This is the second in a series of commentaries on gaps in transparency at the Global Fund. The 

first commentary

 concerned the submission and review of concept notes.
The Office of the Inspector General recently completed an audit of country coordinating mechanisms (see GFO article). As part of the audit, the OIG conducted a desk review of documents from 50 CCMs. These documents included the outcomes of the performance appraisals each CCM is required to conduct annually. The OIG was able to access these documents, but the rest of us are not because the Global Fund does not make them public. According to the CCM Guidance Note, there are three parts to the performance appraisal process: (1) a facilitated self-assessment conducted by the CCM with help from a technical assistance provider; (2) additional interviews with CCM members and non-members conducted by a TA provider (Aidspan understands that the Fund is using a team of two TA providers); and (3) the preparation of a CCM improvement plan by the CCM together with the TA provider(s). As its name suggests, the improvement plans contains information on how and when the CCM plans to address the weaknesses identified in the performance assessments. Why are the performance appraisals and the improvement plans not being made public? The CCMs are not private entities. They are public bodies accountable to their stakeholders. Stakeholders in each country have a right to know how their CCM is performing and what steps are being taken to improve performance. Other organizations that follow The Global Fund, like Aidspan, should also be able to access this information. This would be consistent with the Global Fund’s commitment to transparency. The Global Fund’s Core Documents Policy states that, “Broad availability to the public of information about the Global Fund’s projects will increase understanding and support of the Global Fund’s mission, and increase transparency and accountability.” I couldn’t have put it any better myself.