Queries about the Global Fund CCM India

[Guest guest]

Dear Moderator

The Global Fund round 7 and the way the proposals are solicited is not

democratic approach, no one seems to have any answers. I have written some of my

queries and I want to post it in AIDS India forum.

I cannot post it in my name as I am with XXXXX. Can you post this as

annonymous?. If you want to chisel it a bit you are welcome to.

Thanks and Regards

X

____________________

Subject: Queries about the Country Coordination Mechanism (CCM)India

I understand that the Global Fund actively promotes the involvement

of the civil society in developing the national program and it is a

rare opportunity when civil society and the government share the

domain in shaping the National AIDS Program.

Along with the efforts from NACO, the civil society represented by

NGOs, networks of people living with HIV and other CBOs have

contributed actively and consistently to the response that India as a

country has made to HIV/AIDS.

My queries: My query is to all the representatives of the Country

Coordinating Mechanism of India - where is the civil society voice in

the CCM of India?

What is the process (ideal and actual) of actively involving the

civil society in developing the country's proposal?

I understand the priority for the country is depending on the inputs

from the National AIDS Program – is the priority set depending on a

civil society consultation?

If one organization or a consortium of several organizations has a

proposal on HIV/AIDS – who should it be addressed to - is it to NACO

or the CCM?

If it is to CCM- who should it be addressed to?

How would one know the proposal has had a fair chance in the

selection process once it has reached NACO/CCM?

What is the kind of support that the CCM provides for the development

of the proposals to the civil society? How are the success/ failure

of every round shared with the civil society?

Some of the perceptions that I hope are incorrect:

Perception is that if a civil society organization directly applies

to CCM then it as good as being rejected outright.

Understanding is that only if you are in the good books of the

decision makers then your concept note/proposal will be considered by

the decision makers.

For you to be part of the proposal you need to be invited by decision

makers. Perceptions are that `who would do what' for the proposal

development is sort of pre-decided and concepts/proposals are

designed as per the request from decision makers.

As many organizations from the civil society are also actively

advocating for many issues in HIV/AIDS sector, continuously

challenging systems – hence it is always easy to end up among the

lesser favored.

The other reason civil society do not show any will or intent to

fight against bureaucracy is because they want to continue their work

in their field of expertise with out being interrupted.

Who wants to jeopardize the opportunity even if it is a remote

possibility?

Please suggest a way out of this!

A civil society member