mechanisms to provide support on general NGO institutional development are insufficient: they are either non-existent or unknown (Asia-Pacific); too expensive to be accessible (Sub-Saharan Africa); have low capacity to provide support (MENA) or once were operational but are now no longer functioning (EECA).

One specific area where additional needs were emphasized is monitoring and evaluation (M&E). Support for improved M&E in clear language is needed on HIV and TB services and on organizational development as well as on TGF-specific monitoring systems.

Some other areas of expertise, for example procurement and supply management, are needed by very few NGOs, mainly Principal recipients, who seem to have received adequate support so far.

3.3. Advocacy and policy dialogue

In EECA, advocacy and policy dialogue is identified as a key need which is inadequately addressed. It was noted that only a few civil society groups (even those with representation on CCMs) have costed advocacy strategies and action plans. While there are some tools available for advocacy planning, there are few technical support providers which systematically offer support and mentoring for collaborative planning and implementing of advocacy work. The need for technical support for advocacy work was also noted by the key information from MENA: few NGOs have experience in advocacy in the region and so most are turning to experienced civil society groups in Iran, Lebanon, Morocco and Pakistan with requests for training and technical assistance in.


Networking, communication, training

While not all interviewees prioritize addressing needs for technical support on networking, there is agreement that networking is important for meaningful representation of civil society in various decision-making bodies and processes such as Country Coordinating Mechanisms 3 and processes to develop national HIV strategies. A few NGOs, mainly networks, require support to develop sustainable networking mechanisms with transparent, democratic decision-making mechanisms. One interviewee suggested that there is a general lack of good technical assistance on networking, development of communication platforms, consensus building and good governance practice for networks.

3.5. Global Fund related

General awareness of the Global Fund architecture and processes is low. Often workshops to improve engagement of civil society still need to explain requirements, structures, processes of governance, application, grant negotiation, project implementation, oversight and reporting procedures. 4 The lack of knowledge can result in the misleading identification of the Principal Recipient as “the Global Fund.” Even civil society representatives on Country Coordinating Mechanism often lack adequate understanding of TGF architecture and processes. Many publications on TGF are not accessible for civil society groups due to language barriers because of a lack of translation into local languages, because the way it is written is not community friendly, or because the documents are too long. There are, however, examples of innovative ways of building knowledge. The Caribbean Vulnerable Communities Coalition (CVC) for example, used video to explain the Global Fund and Country Coordinating Mechanism and is building further awareness via peer support.

Knowledge is however only one element that needs to be addressed in this area. So far, in spite of policies, requirements, structures and other work components, even in the regions where levels of knowledge of Global Fund processes is higher, such as LAC, the next step – actual meaningful engagement of civil society – remains a great priority for technical assistance. At least two recent international studies identify multiple needs of civil society in proposal development and grant oversight and conclude that capacity and expertise to fully engage in Country Coordinating Mechanism processes and accountably represent their constituents is often lacking. 5 This concern was echoed in interviews in all the regions.

In various regions community groups and regional networks prioritize Community Systems Strengthening (CSS) as a way to enhance their meaningful involvement in the Global Fund’s mechanisms. Since the CSS concept in TGF is rather new, the experience in technical support in the area is limited and is mainly community driven with substantial support from CSAT particularly in Asia, EECA and MENA. Malaysia could serve as a good practice in developing the CSS component in a proposal to TGF. 6

Some civil society groups see regional proposals as one of the ways to address the needs of particularly marginalized groups. This was very apparent in Round 10 discussions among civil society. HIVOS and local groups worked on MSM-focused initiatives in Central America (along with the Global Forum on MSM and HIV) and in South-East Asian countries (non-Greater Mekong). A proposal focused on harm reduction in MENA was not successful in Round 9 but was improved and resubmitted for Round 10. So far, success for regional applications of community groups to TGF is limited. An inspiring example comes from REDCA, the Central American Network of People living with HIV (PLHIV), whose regional proposal received support from Round 7 and whose experience is used for other attempts of regional proposals.

3 For example, see: ICASO (2010). Civil Society Participation in Global Fund Country Coordinating Mechanisms. Summary Report. Available at

4 For example, see: EHRN/CSAT (2009). Report of the Workshop ‘Meaningful Involvement’ in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. November 23-26, 2009 in Sofia, Bulgaria. Available at

5 ICASO (2010). Civil Society Participation in Global Fund Country Coordinating Mechanisms. Summary Report. Available at Also, International Treatment Preparedness Coalition Treatment Monitoring & Advocacy Project (2008). Making Global Fund Country Coordinating Mechanisms work through full engagement of civil society. On-the-ground research in Argentina, Cambodia, Cameroon, India, Jamaica, Romania, and Uganda. Available at:

6 Seven Sisters (2009). Community Systems Strengthening (CSS). Round 9 Asia Pacific Documentation Workshop. 29-30 September, 2009, Bangkok, Thailand. EHRN is currently undertaking a study to assess issues in and uptake of CSS in EECA, due January 2011.

4. TS providers



The spectrum of expertise available to regions that is friendly to civil society is relatively comprehensive covering most, if not all, of the categories of technical support identified above. In regions for which a detailed list of technical support providers was provided to the researcher, including in EECA, Latin America, the Caribbean and MENA, mapping of subject areas where there is available expertise shows that coverage is rather comprehensive.

The vast majority of the providers recommended by the Hubs are based in the regions where the respective Hubs are located. The idea that “There is enough expertise within the region,” was repeated in several interviews though insufficient investment into regional consultants was also mentioned. The exceptions, where ‘external providers’ were identified, include providers of support for the development of communities of marginalized key affected populations since these groups benefit from support of their peer communities in international networks or in other countries. Examples include the International Network of People who Use Drugs (INPUD) which in cooperation with the Eurasian Harm Reduction Network provided technical support in EECA and experts from Australian community groups which provided support in Asia with support of AusAID. In some cases, external TS is available from groups funded by bilateral donors, like Grant Management Solutions, GMS, which operates with U.S. government funding or GTZ supported by German government.

All the regions rely on individual experts rather than institutions. Even while EECA, MENA and Latin American Hubs provided a list of institutions, they indicated that they often look for consultants first and then organizations. One interviewee indicated that even when they appealed to an institution for support, they would request the time of a specific person, since “their services are expensive and quality of his services is good while the quality of his colleague’s work is not worth it.” Another explanation of preference for individual consultants was that “often organizations are supply-driven and based their projects’ objectives.” In spite of the initial focus of CSAT on gathering data on organizations only, the Caribbean partners identified only one organization and 20 individual experts. In Asia, community groups recommended 32 individual experts and one technical support provider. In EECA one interviewee mentioned that while listing technical service providers, she had individual consultants from those organizations in mind.

Most of the regions, with exception of MENA and EECA, have regional Technical Support Facilities (TSF), which are established to serve as links between requests for TS and TS providers in the HIV field though they have

limited funds to pay for technical support. In West and Central Africa, the TSF provides support to civil society

in close collaboration with regional CSAT. The CSAT Hub not only recommends names of consultants but,

according to AfriCASO, also takes control of what happens with those recommendations and contributes to quality control of the technical support. The services of the TSF are not easy to access by civil society groups as the requestor of services must understand its needs well and also propose a framework for monitoring and evaluation of the service provided. In Asia-Pacific, too, the CSAT Hub, Seven Sisters, has a memorandum of understanding with the regional TSF and provides recommendations of individual experts. Their partnership addresses building of capacity of community experts by pairing them with more experienced consultants, as happened in 2009 for a regional transgender meeting. In Latin America, CRAT and ICTS, two technical support facilities, prioritize work with NGOs and engage them at the stage of preparing terms of reference (thus defining technical support requested). However all TSF support is highly restricted by limited funding available.

The International HIV/AIDS Alliance, hosting technical support facilities, particularly its offices in Burkina Faso and Latin America, was mentioned as a good source of technical support. The work of Alliance in Latin America

is building not only on technical service and organizational capacities but even more on capacity building of regional networks there.

A number of groups providing good, civil society friendly TS do not necessarily identify themselves as TS

providers. One typical example is regional networks. Seven Sisters, the Asia-Pacific Network of PLHIV, the

Eurasian Harm Reduction Network, the International Treatment Preparedness Coalition and other regional

networks serve as resource organizations which provide recommendations on sources of technical support; at least some technical support and mentoring to their members; communication platforms for building and sharing knowledge of communities; and advice and support in local languages, etc. As sustainable regional networks, they focus more building longer-term capacity within their regions than their project-driven counterparts. Some regions have good experiences, and regional networks in those regions have promoted their replication. For example, in Latin American a regional proposal to address the needs of people living with HIV inspired the development of a regional proposal addressing the needs transgender people. In the Asia- Pacific region, regional networks scanned the region for good practices in community system strengthening and disseminated know how.

In Latin America, much technical support is mediated or directly provided by UN agencies (for example the regional offices of UNAIDS, UNDP and Argentinean office of UNFPA). In most cases, as in other parts of the world, they are funding technical support rather than providing it themselves. Therefore civil society groups identify consultants themselves and then approach the UN office for financial support. Different regions mentioned that the role of national offices of UN agencies and WHO vary from country to country. For example, UNAIDS staff’s proactive role in Indonesia is an essential factor in why that country, including the civil society groups there, attracted enough funding and technical support. In EECA, UNDP Belarus is instrumental in engaging civil society in decision-making processes for the Global Fund but also in universal access processes. UNODC in the Baltics invested substantially in civil society capacity building in the drugs field and also in supporting the PLHIV community. With the recent change of the regional coordinator of the UNAIDS office in Cairo, concrete steps have been initiated there to improve the availability of TS to MENA countries in relation to the Global Fund’s processes.

Many local NGOs are also providing support to smaller NGOs. In a number of countries Principle Recipients play an essential role in building the capacities of SRs and SSRs. Databases of TS providers are usually maintained at regional levels in TSFs and most CSAT Hubs are aware of the COATS database and are willing to support existing databases with their contacts.

4.2. Accessibility, quality and coordination

Availability of TS providers does not always translate into civil society receiving TS. Colleagues from MENA have identified quite a number of TS providers that provide some TS in the region or potentially could do so in the future but they emphasized that there are barriers to accessing it such as the need to pay when there is no financial support , or where access is hindered by the mechanisms for channelling requests. Knowing how to navigate the system and procedures of TS providers is essential for managing access to TS. Not all requests result in actual provision of support: some of them might come from one group to other and get lost between NGOs.

The combination of TS methods used should be improved. Not all TS translates into skills and often is more focused on information sharing. Most TS is provided through trainings (particularly by Principal Recipients). Mentoring is often missing. Capacity building of the PLHIV network in Indonesia on Community System Strengthening could serve as a good practice example of how methods could be combined: network leaders were trained, followed by 6 months of mentorship and then they were able to manage further capacity building around CSS.

Not all regions have good coordination of TS. In some regions, in spite of the little TS available, there is competition among TS providers. In EECA, the CSAT Hub representative notes the need for coordination and cooperation among TS providers especially given the newness of the regional TSF. Issues such as harmonization of expert databases, information exchange including sharing of information on good tools and practices, pricing policies, and M&E of TS should be addressed. In Asia-Pacific, a special TGF reference group for civil society has been initiated by the CSAT Hub. Latin America also has a good practice of how TS coordination can be organized. A regional working group on the harmonization of TS started in April 2008 and includes regional offices of various stakeholders: WHO, the International HIV/AIDS Alliance, UNAIDS, UNDP, and the CSAT Hub, among others. The group shares information about the requests for TS received from countries,

and about available funding for TS. This not only enables more effective use of scare TS resources but also helps to alert civil society groups to government processes and therefore supports early entry and more meaningful engagement in processes for preparation of proposals to TGF and in Country Coordinating Mechanisms.

5. Funding for TS

In all the regions, a lack of funding is the key barrier to access to TS for civil society groups. Most TS providers do not have funding for TS services and therefore provide most of their services for a fee.

As mentioned above, some financial support for TS for civil society groups comes through UN agencies. Regional TSFs prioritize civil society groups in the use of funds available to pay for TS in their regions. That is an important source of funding and therefore engagement of civil society groups into TSF decision making on the use of funds is particularly important. Increasingly more funding for TS is available in TGF supported grants. There are examples, however, where civil society groups cannot access the TS.

Regional CSAT Hubs shared some creative ways to deal with lack of funding. One approach is looking for cost- effective TS, for example, in Indonesia potential sub-recipients and sub-sub-recipients were trained in a locally appropriate way by an expert from a Principal Recipient at a low cost. In the Caribbean, CSAT engages with consultants and managed to get them to donate pro bono time to deliver TS to local groups, for example in Surinam and St. Lucia. But these are exceptions, not the rule.

The main donors for TS are: the USAID funded GMS (and PASCA in Central America); GTZ (in most regions); some other bilateral donors; and UN agencies including the World Health Organization (which however focuses only on technical service areas). There are some international NGOs that come with their own financial resources, like AIDS Free World, HIVOS, and the International HIV/AIDS Alliance. A few private donors exist but the only one that was mentioned to support the TGF-related work in Africa, EECA and Asia-Pacific is the Open Society Institute. Most of this external funding is focused on the TGF proposals and not nearly as much on implementation of the proposals.

6. TS tools

In the face of financial limitations which often make face-to-face technical support and mentoring impossible or limited, TS tools could play an important role for groups to use in self-educating. There are widely recognized tools known across the regions, specifically those developed by the International HIV/AIDS Alliance, by Aidspan which produces multiple guides on TGF, and the Code of Good Practice for NGOs Responding to HIV/AIDS. CSAT Hubs themselves have also developed simplified tools for identifying the TS needs and writing up terms of reference for TS (for example in EECA).

Recently, there has substantial improvement in terms of making some of these tools available not only in English, but also French, Spanish, and Russian. However language barriers still exist. In MENA, for example, many groups request regional CSAT Hub for materials on organizational and service development in Arabic and such materials are limited. In Asia-Pacific, multiple languages are used with each country speaking a different language or dialect. Thus, unless substantial resources exist it is hard to make tools available in Asia.

Even more important, five out of six interviewees identified problems in the accessibility of materials to communities in terms of their physical access, language style and tradition of reading publications for gaining knowledge and skills. All interviewees indicated that publications are appreciated by community groups but that this is not the preferred or most effective method for gaining knowledge. Some materials are written in a way that it is hard to understand by less experienced groups. Sometimes publications are long and require substantial knowledge to understand them, including knowledge about TGF. Documents of more than a few pages might remain unread by most civil society groups. Therefore Observatorio Latino which is operated by the regional CSAT Hub in Latin America, Aid for AIDS, produces summary documents of most Global Fund related materials in generally understood Spanish: thus they shorten them and make them available in the local language. The MENA Hub is thinking about hosting a blog in Arabic, basically providing the same function.

Video tools are seen as a supplement to TS tools that could be accessible to community groups that have a good internet connection. In the Caribbean, the experiment of producing a video on civil society involvement in Country Coordinating Mechanisms was seen as success in the region. Similarly some other regions have good internet access at least in some areas, for example in Latin America and EECA. But in Asia, community groups have bad access to internet and therefore have less access to TS tools.

There is general recognition that many tools already exist but, as an EECA interviewee indicated, a systematic and critical review of existing tools might have a value and could indicate the gaps and identify tools to be shared, as well as help establish quality control.

7. CSAT’s role

Initially planned as a broker of TS, CSAT Hubs do to some extent function as brokers and do mediate between civil society TS needs and funders. However, lack of access to TS and limited funding available for it have impacted CSAT’s role and the regional Hubs sometimes provide direct TS. In some cases, CSAT’s role is to help community groups to assess their needs and access TS to address them. Examples of CSAT work include (but are not limited to) training community experts around CSS; mentoring and consultation on representation, member rights and work in Country Coordinating Mechanisms; facilitating consensus building among civil society groups in country or assessing civil society needs; organizational and program planning workshops for smaller community NGOs; and assisting in capacity building for potential Principal Recipients.

An important role of the CSAT has been to advocate for the addressing civil society TS needs in various regional and international forums. For example, the MENA Hub also includes “making sure that MENA interests are not neglected in international fora” through advocacy by the MENA Hub coordinator at regional and global level meetings. In Latin America and EECA, the CSAT Hubs with their partners have a role in advocating for keeping countries from those regions eligible for TGF funding. CSAT Hubs were also essential in the UNAIDS, WHO and TGF consultations on TS, including those on the CSS framework.

CSS is prioritized by at least three CSAT Hubs which applied efforts in mobilizing community based groups from countries applying for Round 10, by building their understanding of the CSS framework and linking them with experts and groups that could provide technical and other support throughout the process.

CSAT involves a group of well connected and well positioned Hubs with a good reputation in their regions as well as globally, and with potential for further expansion. An essential point for CSAT operations and continued trust of partners is sustainable funding and prioritizing its limited capacities in the highly demanding area of improving civil society engagement with the Global Fund.

8. Recommendations

1. TSFs, other TS providers and donors should encourage, support and fund mentoring and twinning schemes to build capacities of less experienced community leaders and to facilitate knowledge exchange among community and technical experts. This would contribute to the pool of community experts who can deliver support in local languages and dialects.

2. CSAT, together with its partners, should identify good experts on M&E who can deliver community friendly TS and invest into building knowledge and skills around M&E within regional community networks. This could be prioritized in Asia as a start.

3. UNAIDS should initiate regional TS coordination mechanisms with involvement of UN family, major TS providers including regional civil society networks, CSAT, and possibly donors, following the Latin American example of a permanent working group and adapting it regionally. This could be prioritized in MENA and EECA.


CSAT Hubs should further engage with existing and emerging TSFs for (continued) prioritization of funding of TS for community groups, engaging CSAT in decision making and improving accessibility of TSF services for community groups.

5. The Global Fund should more strongly articulate to Country Coordinating Mechanisms the acceptability and the benefits of incorporating support for CSS into proposals for TGF including adequate TS for civil society, advocacy work, networking, organizational development.

6. CSAT and its partners should provide support to national partners on practical steps for using funding possibilities provided within the (new) CCM Funding Policy and CSS to plan to allocate resources for the capacity building of civil society representatives to network, communicate and consult with their constituencies and others involved in TGF. 7

7. In new proposals to TGF, CSAT in collaboration with UNAIDS, WHO and other relevant partners, should advocate and provide good examples of how to include stronger components on TS, foreseeing TS on organizational development, advocacy and networking, along with TS for service provision.

8. CSAT should prioritize the CSS framework for future Rounds including work to: promote exchange of experiences and build capacities inside regions; exchange of cross-regional good practices and lessons learnt including documentation of processes and specific texts and budgets in proposals; agree with GMS, GTZ, WHO, UNAIDS and other TS providers to support good proposals that include TS for CSS.

9. CSAT should gather and widely communicate feedback from civil society about what elements of the CSS Framework and indicators were particularly helpful and what elements need improvement for Round 11.

10. UN agencies and donors should continue support and consistently fund CSAT work, as well as involve it in international and regional TS coordination and decision making.

11. CSAT and its partners should conduct regular (annual or biannual) community and civil society needs assessments with regard to TS through regional networks and use that for regional mechanisms for organizing TS for HIV and other fields.

12. CSAT with the TGF Secretariat, Aidspan, regional and other partners should use innovative methods including video, document summaries and blogging to deliver knowledge about the TGF structure, civil society rights, updates etc in community friendly ways.

7 Adapted from ICASO (2010). Civil Society Participation in Global Fund Country Coordinating Mechanisms. Summary Report. Available at

Annex 1. Expertise profile of the organizations and individuals providing technical support and capacity development for civil society groups related to the GFATM

1. Technical expertise for services and programs to tackle HIV and TB

1.1. Prevention of HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among key affected

populations (harm reduction, sexual education, condom programming etc)

men who have sex with men, LGBT

sex workers

undocumented migrants and mobile populations

people who inject drugs and other problem drug users

people in detention and prisons

vulnerable women and girls

vulnerable men and boys

vulnerable children

vulnerable adolescents and young people

people living with HIV

people with TB


other (please specify)


1.2. Counseling and testing for HIV and other diseases

1.3. Treatment literacy, peer counseling and adherence support

1.4. HIV and TB- related psychosocial support including case management, self-help

groups of key populations, people living with HIV, TB, etc

1.5. Maternal and child health, including prevention of mother-to-child transmission

1.6. Human rights programming, including reduction of stigma and discrimination

1.7. Other (please specify):

2.Organizational development

2.1. Administration and management, including human resource management

2.2. Strategic planning

2.3. Governance, representation and leadership

2.4. Program development and fundraising

2.5. Financial management

2.6. Monitoring, evaluation, quality assurance

2.7. Procurement and supply management

2.8. Internal communication systems (management of information systems)

2.9. Other (please specify):

3. Advocacy and participation in policy dialogue

3.1. Advocacy planning and implementation

3.2. Human rights and law, including legislation, legal protection and intellectual

property flexibilities

3.3. Analysis of policies and practices, documentation of good practices

3.4. Community based and independent monitoring, including Global Fund's project

watchdog, budget monitoring

3.5. Government relations and lobbying

3.6. Other (please specify)

4. Networking, communication, training

4.1. Mobilization and meaningful involvement of PLHIV, groups of key populations

4.2. Networking for thematic, specialized networks, including professional

associations, HIV service groups and PLHIV networks and networks of key


4.3. Social mobilization, street actions and other community organizing

4.4. Tools and strategies of information, education and communication

4.5. Public relations and work with media

4.6. Education and training of staff, trainers and educators

4.7. Building cross-sectoral partnerships

4.8. Other (please specify):

5. Global Fund related

5.1. Global Fund processes, structures and guidelines

5.2. Needs assessment for services and capacity building

5.3. Proposal development for GF grants

5.4. Coordination and negotiation among stakeholders for proposal

5.5. Implementation and management of GF grants (for PRs, SRs, SSRs)

5.6. Involvement in national strategic planning

5.7. Involvement in country coordinating mechanisms (CCMs) and CCM functioning

5.8. Gender sensitive and transformative approaches in proposal development

5.9. Regional proposals to the Global Fund

5.10. Community Systems Strengthening (CSS)

5.11. Health Systems Strengthening (HSS)

5.12. Other (please specify):