CCM Authority over PRs
Author:
Bernard Rivers
Article Type:Article Number: 3
ABSTRACT The board passed an obscurely-worded resolution intended to help clarify what authority CCMs have over Principal Recipients.
In many countries, there has been considerable uncertainty regarding the extent to which the Country Coordinating Mechanism (CCM) has authority over the Principal Recipient (PR). Accordingly, the Board added to the CCM Guidelines a number of paragraphs that are supposed to clarify things.
The new paragraphs are as follows. However, they use terminology that is unhelpfully diplomatic and obscure. Accordingly, GFO has provided after each clause its own interpretation of what the clause really means.
” The CCM shall develop tools and procedures for overseeing proposal implementation. These should include, but need not be limited to:”
[GFO interpretation: CCMs – Do at least the following to ensure that the PR is doing what it should be doing.]
[GFO interpretation: CCMs – Nominate PRs and SRs in a logical way.]
- i. “the establishment and implementation of criteria for the nomination of principal recipients and sub-recipients;”
- ii “the recording of all key CCM oversight actions, including the nomination of Principal Recipients, the development of CCM feedback arising from review of periodic reports, the review of information arising from implementation monitoring visits, and the approval of decisions made on implementation status, such as requests for reprogramming;”[GFO interpretation: CCMs – Keep a record of how you nominate PRs, and of concerns expressed by CCM members when they read PR reports and when they visit the PR’s projects, and of how you handle requests by the PR to modify grant activities.]
- iii “the development of a communication strategy for the dissemination of CCM decisions and for regular sharing of information on grant implementation status with all CCM members and relevant stakeholders, in keeping with the Global Fund principle of transparency;”[GFO interpretation: CCMs – Be open about decisions you make about grants, and about information you gather on how well the grant is doing.]
- iv “the development of a CCM oversight work plan, coordinated with the PR, which should include:”
- Periodic CCM site visits and the regular submission and review of PR periodic reports;
- Facilitation by the CCM of technical assistance through partners – academia, multi/bilateral, civil society, private sector – to the CCM for the strengthening of its functions and to the PR to address implementation issues; and
- Systems analysis and strategic planning review to ensure coordinated implementation, monitoring and evaluation with national and other donor funded programs, and to the harmonization of program activities with other on-going programs and the timely request for reprogramming of activities if needed.
[GFO interpretation: CCMs and PRs – Don’t fight over who has what power regarding grant implementation. Instead, agree on how you will work together. CCM members – Visit projects and check whether you believe the PR’s reports on grant progress. CCMs – If you are weak, or if the PR is having problems with grant implementation, get help. CCMs and PRs – Try to keep the grant aiming in the same direction as non-Global Fund grants; and if the grant needs modifying, negotiate with the Fund for changes before it’s too late.]
- v “the development of a mechanism to ensure that follow-up action, as needed, will be taken where the CCM review of periodic progress reports indicate discrepancies with observed program results.”[GFO interpretation: CCMs – if the PR’s reports on grant progress appear to be untrue, do something about it.]
” Since CCMs vary from country to country and are in different stages of their evolution, the proposed guidelines can be adapted and implemented in a phased manner to meet the specific needs and contextual situation of the CCMs.”
[GFO interpretation: CCMs – If you want, you can get away with not doing all the above, or with doing it slowly.]
