GFATM - suggestions for effective participation of CSOs and private sector partners

[Guest guest]

Dear Forum,

 

GFATM Round 9 announcement is round the corner.

I would like to focus on what needs to be done in for effective participation of

CSOs and private sector players in GFATM proposal development processes where

governments/ministries, CCM and  biggies mutual admiration and support gang of

UN system, Bilaterals, International NGOs and Foundation are on one side and CSO

are on another.

There are several steps and stages as far as proposal development is concerned,

so let us see it one by one and see where CSO partnership can be made effective,

fair, transparent, meaningful and open.

 

Here is my 20 point programme suggestion for the purpose.

1. Pre announcement of GFATM round to be made more visible, accessible not only

through formal advertisements and web announcements but also through database, e

groups, and through partners agencies including UN, Bilaterals, Foundations,

etc. 

 

2. Capacity building workshops and orientation workshops by govt and GFATM

facilitators should be more accessible and not remain closed and limited

invitation events only.

3. The briefing of the focus of the proposed proposal thematic should be

presented more seriously and by the top official of the disease control

programme. The rationale and gap analysis done by the department must be

presented as a paper/backgrounder. This should be available on all information

platforms and channels for easy access and download. It must be made a

prerequisite by GFTAM as key qualifying criteria for the country proposal to be

considered.

4. Usually the NGOs/CBOs do not have access to data and reports at the national

level or sometime even the state levels and that becomes a deterrent for them to

come up with a rigorous proposition. The updated reports, documents and results

should be made easily accessible.

 

5. The coordinator at CCM as well as the names of the nodal persons at the

respective disease control programmes/departments and ministries should be made

available to NGOs/CBOs, prospective applicants. They should be exclusively

available for the GFATM activity. The TOR and responsibilities of these persons

should be specified.

6. A resource center of all relevant documents, papers, reports, previous

proposals, Grantees reports, minutes of the CCM meetings, Sub committee reports,

capacity building for NGOs reports, should be available for easy access to CSOs.

This GFATM resource centre should not only contain country specific materials,

but all other country materials as well. It is generally assumed that all this

is perhaps available on web/net but it is not so and it is difficult to smaller

players to have access to those electronic resources. The skills to

effective utilise these resources may also be lacking.

 

7. The CSO representatives on the CCM should be made more accountable for

serving and speaking up for the interests of the CSOs. They should not be

working as co-opted members or token and rubber stamps of the government bodies

or personal stooges of the big guns otherwise. The roles of the CSO members in

the CCM should be monitored and made public of what they asked, what they

commented in the meetings, and how they served the CSO interests.

Usually they are afraid to speak up in the CCM meetings as they are either GFATM

grantees, or receive other projects and grants from the Ministry, Department or

even the Bilaterals, Foundations and UN agencies and do not want to be seen or

labelled as " nuisance " value.

8. Another point in making more wider and effective participation in GFTAM

proposal formulation by CSO representative in the CCM would be to track the CSO

who have been wanting to participate and have been short listed for " further

discussion " by TRC. The CSO members in CCM should be definitely part of the

subcommittees if a CSO proposal is being evaluated. There have been cases where

none of the CSO members have been part of the TRC or Sub Committees of screening

committees.

This is not to say that non deserving CSO proposals should be favoured just

because they from CSOs. But surely if they have a good potential, they should be

supported and encouraged to come up.

 

9. The Capacity building and technical assistance that is available should be

made more transparent and easy for CSO to avail these opportunities. There no

clear and easily accessible information on these as well as there are not clear

procedures and processes laid out for this.

Can the TA agencies pick up the cost of proposal development instead of imposing

their own consultants and idea, strategic interests and biases?

 

10. Another problem usually have been coming up in the CSO participation in

GFTAM proposal formulation is the pitching of CSO proposals with the government

proposals.

This is completely not fair. The government department, ministry obviously has

all the access of information and data on policies, programmes and results, so

clearly there is an imbalance the CSO can not match. Besides if there are two

competing proposal where the lead is a ministry and another a CSO, it is no

brainer that the Ministry proposal can not be put second to the CSO proposal.

Also a ministry will never play an SR in a proposal where PR is a CSO. 

11. Another dark area or black hole in India atleast, has been what happens to

the proposals when they are being put together as a combined country proposals.

CSO are not only not involved at that time they are the one who gets the cuts

(arbitrary) and sometimes get eliminated if the overall country proposal needs

to be pruned.

They are not even shared the country proposal when it is finalised and being

send to the GFATM Head Quarters. Sometimes there are major changes, made in

indicators, teams, budgets, components, timeframes, targets and strategies are

made (sometimes without the knowledge and approval of the CCM) and CSO neither

are informed or shared the changes.

 

12. Never is the country proposal put up for comments and observation for

persons in general public or people outside the CCM members. This is against the

TOR of the CCM which states that CSO and general public should be given a

chance to comment and suggest on the proposal.

13. The results, reports and performance of the earlier GFATM project are never

put on the CCM website for CSO to learn and better their strategies and design

of the new GFATM proposals.

 

14. The election and selection of CSO members in the CCM is faulty and non

transparent. The CSO participation by these non transparent elections and

selection are done to gain consent on the proposals as designed by the

government authorities.

15. What is unfortunate is that the criteria of " additionality " and non

duplication in the proposal is used against the CSOs and not on the partners the

government brings in themselves. The criteria of additionality should be clearly

spelt out for the Ministry and CSOs in the SOW/TOR and the gaps as initially

identified by the CCM.

16. One more point will help the potential active and meaningful participation

of the CSO in GFATM proposal development process is the CCM's role in taking the

process through. CCM has to play a far more transparent role and not of big

brother or the big boss who can not be questioned, who can not be asked

for issues regarding conflict of interest.

And most certainly, CCM has to have a more involved role and team working in its

secretariat who is independent and non biased and not influenced by the gang of

UN bodies, MInistry, Bilaterals and Foundations. CSOs, big or small, at national

levels or at state levels would feel more comfortable if there is a continuous,

faster and meaningful correspondence and interaction between CCM team and CSOs.

CSO members/representatives in CCM should issue a newsletter where in they

should give feedback and support to other CSOs who are interested in the

proposal for GFATM grant.

 

17. One of the issues generally held against CSOs is that they do not have a

larger or national perspective and they can not handle large amount of funds. It

is a fallacy and a convenient way of keeping them on the margin. This is like

not giving a job to a candidate because he/she does not have experience, but how

will he/she have experience if he/she does not have first job and then start

gaining experience and expertise.

This is also reflexive of the bias in favour of large and international NGOs who

have opened Trusts and India offices and affiliations. For effective and better

participation of NGOs in GFATM proposal development and participation it is

imperative that CCM and respective disease control programmes have an on going

continued education programmes, workshops and orientations and not knee jerk

reaction when the announcements are round the corner. 

18. It is to some extent also true that some CSOs are there only for running and

augmenting their current programmes and agendas. They should be empowered to see

and look beyond that narrow view by building their capacity. They can be better

implementing partners in the state or the region. But do not expect all CSOs to

have a national character. Small is still beautiful. If they are good and

effective in a state or even a district and have come up with a good proposal,

they should be considered and not rejected just because of small size.

 

19. Another major problem happens with NGOs when they are asked to work in

consortiums. For government agencies to forge a consortium is not difficult but

for NGOs who may or may not have worked together in consortiums it is not easy

to do so in a short period of time.

For effective and meaningful partnership and participation in GFATM proposal

development CSOs should be facilitated to forge useful alliances and

consortiums. This has several legal, financial and operational dimensions which

require articulate handling. Besides there are financial commitments to come

together and spend time, efforts and resources to come up with a good proposals.

Many CSOs may not have monies for such efforts or have business development

personnel who can devote exclusive time for such requirements.

20. Last, Since time period between the announcement of GFATM to the submission

is so short that gearing up by CSOs itself takes a lot of time, there should be

more frequent interface between the CCM, Disease control entities and the

consultants to facilitate the process and support to the proposal development.

Dual track mechanism should not be misused by having a token CSO in one small

component to fulfil the criteria.

 

I am sure taking some of these measures shall make things better if not

significantly solve the problem of effective CSO participation in the GFATM

proposal development process.

Dr Sanjeev Kumar

New Delhi India

e-mail: <sanjeevbcc@...>