Country Coordinating Mechanisms (CCMs)

3. BOARD DECISIONS
21 Nov 2004

At its June meeting, the board, led by developing-country government members, had rejected proposals by its Governance and Partnership committee that CCMs be "required" (as against merely recommended) to implement certain measures. That decision was strongly objected to at the Fund's Partnership Forum in July.

Now, in Arusha, the same committee came back proposing a somewhat reduced list of "CCM requirements," and this time the requirements were approved. The precise wording adopted by the board was as follows:

(a) "All CCMs are required to show evidence of membership of people living with and/or affected by the diseases;"

(b) "CCM members representing the non-government sectors must be selected by their own sector(s) based on a documented, transparent process, developed within each sector;" [Editor's note: It was made clear that "the non-government sectors" means all sectors that are not part of the national government.]

(c) "CCMs are required to put in place and maintain a transparent, documented process to:

  • Solicit and review submissions for possible integration into the proposal;
  • Nominate the Principal Recipient(s) and oversee program implementation;
  • Ensure the input of a broad range of stakeholders, including CCM members and non-members, in the proposal development and grant oversight process"

 

(d) "The decision will be effective from Round 5 onwards and for Phase 2 renewals starting from June 2005."

(e) "The Board agrees to make the following word substitution in the CCM Guidelines: 'When the PRs and Chair or Vice Chairs of the CCM are the same entity, the CCM must [changed from "should"] have a written plan in place to mitigate against this inherent conflict of interest.' "

In addition, the board asked its Governance and Partnership Committee to propose clearer guidelines regarding two issues: First, the role of the CCM in providing oversight of grants; and second, the possible provision by the Fund of direct financial support for the establishment and running costs of CCM Secretariats.

The decisions regarding "requirements" are very significant. They appear to mean that if any CCM submits a Round 5 application without having implemented these requirements, the application will automatically be "screened out" by the Secretariat and thus cannot be approved. Likewise, if a grant is being considered for Phase 2 renewal in June 2005 or later, that renewal cannot be approved if the CCM is not in compliance with the new requirements.

[Note 1: Next month, Aidspan - publisher of GFO - will release an 80-page document entitled "The Aidspan Guide to Building and Running an Effective CCM." This will include advice on dealing with these new requirements, and a sample CCM Terms of Reference. Further details will be provided in GFO at the time of release.]

[Note 2: The three proposed "requirements" that were defeated in June and were not re-submitted in Arusha - and that therefore remain in place as recommendations but not requirements - are:

  • The membership of the CCM should comprise a minimum of 40% representation of non-government sectors such as NGOs/community based organizations, people living with the diseases, religious/faith-based organizations, private sector, academic institutions.
  • The CCM should submit to the Global Fund Secretariat, for publication at its web site, an annual list showing the name, organization, sector and (when available) email details for each member of the CCM, and should make this publicly available domestically.
  • The CCM should elect a Chair and Vice Chair from different sectors.]

 


Share |

Leave a comment

Leave a comment