Transitioning: Other Documents Archives - Page 2 of 3

TBEC case study on the impact of Global Fund transition on the region (procurement in Georgia)

Posted on 2018-08-162019-02-27 by EHRA

Georgia has a low HIV prevalence and decreasing incidence rates of tuberculosis (TB), indicative of strong leadership and collaboration between partners to fight the two diseases. However, there remains an increasing number of HIV cases in key populations, including people who inject drugs and men who have sex with men, treatment outcomes remain unfavorable for people with TB and there are high rates of drug-resistant TB, for which treatment outcomes are poor.

Global Fund has provided financial assistance to Georgia’s national HIV/AIDS Programme since 2003 and the National TB Programme since 2005. Global Fund plays a crucial role in ensuring access to treatment, including allowing Georgia to procure quality assured, affordable drugs through pooled procurement mechanisms, such as Global Fund’s Pooled Procurement Mechanism for HIV and the Global Drug Facility (GDF) for TB. Georgia was recently re-classified as a lower-middle income country (LMIC) by the World Bank, despite GDP per capita gradually increasing in recent years, and this could impact its co-financing requirements with Global Fund after the current 3-year funding cycle ends.

This case study explores how Georgia and the Global Fund have acted to ensure that transition from Global Fund funding does not compromise stable procurement of TB and HIV commodities and access to medicines, in terms of both continuity and scale up. Georgia has been successful through early planning, collaboration with partners and many other reasons explored throughout this case study.

Please find the full version of the case study here.

Joint Statement of Civil Society Organizations in advance of the Thirty-Ninth Meeting of the Global Fund Board

Posted on 2018-05-082019-02-26 by Igor Gordon

On May 9–10 2018, the Global Fund’s Board will consider revisions to the Fund’s Eligibility Policy based upon recommendations from its Strategy Committee. While some of these recommendations are positive, others raise serious concerns.

In this regard organizations representing civil society and including communities of people living with and affected by the three diseases and other key populations from different countries and regions – developed a Joint Statement to share with Global Fund Board members their position on several critical issues that should be considered by the Board during its deliberations on the Eligibility Policy.

The Statement signed by 41 international, regional and national level organizations was sent to the focal points of all Delegations to the GF Board as well as to GF Board Leadership and GF ED. 7 more organizations signed the statement after it was sent.

We hope that our position will be taken into account by the Global Fund Board members when making decisions on the eligibility issues during the Board meeting.

The final version of the document – Joint Statement of Civil Society Organizations in advance of the Thirty-Ninth Meeting of the Global Fund Board.

Status of transitions from Global Fund support in the EECA region

Posted on 2018-04-232020-01-30 by EHRA

Author: Ivan Varentsov, EHRA Sustainability and Transition Advisor and Coordinator of the EECA Regional Platform for Communication and Coordination

Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA) is one of two regions, along with Latin America and the Caribbean, where planning for the transition away from Global Fund support is most advanced. In this article, we provide an overview of the transition status of HIV, TB and malaria components of the countries in the EECA.

The STC Policy

In April 2016, the Global Fund’s Board adopted a Sustainability, Transition and Co-Financing (STC) Policy, which outlines (a) the high-level principles for engaging with countries on the long-term sustainability of Global Fund–supported programs, as well as (b) a framework for ensuring successful transitions from Global Fund financing.

According to the STC Policy, all countries, regardless of their economic capacity and disease burden, should be planning for sustainability and embedding sustainability considerations within national strategies, and program and grant design and implementation. For countries with high disease burdens and fewer resources, the STC Policy emphasizes the need for domestic investments to build resilient and sustainable systems for health and move towards universal health coverage. As countries move along the development continuum –– either by increasing economic resources or lowering disease burden –– expectations are for greater transition planning, as well as for co-financing targeting specific transition challenges and programming for key populations.

The Global Fund’s Eligibility Policy allows components that become ineligible from one allocation period to the next to receive one allocation of transition funding “for priority transition needs.” This applies to most country components with existing grants, but there are exceptions. Components are not eligible for transition funding if the country:

becomes categorized as high-income; or
is a member of the G-20, moves to upper-middle-income (UMI) status and has less than an extreme disease burden; or
becomes a member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC).

For components eligible for transition funding, the STC Policy states that the funding request should focus exclusively on activities that are included in the country’s transition work plan and that are essential to achieving, by the end of the grant, full domestic funding and management of activities currently funded by the Global Fund.

The clause concerning transition funded was added to the Fund’s eligibility policy in November 2013. (The policy was called the Eligibility and Counterpart Financing Policy at the time.)

For the purposes of this overview, we have divided components into the following categories:

components that did not receive transition funding because they were already ineligible when the policy on transition funding was adopted;
components receiving transition funding for the 2017–2019 allocation period;
other components that are projected to transition away from Global Fund support by 2025;
other components that have started transition planning; and
components that still have time for long-term transition planning.

Components that did not receive transition funding because they were already ineligible when the policy on transition funding was adopted

A number of components are included in this category. Below, we list those that were active as recently as 2015.

Bulgaria HIV. The last HIV grant was a rounds-based grant that was originally planned to end on 31 December 2015. In order to support the country with HIV prevention activities for key populations, the grant was extended and then went through a closure period that ended in September 2017. In both 2016 and 2017, as per the Global Fund’s eligibility list, Bulgaria HIV was potentially eligible for funding under the NGO Rule. However, Bulgaria did not meet the political barriers requirement of the rule.

Bosnia and Herzegovina HIV. The last rounds-based HIV grant ended on 30 September 2016, after which it went through a grant closure period. The closure period continued into 2017. At the end of 2017, the Global Fund Secretariat, using flexibilities under the STC Policy, exceptionally approved to continue the grant closure period through 31 November 2018. This will allow the continuation of a limited number of activities to facilitate the transition of prevention and care and support services for key populations in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Bosnia and Herzegovina TB. The end date for the last TB grant was 31 July 2016.

Macedonia HIV. The last rounds-based HIV grant came to an end in December 2017. This was after a 12-month non-costed extension of the grant was made using flexibilities under the STC Policy to help ensure a responsible transition of HIV activities, and to support ongoing efforts at the country level to advocate for increased domestic resources for key and vulnerable populations.

Macedonia TB. The last TB grant formally ended in September 2016. There was a non-costed grant extension to 31 March 2017 to support the country to transition from Global Fund support.

(Both Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina were ineligible for Global Fund support as early as 2010 because they were categorized as upper-middle-income (UMI) countries and had less than a high disease burden for both HIV and TB. Both countries benefited from a previous policy provision which allowed them to still be considered as lower-middle-income (LMI) countries.

Russian Federation HIV. The last HIV grant ended in December 2017, with a closure period expected to end in June 2018. This was a non-CCM grant under the NGO Rule.

Serbia TB. The last rounds-based TB grants ended on 31 March and 30 June 2015.

Components receiving transition funding in 2017–2019

The following components became ineligible for regular funding after the 2014–2016 allocations were announced and were therefore eligible to receive transition funding for 2017–2019:

Albania HIV. This component became ineligible for regular funding in 2015 and was subsequently allocated $1.1 million in transition funding for 2017–2019.

Albania TB. This component became ineligible for regular funding in 2015 and was subsequently allocated $500,000 in transition funding for 2017–2019.

Turkmenistan TB. This component became ineligible for regular funding in 2016 and was subsequently allocated $4.0 million in transition funding for 2017–2019.

Note: Bulgaria has an existing TB grant from the 2014–2016 allocation period which is scheduled to end in September 2018. The TB component became ineligible for further regular funding in 2016. Bulgaria TB should have been eligible to receive transition funding for 2017–2019. However, Aidspan was told by the Global Fund Secretariat that in June 2015 the existing TB grant was developed and negotiated with the understanding that Bulgaria would not receive further funding from the Global Fund, and that the necessary measures for a successful transition to domestic funding would be adopted during implementation of the existing grant (see GFO article).

Other components projected to transition by 2025

To support countries in their planning, the Global Fund produced a list of components projected to transition fully from Global Fund financing by 2025 due to changes in income categorization and/or disease burden classification. (The list assumes current eligibility criteria will continue to apply.) The following EECA components are on this list:

The Kosovo territory HIV and TB. Both components are projected to become ineligible in 2020–2022 based the country’s anticipated move to upper-middle-income status and may receive transition funding in 2023–2025.

Kazakhstan HIV and TB. The country is projected to move to the high-income category during 2023–2025. Both components will not be entitled to receive transition funding because high-income countries are ineligible across the board.

Armenia HIV and TB. According to the recently published Eligibility List 2018, Armenia is newly categorized as a UMI country. As a result, both components are now eligible to receive a final allocation of transition funding in 2020-2022. (See GFO article on the new eligibility list.)

Other components that have started transition planning

The Global Fund expects all eligible UMI countries –– and all eligible LMI countries with components whose disease burden is classified as low or moderate –– to begin sustainability and transition planning, or to build upon existing planning, during the 2017–2019 period. There are six countries in the EECA with components that are in this cohort and that are not already on the list of components projected to transition by 2025: Azerbaijan (HIV, TB), Belarus (HIV, TB), Georgia (HIV, TB), Montenegro (HIV), Serbia (HIV) and Romania (TB). These countries are already working on transition. For example, both Belarus and Georgia have already developed formal transition plans and have started to implement them (for Belarus, see GFO article).

There are no active Global Fund malaria grants in the EECA region.

Components that still have time for long-term sustainability and transition planning

While it is not possible to predict with certainty transition timelines, components from low-income countries (regardless of disease burden) and components from LMI countries with a disease burden classification of high or above are not expected to transition from the Global Fund support imminently. But under the STC Policy, they are expected to focus on long-term sustainability planning by supporting the development of robust national health strategies, disease-specific strategic plans and health financing strategies.

There are no low-income countries in EECA region. However, components from the following LMI countries fall under this category: Kyrgyzstan (HIV, TB), Moldova (HIV, TB), Tajikistan (HIV, TB), Uzbekistan (HIV, TB), Ukraine (HIV, TB).

Summary table

The following table provides a list of the components in the various categories discussed above.

Table: Components in the various categories of transition from Global Fund support

Ineligible before the policy on transition funding was adopted *	Receiving transition funding in 2017–2019	Projected to transition by 2025	Started transition planning	Still have time for long-term sustainability and transition planning
Bulgaria HIV B&H HIV, TB Macedonia HIV Russia HIV Serbia TB	Albania HIV, TB Turkmenistan TB	Armenia HIV, TB the Kosovo territory HIV, TB Kazakhstan HIV, TB	Azerbaijan HIV, TB Belarus HIV, TB Georgia HIV, TB Montenegro HIV Serbia HIV	Kyrgyzstan HIV, TB Moldova HIV, TB Tajikistan HIV, TB Uzbekistan HIV, TB Ukraine HIV, TB

* In the first column, only components still active as recently as 2015 are listed.

Transition in reverse: Components that regained their eligibility

There are three countries in EECA region whose HIV components were newly classified as eligible on the Eligibility List 2017 after meeting eligibility criteria for two consecutive eligibility determinations, and which received allocations for the 2017–2019 period. These components are as follows:

Kazakhstan HIV. This component became ineligible for Global Fund support in 2011 because it was a UMI country with only a moderate disease burden. However, its HIV disease burden classification changed to high on the Eligibility List 2016.

Montenegro HIV. Montenegro became ineligible for both HIV and TB in 2008 when it moved up to UMI status and its HIV and TB components had less than a high disease burden. Both components “hung on” until Round 9 in 2009 because they benefited from a previous policy provision (which is no longer exists) which allowed them to “keep” their LMI status for an extra year. In 2016, Montenegro’s HIV disease burden classification was changed to “high.”

Serbia HIV. As a UMI country, Serbia’s funding ended abruptly after its HIV burden was lowered to moderate. Its HIV burden classification went back up to high in 2015.

Both Montenegro and Serbia were told, via their allocation letters, that their allocations for 2017–2019 were conditional on their funding requests focusing on key affected populations. Specifically, the letters stated that the allocations “are dependent on the functionality, in form and substance acceptable to the Global Fund, of a social contracting mechanism for engagement of non-governmental organizations through which the … governmental institution(s) and the Global Fund will finance HIV prevention, care and support activities.”

Source of the original content: http://www.aidspan.org/gfo_article/status-transitions-global-fund-support-eeca-region

Lost in Transition: Three Case Studies of Global Fund Withdrawal in South Eastern Europe

Posted on 2018-02-202019-02-27 by EHRA

Working paper, Open Society Foundations Public Health Program, November 2017

This brief provides three case studies of the transition to domestic financing of HIV response in South Eastern Europe after the withdrawal of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. These case studies—of Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia—are intended as a resource for funders, advocates, and policymakers interested in supporting civil society-led efforts and partnerships with government to ensure the sustainability of services during and after transition.

Download the document

As funding from the Global Fund is phased out, Bulgaria struggles to find sustainable financing

Posted on 2018-01-152019-02-27 by EHRA

With Global Fund support coming to an end, the path towards sustainability of HIV and TB services for key affected populations (KAPs) in Bulgaria is not clear. The consensus among representatives of civil society organizations is that, unfortunately, Bulgaria still has not managed to ensure within its National Strategic Plan for HIV sustainable financing at the required level for the services provided by NGOs for prevention, treatment and reduction of HIV among KAPs. At the same time, NGO advocacy remains weak, and many activists see little recognition by government and local authorities of the NGO role in the response to HIV and TB.

Author: Ivan Varentsov

“The lack of a vibrant and meaningful civil society is being felt very strongly right now,” Yuliya Georgieva, from NGO Center for Humane Policy, told Aidspan. “At a time when the Global Fund is finally ending its lengthy presence in the country, it has become clear that there is a complete lack of the civil society energy that is needed to advocate for the necessary funds and mechanisms for an effective continuation of the program.”

Bulgaria is a member of the European Union and is classified by the World Bank as an upper-middle-income country. Bulgaria has not been eligible for funding for HIV since 2015; it received no HIV funding for the current allocation period (2017-2019). The latest HIV grant, which was extended a number of times, ends this month.

Bulgaria’s current TB grant will come to an end in September 2018. Technically, the TB component should be eligible for a transition grant after that. However, earlier this year, the Global Fund Secretariat told Aidspan that the existing grant to the Ministry of Health (MOH) was developed and negotiated with the understanding that Bulgaria would not receive further funding from the Global Fund, and that the necessary measures for a successful transition to domestic funding would be adopted during implementation of the existing grant (see GFO article).

Epidemiological situation and the national response

Bulgaria remains one of the E.U. countries with the lowest HIV incidence: it registers 3.1 new cases per 100,000, or 200-220 new cases annually. According to research conducted by Optima involving modelling HIV epidemics for the next five years, two groups will account for most of the new HIV cases: people who inject drugs (PWIDs) and men who have sex with men (MSM). In the last six years, the proportion of new HIV cases attributed to injection drug use declined by two-thirds; however, it doubled for MSM, who have accounted for 50% of new cases in the last three years. A network of various services for reaching key populations with HIV prevention has been developed: 14 testing and counseling sites; mobile units; outreach work; and drop-in centers.

With respect to TB, the incidence rate more than halved from 48.8 per 100,000 population in 2001 to 21.3 in 2016. But the rate still remains among the highest in the E.U. Treatment success increased from 81% in 2007 to 86% in 2016, and few drug-resistant cases are present (unlike in most of Eastern Europe and Central Asia). NGOs provide TB services across the country among the following groups: inmates (13 prisons); Roma communities (23 sites); children at risk (nine sites); refugees and those seeking refugee status and other migrants (three services); and other groups, such as people who use drugs, and the homeless (11 sites).

Key national documents to ensure sustainable public funding for HIV and TB responses were approved of by the Cabinet of Ministers in March 2017, covering the period 2017-2020. The adoption of these important documents was delayed for several months, due to the rather low priority given to these diseases by the Bulgarian government, and also due to political instability and frequent government changes throughout 2016. The national programs described in these documents contain indicative budgets for the services implemented by NGOs, including for HIV prevention. There are specific budget lines for each key and vulnerable population group for each of 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 (see the table for the numbers for 2017 and 2018).

Table: National Program budget for HIV for 2017 and 2018 (BGN)

	2017	2018
PWID	281,610 BGN	200,000 BGN
MSM	212,534 BGN	160,000 BGN
SW	156,895 BGN	170,000 BGN
Marginalized ethnic communities (Roma)	105,000 BGN	210,000 BGN
People in prisons	25,000 BGN	50,000 BGN
Refugees, migrants and mobile populations	50,000 BGN	100,000 BGN
Children and young people	55,000 BGN	110,000 BGN
Total for key populations	886,039 BGN	1,000,000 BGN
Total for HIV program	2,808,161 BGN	2,973,309 BGN

As a comparison, NGOs working with key population groups in 2015 effectively spent € 907,588 under the Global Fund grant. There are about two BGN to the euro. It is clear, therefore, that the money planned within the National Program for the most-at-risk groups is less than half of what was previously provided by the Global Fund This will likely have a major impact on the sustainability of the HIV services currently implemented by NGOs. Note, also, as shown in the table, that the sum of money for the PWID and MSM decreases in the second year (2018). The budget for these populations is maintained at this lower level for 2019 and 2020.

Further, as Dr. Georgi Vasilev, one of the authors of a recently published analytical report on contracting public healthcare and social services to CSOs in Bulgaria, told Aidspan: The problem is that these figures show the projected budget; the money actually made available is likely to be less.

Around 600,000 BGN is budgeted are planned annually for TB prevention in 2019 and 2020, the first years without the Global Fund support for the TB response. In comparison, the budget for the TB care and prevention module within the current Global Fund TB grant stands at € 1,504,841 for 2016 and € 1,288,286 for 2017.

Role of NGOs in HIV and TB response

Bulgarian NGOs have been significantly involved in the implementation of the program financed by the Global Fund for the prevention and control of HIV in Bulgaria ever since the program started in 2004. More than 50 NGOs were involved in providing HIV prevention services to KAPs, with 10 NGOs working with PWID; nine NGOs working with sex workers; five NGOs working with MSM; 10 NGOs working with Roma youth; and four NGOs providing support to PLHIV. In addition, 17 mobile units and a number of low threshold centers operating with different risk groups were established and run by different NGOs.

With support from the Global Fund winding down, the key challenges faced by the NGOs and other community groups concern (a) funding; (b) their ability to continue delivering services at the same scale; and (c) how to utilize the capacity built up throughout past years. A few NGOs have already stopped providing HIV and TB services, though many NGOs have managed to survive funding interruptions because of their commitment to the issues.

The major problem with regard to ensuring the sustainability of NGO services to KAPs is the lack of a proper mechanism to allow NGOs to receive governmental funding. According to a recent analysis of this issue conducted by the Eurasian Harm Reduction Network, the existing mechanism for the implementation of NGO contracting was developed only for the purposes of the Global Fund grant. The State Procurement Agency has indicated that the mechanism adopted for the grant cannot be applied to state funding for NGOs. Instead, the Agency said, NGOs need to be contracted according to the provisions of the State Procurement Law. The MOH is still in the process of developing a new procedure for NGO contracting under the NSP. This will result in an interruption in funding for NGOs, and will affect the delivery of services to KAPs. As an interim measure, until the state procurement procedure for NGO contracting is operational, the MOH has instructed regional health inspectorates to hire outreach workers from NGOs previously delivering services, in order to maintain the outreach work into vulnerable communities.

Civil society advocacy

As it seems apparent that the national government has limited financial resources and thus might not fully replace the Global Fund’s support for HIV and TB services in the country, this could be the right time for sustainability- and transition-focused national level advocacy activities to take place in Bulgaria.

At the beginning of July 2017, a three-day civil society workshop took place in Sofia organized by the Eurasian Harm Reduction Network (EHRN) and the TB Europe Coalition (TBEC) with the support of the Global Fund Secretariat. The workshop brought together 23 local participants representing NGOs and affected communities, as well as governmental structures (such as the MOH), the CCM Secretariat and the National Municipalities Association. As a result of the workshop, the following key sustainability- and transition-related activities for this year were identified by the NGO participants:

initiate the revision of the national legislation which regulates the contracting procedure to ensure that NGOs are able to receive the governmental funding for HIV and TB prevention services among key affected populations in Bulgaria;
support the national budget allocation processes for 2018 to ensure that the required amount of funds for HIV and TB treatment and prevention programs are included and approved in the national budget;
explore possibilities of national funding of services for key affected populations in other national programs, such as the National Strategy Against Drugs; and
create an informal coalition of community organizations and NGOs for the purpose of coordinating and implementing joint advocacy work.

According to the report of this workshop, in order to achieve the desired results, Bulgarian civil society has to gather support for their advocacy activities from both internal and external partners. This is particularly sensitive as most of E.U. member countries are normally not eligible for any donor support or development assistance other than that provided by the E.U. itself.

According to Sandra Irbe, Senior Fund Portfolio Manager for the Global Fund, civil society and community representatives could rely on the support of the Global Fund Secretariat for their sustainability-focused advocacy activities. For example, before the end of the current TB grant, NGOs could utilize the remaining support from the Global Fund – such as the CCM Secretariat funding of € 30,000 to finance advocacy meetings, consultations and oversight visits. The Global Fund’s political leverage with country stakeholders could also be exploited, Irbe said. “The Global Fund can also bring NGOs together with regional partners in other countries to learn and discuss transition and sustainability.”

Also, as the current grant for TB runs until September 2018, Irbe said that it is important to fully absorb the funding available with this grant. Some activities that are key for the national TB program might also provide entry points for KAPs to HIV-related services that are required, she added. Finally, she said, this grant could be also used for further modelling effective interventions for domestic financing, taking into account the results of the recent report of the AuTuMN project on the optimization of the strategic investments in TB in Bulgaria.

This article was originally published on aidspan.org

Transition and sustainability of HIV and TB responses in Eastern Europe and Central Asia

Posted on 2017-12-242019-02-27 by EHRA

Report on the results of the “Technical consultation on transition to domestic funding of HIV and TB responses and their programatis sustainability in EECA” which took place in Istanbul on 21 – 22 of July 2015 and was organized y the Global Fund.

This report includes the presentation of Transition and Sustainability Principles and Draft Framework for Transition to Sustainability developed as an outcome of this consultation, and was discussed on September 29-30 , 2015 within the Regional Dialogue.

Transition and sustainability of HIV and TB responses in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (PDF)

The report was originally published by Eurasian Harm Reduction Network

Situation analysis of sustainability planning and readiness for responsible transition of harm reduction programs from Global Fund support to national funding in EECA

Posted on 2017-12-242019-02-27 by EHRA

The report was prepared by David Otiashvili, M.D., Ph.D., between June and August 2015. The author collected and reviewed a range of background materials and gathered input from key informants familiar with the Global Fund projects in reviewed countries.

The desk review included analysis of country reports, program evaluation reports and data from international organizations. In-depth interviews with country respondents covered topics related to the progress of Global Fund funded programs, and the process of preparation for transition to domestic funding.

Key informants included fund portfolio managers (FPMs), recipients of Global Fund grants, members of Country Coordinating Mechanisms (CCMs), representatives of civil society organizations and key affected groups in 11 countries reviewed in this report.

The publication was prepared with generous financial support from the International Council of AIDS Service Organizations (ICASO). The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the donor’s official position.

Download report

The report was originally published by Eurasian Harm Reduction Network

Consequences of the GF’s withdrawal from Serbia

Posted on 2017-12-202019-02-27 by EHRA

Since the Global Fund has shifted the focus of its 2012-2016 Strategy and investments towards “highest-impact countries,” the EECA has experienced a 15 percent reduction in health funding for three diseases. This is a bigger funding loss than in any other region. The Global Fund’s emphasis on disease burden and income level has meant decreased support to middle-income countries.

The sharp reduction in Global Fund support has resulted in major financial gaps in HIV and AIDS programming in EECA that governments are not prepared to fill. With no transition plan in place and a lack of support from other donors, Serbia is one of several countries that risks losing its previous successes in HIV prevention. Its last HIV grant form the Global Fund ended in 2014 and it is unable to apply for new funding.

That is why a case study documenting the initial impacts of the Global Fund’s withdrawal from Serbia on the work of harm reduction programs in the country was developed in order to analyze the situation and try to formulate what measures the Global Fund, national governments, civil society, and other donors should consider to ease the transition and safeguard previous gains in HIV prevention in those EECA countries which are in similar situation as Serbia.

The impact of the Global Fund’s withdrawal on harm reduction programs. A case study from Serbia (PDF).

The document was originally published by Eurasian Harm Reduction Network on www.harm-reduction.org

Transition in the Balkans: Montenegro

Posted on 2017-12-202019-02-27 by EHRA

Seeking to evaluate the processes and consequences of the transition from the Global Fund financing of HIV response among key affected populations with the sustainability of harm reduction services, a number of case studies were developed on some of Balkan countries.

The impact of the transition from the Global Fund support to national funding on the sustainability of harm reduction programs in Montenegro is discussed in details below.

Case Study from Montenegro

Transition in the Balkans: Bosnia and Herzegovina

Posted on 2017-12-202019-02-27 by EHRA

The impact of the transition from the Global Fund support to national funding on the sustainability of harm reduction programs in Bosnia and Herzegovina is discussed in details below.

Case Study from Bosnia and Herzegovina