1. Communication Working Group 4 + 5 September 2003 Dr. James Banda RBM Partnership Secretariat

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 2. RBM Partnership Board Provides the mechanism for joint decision- making 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.

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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).

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. Issues to be considered by CWG 1.Chair – Working Group to identify 2.Secretariat - Working Group to identify 3.Hosting partner – financial implications 4.Membership - inclusive i.e. all constituencies 5.Workplan 2003 6.RBM Partnership Secretariat support