GFO Issue 2, Article Number: 8
Sub-title :
Commentary
Author:
Bernard Rivers
Date:
2003-01-10
ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT The Fund must publish clear guidelines on minimum standards and best practice regarding CCM composition and procedures.
In July 2002, the Global Fund issued a $quot;Call for Proposals$quot; and $quot;Guidelines for Proposals$quot; that specified:
$quot;Country proposals will be accepted from a Country Coordination Mechanism (CCM) that includes broad representation from government agencies, NGOs, community-based organizations, private sector institutions (where these exist) and bilateral and multilateral agencies... The CCM should ensure that all relevant actors are involved in the process; and that all views are taken into account... Each CCM should document its organizational structure to ensure transparency... All members of a CCM are expected to be treated as full partners in the CCM.$quot;Accounts from several sources suggest that although some CCMs have met these requirements, others have certainly not done so. In particular, NGOs have often been excluded from CCMs, or have been ignored even after being made members. What is supposed to happen when a CCM does not meet these ground rules? In particular, what is supposed to happen if the CCM consists almost entirely of government employees, or if the views of non-government members are ignored? Should the proposal submitted by such a CCM be rejected? And if so, who should do the rejecting: The Global Fund's Secretariat? The Technical Review Panel? The Board? The Fund must publish clear guidelines on minimum standards and best practice regarding CCM composition and procedures. It must also release the complete composition (with names, affiliations, roles) of every CCM. What might have been an acceptable CCM in the middle of 2002 should not necessarily be an acceptable CCM in the middle of 2003.
Publication Date:
2003-01-10
