GLOBAL FUND IS URGED TO BE MORE OPEN WITH ITS POLICIES REGARDING PRS

Author:

Bernard Rivers

Article Number: 4

ABSTRACT A group of five large PRs has recommended that the Global Fund share with all PRs a clear summary of its internal policies that affect PRs.

A group of five large Principal Recipients (PRs) has recommended that the Global Fund share with all PRs a clear summary of its internal policies that affect PRs. (At present, these policies are contained in “Operational Policy Notes” that are only shared with individual PRs on an occasional and somewhat random basis.)

This was one of several recommendations agreed upon last month by the five PRs, subsequent to a meeting they held in November 2008. The PRs in question (CARE, the International HIV/AIDS Alliance, Population Services International, UNDP, and World Vision) are “internationally linked” and administer a significant number of Global Fund grants. The document containing the recommendations has been posted by GFO at www.aidspan.org/documents/other/ILPR-recommendations.doc.

The five PRs also recommended that the Global Fund should:

• ensure that there is consistency among Fund Portfolio Managers in the application of procedures and policies;
• share LFA assessments with PRs and CCMs;
• develop written guidance about the different circumstances in which it might or might not be appropriate for different types of international organisation to serve as PR in different types of country, and provide this guidance to CCMs for use during PR selection;
• clarify to CCMs and PRs the role of LFAs, and ensure that the role is carried out in a consistent manner. (This clarification should deal, in particular, with the extent to which LFAs serve the GF Secretariat, the extent to which they serve or support the CCM and PR, the extent to which they audit PRs, and the extent to which they provide answers to technical questions.);
• include in the proposal guidelines that potential PRs should be selected early enough to be involved in the proposal development process;
• encourage CCMs to include in their proposals a costed capacity building plan that clearly specifies what capacity will be built, by whom, and for which organisations or types of organisation; and
• request that a conflict of interest management plan be included in proposals.

In addition, the five PRs recommended that all internationally linked PRs should:

• openly raise concerns about any GF decisions and practices that create an unnecessary burden for GF grant implementers;
• recognize all CCMs, PRs and Sub-Recipients (SRs) as true partners – engaging with them, and getting their feedback when designing activities; and
• document ways in which national-level SRs can be identified and supported so that they have the potential to become future PRs and highly performing SRs.

[Disclosure note: The Editor of GFO served as a facilitator at the above-mentioned meeting.]