The board discussed a collection of proposed “requirements” and “recommendations” regarding CCM composition and working methods. These proposals had been developed in the course of extensive discussions by the board’s Governance and Partnership Committee (GPC), whose members include five developing country governments, four developed country governments, and four civil society members. The proposals had been developed largely as a result of evidence gathered in a series of studies over the past year that many CCMs are not effectively following the principles of public-private partnership that they are supposed to.

The difference between “requirements” and “recommendations” in the recommendations was significant, because if, at some point in the future, a CCM clearly chose not to respect the requirements, the Global Fund could refuse to consider a proposal submitted by such a CCM.

The proposals from the GPC led to a barrage of complaints at the board meeting, mostly from developing country governments but also from some developed country governments. The proposals were vigorously, and sometimes emotionally, defended by the civil society board members. Only one government board member spoke in support of the proposals. Ironically, some of the opposition came from governments that are members of the GPC and that had adopted the proposals by consensus in the first place.

The consistent complaint, articulated in many ways, was that the proposals were too prescriptive. Some speakers also complained that the proposals reduced the ability of governments to lead CCMs.

This is in fact the second time that the board has rejected GPC proposals that stronger guidelines be put in place regarding CCMs. The first time it happened was in January 2003.

The board finally agreed to adopt the GPC proposals, but only after changing those that were “requirements” into “recommendations.”

The list of recommendations that the board adopted is as follows. (In some cases, the wording has been lightly edited by Aidspan in order to achieve stylistic consistency.)

CCM Composition and Representation:

(a) Recommendation: 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. (This was originally proposed to be a requirement.)

(b) Recommendation: The CCM should show evidence of membership of people living with and/or affected by the diseases. (This was originally proposed to be a requirement.)

(c) Recommendation: 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. (This was originally proposed to be a requirement.)

(d) Recommendation: The CCM should include representation from state/provinces/districts, either through direct geographical representation in national CCMs or through mechanisms such as sub-national CCMs or state/province-level committees.

CCM Participation:

(e) Recommendation: CCM members representing the non-government sectors should be selected/elected by their own sector(s) based on a documented, transparent process, developed within each sector. (This was originally proposed to be a requirement.)

(f) Recommendation: The CCM should put in place a transparent, documented mechanism to facilitate the provision of input of all stakeholders, both members and nonmembers, in the proposal development process. (This was originally proposed to be a requirement.)

(g) Recommendation: The CCM should put in place a fair, transparent, documented process for reviewing all qualitatively sound submissions it receives for integration into the Coordinated Country Proposal. (This was originally proposed to be a requirement.)

(h) Recommendation: The government representatives on the CCM should be mandated by, represent the views of and report back to, the senior leadership of the government

(i) Recommendation: The Technical Review Panel should look for proposals that strengthen and reflect high-level political involvement and commitment as demonstrated through their support for a well-working and inclusive CCM.

CCM Governance:

(j) Recommendation: The CCM should elect a Chair and Vice Chair from different sectors. (This was originally proposed to be a requirement.)

(k) Recommendation: The CCM should put in place a transparent, documented mechanism to facilitate the participation of all stakeholders, both members and non-members, in the implementation of grants. (This was originally proposed to be a requirement.)

(l) Recommendation: The CCM Chair and Vice Chair should both come from domestic entities.

Conflict of Interest:

(m) Recommendation: The PR(s) and the Chair or Vice Chair of the CCM should not be (from) the same entity.

(n) Recommendation: When the PR(s) and the Chair or Vice Chairs of the CCM are (from) the same entity, the CCM should have a written plan in place to mitigate against this inherent conflict of interest. This plan should be made public to ensure the highest levels of transparency and integrity. This plan should include, at a minimum, that the PR, or prospective PR, shall recuse itself from participation at the CCM and shall not be present during deliberations or decisions related to the CCM’s monitoring and oversight of the PR, such as decisions regarding the selection of the PR; regarding PR renewal for Phase 2; related to a substantial reprogramming of grant funds; and that have a financial impact on the PR, such as contracts with other entities, including sub-recipients.

Technical Assistance:

(o) Recommendation: All proposals should include a plan for obtaining technical assistance as needed to strengthen CCM functioning and for capacity building in fulfilling its responsibilities for oversight of program implementation and for Principal Recipient/Sub-Recipient capacity building in fulfilling their responsibilities for proposal implementation and in Monitoring and Evaluation.

(p) Recommendation: The CCM should seek to facilitate the development of a single national technical assistance framework for Global Fund-related processes and activities.

Implementation of Recommendations:

The Board directed the Secretariat to “develop a pilot set of auditable standards for benchmarking the performance of CCMs.” This will be discussed at the board’s November board meeting.