Decision not approved about strategy cycle alignment
The electronic decision point GF/B33/EDP17: Strategy Development Process – Alignment of Strategy Cycle was not approved by the Board within the voting deadline 14 September 2015 (midday, 12:00 CET). Committees will now consider the comments submitted by constituencies during the voting period.
The Strategy, Investment and Impact Committee had recommended that the Global Fund’s strategy should cover a period that aligns the start of each strategy cycle to the start of an allocation and replenishment period. The Strategic Framework currently in development would then span the period of 2017 through 2022, and include a mid-term review (2019 or 2020) prior to the start of the next replenishment and allocation periods scheduled to commence in 2020
The SIIC suggestion could offer several advantages, including
a. Improved coherence between Global Fund the strategy, the allocation model and the replenishment;
b. Direct linkages between the replenishment and strategic targets, and between the strategy and allocation model, therefore increasing accountability; and
c. Increased transparency for donors who can consider replenishment decisions based upon an evaluated strategy.
While each allocation and replenishment cycle covers three years, a strategic cycle linked to one cycle may be too short and impractical. However, aligning the strategic cycle with two allocation and replenishment periods would mean a longer strategy time horizon of six years. Maintaining a five-year strategy cycle does not provide any obvious advantages but does entail
significant drawbacks. Misalignment of the strategy cycle in the future would prevent future strategies and associated consultations from providing substantive input to the allocation principles, goals and targets, and the case for replenishment.
the Communities Delegation and Developed Country NGO Constituency voted against the decision point GF/B33/EDP17.
Although they support the extending the strategy to cover a six-year period, they felt strongly that a fully developed strategy should be in place one year in advance of the 3-year replenishment for the reasons that have been put forth by the Developed Country NGO Delegation.
In addition, those delegations were concerned that this decision point has not gone through discussion in the FOPC.
EMRC's response to this decision was as per below;
EMR Constituency would like to express an affirmative vote with regard to the proposed decision on “Alignment of Strategy Cycle” GF/B33/EDP17 with the following considerations:
- The implementation of this decision should planned in a way that ensures availability of in-time mid-term and final evaluations of strategy before each replenishment effort to enable evidence-based advocacy
- The practicalities of this decision should be further reviewed in the coordination committee to ensure all technical assessments are considered before implementation
