1)To the Global Fund: The "conflict of interest" argument that excludes Ministers of Health from the CCM is a political misinterpretation. A pragmatic argument

1The composition of National Coordinating Mechanisms is based on the idea that the Principal Recipient cannot be a member of the CCM. The Global Fund and CCMs therefore exclude a key player from among the stakeholders. It's as if a football team while training for a big competition excludes the captain of the team from the preparation, on the pretext that he is the one who will receive the armband and the best equipment. Thus, the CCMs are depriving themselves of the skills, expertise and corporatist legitimacy of the ministries of health to which the National AIDS, tuberculosis or malaria Councils / Committees are often linked in several countries. To compensate and circumvent this rule, several countries appoint or impose a representative of the presidency of the republic at the head of the CCM (Ivory Coast, Cameroon, etc.). It is a default strategy to maintain control over a body whose decisions engage the lives of millions of people. It is the role of African states, even the poorest to take, if not the rule, at least the regulation at the level of the health sector. The CCM cannot be reduced to a bank of which ministry of health is only a client whose outcome is decided in its absence. Part of the failure or weakness of CCMs is linked to a skills gap that exists elsewhere in the same countries. They must be used. How? By revising the question of this true false "conflict of interest", to put the Minister of Health back into the collegial discussion even if, in certain circumstances, he is not "voting". Confining him to the role of timely guest, is a misinterpretation. It is a question of legitimacy, division of roles and respect of sectoral attributions. Nobody decides the security policy of a country without the ministries dedicated to this sector. For health one must respect the same logic.

2) To France : Rethink the balance between direct and multilateral aid in France. Walk out of Jacobin state software

2The United States and Germany ensure a balance between the two levels of partnerships, following an architecture integrated into their political culture. France is trying to live up to this standard with the so-called "5% Initiative" (allowing 5% of the French contribution to French and francophone expertise). It is necessary to go further because what is rightly complained about by the French actors in the field comes from two main points: the weakness of human resources and the lack of visibility of French contribution. Beyond the issue of visibility and therefore "the influence of France", it is imperative to redeploy French aid. In this register, we must go further in the "imitation" of the Anglo-Saxon model. Indeed, the United States and Germany as well mobilize the local and national expertise, in the long run, by recruiting African executives on the spot. They provide continuity of expertise and multi-year projects by strengthening networks of high-level consulting firms and leading NGOs. France must be inspired by it. If PEPFAR holds the rope in terms of health aid in one of the oldest historical partner countries of France in Africa (Ivory Coast), it is mainly thanks to this system. If the political orientation of the Universal Health Coverage in Senegal is of American inspiration, it is linked to the same phenomenon.

3) Extend national "counterpart funds" to multinationals. Africa's money for health

3By imposing counterpart funds to recipient governments, which account for 20% of the total amount of the Global Fund grant, this mechanism follows a logic that is simple but partial: "if you are helped on, you must participate in the project ". Without insisting that these national funds are those of poor taxpayers in poor countries for which the Fund was created, the government can only make a relative contribution. Otherwise he would not be eligible for the Global Fund and often "20% of nothing is nothing" for the needs and sometimes a lot for public funds.

4It is thus appropriate in this regard that national and multinational private enterprises, which realize significant profits, can contribute to these counterpart funds since these profits come from natural resources and / or African consumers. In the framework of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), you must call for their contribution on incentive. Why? Because funding football tournaments, concerts, film festivals, is not incompatible with saving lives. How to proceed?

4) Organize National Convergence for Replenishment Conferences

5It is desirable that the harvesting of counterpart funds is no longer just an exercise and juggling of public authorities in Africa. By involving private companies and especially multinationals in these National Conferences, these events will provoke an emulation effect and offer media exposure likely to fulfill one of the objectives that bring us all together: "win-win" partnerships.