In Bolivia during the first phase we almost accepted offers with not enough technical revision, we trusted this PR because it was a NGO organization and a bilateral agency together. Sadly this coalition did not work and we had to change PR even with the warning that such a decision could be a suicide of the project.

At the end we did well changing the PR because the corruptions warnings of the PR were so evident. In order to solve the problem because the project was running, we adopted a transitional PR wich has been UNDP. For the second phase we developed guidelines:

* Not one single PR for the 3 projects (TB, AIDS and Malaria) but each for one disease, so if one fails, the others may remain.

* A Public call for PRs for each disease.

* PRs presented in coalitions could never separate in the middle of the process (this is what ruined the perfomance of the first PR partly)

* A group of experts not linked to the CCM reviewed the proposals and score them accoding to: Technical capacity, Experience on the disease, Experience working with communities, Financial proposal, and some other criteria that I cannot remember exactly now.

* The Executive Committee of the CCM did not have a direct input on the selection, we only received the scoring of the pannel of experts and after we made a decision together with the entire CCM.

AIDS was the most required, we did not make it for Malaria and TB had no good proposal, therefore we decided to continue with UNDP for TB.

The readinsess to work in an open flow of communication in the current PR for AIDS really made a difference. CCM looses power over whatever activities the PR has once the agreement is signed. The LFA will not deliver information to the CCM using the excuse that they work for the fund and not for the CCM. CCMs will face challenges if willing to have a watch dog role in these conditions.

 This is pur experience. I was part of the Executive Committee of the Bolivian CCM on behalf of the Bolivian Network of PLHA, during the most difficult time of the project. It was such an exhausting time but a time of big learnings.

Gracia Violeta Ross

LAC Alternate Delegate UNAIDS Board

LAC Region, Developing Countries NGO Delegation, GFATM Board

New discussion topic in CCM Forum:  Selection of Principal Recipient (s)

One of the key responsibilities of a Country Coordinating Mechanism is to nominate a principal recipient(s) that will be responsible for grant implementation and management.

During phase two, when the submission for continued funding is sent, the CCM can choose to nominate a new principal recipient or continue with the existing one(s).

The methods by which CCMs nominate and select principal recipients can prove to be a challenge and controversial.

What are your experiences on the different methods used? Are these methods transparent enough? What experiences can you share from your country or other countries in terms of PR selection?