• Engage consultants from Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) who are experienced in program implementation as monitoring and reporting officers (M&R) to Global Fund.
  
  
• Capacity strengthening of the M&R officers for quality and effective reporting.
  
  
• Use experts for program implementation.
   
• Motivate resource persons to make useful imputs.
   
• Welcome ideas from experts, resource persons and recipients of Global Fund.

• Evaluation should be considered.
  
  
• Proper reasoning should be put in place.
  
  
• The outcome of implementing programs should be analyzed.
  
  
• Who are the target people?
  
  

• Infrastructure; GF should help to improve road network of beneficial countries because good road help campaign to reach those in the remote areas, also electricity help to reduce rural urban migration which is the source of prostitution leading to HIV/AIDS and over crowding leading to Tuberculosis spreading.
  
  
• Girl child education should be promoted; that is the GF and its affiliated members should educate parents on the importance of girl child education and their contribution in nation building. Scholarship can be awarded to brilliant but needy girl child. Grades to enter university should be flexible. Child Labor and prostitution must also be discourage as well as female circumcision.
  
  
• Agriculture should also be emphasize because it is a sector which employs majority of the work force in Africa. If agriculture sector is improve poverty will be reduce, rural urban migration will stop. Therefore prostitution and overcrowding which are source of HIV/AIDS and Tuberculosis can be reduce or eliminated.

• Workshop for members: GF should organize periodical workshop for its affiliated Members to upgrade their knowledge on the global fund activities.
  
  
• Availability of funds and other logistic materials such as automobile, horns etc to all stakeholders to facilitate their programs.
  
  
• Monthly report should be prepared by beneficial members and submitted to appropriate office.
  
  
• Last but not the least, process of funding should be reduce, flexible and transparent. After signing the grant agreement, funds should be transferred to the account of the said organization but not to individual person. Audited account should be submitted to the global fund office periodically for check and balances.

What you are discussing is very very real. Thank you so much for sharing. You are a very brilliant and gifted woman that knows how to articulate the problem at hand. I so much appreciate the contribution of women to the e-forum. I don't not know whether the problems in Latin America can be generalized or are experienced by the rest of the world.

These are critical administrative issues that you have mentioned and must be taken very seriously otherwise it will seriously affect the endusers if not resolved. Consequently, it will affect the TQM - total quality management. But worst of all it will affect the client outcomes in terms of a dent in the prevalence of disease ...Malaria, HIV/AIDS and TB. These are goals we mutually hope to achieve.  We deal with real people not just programs on paper that have no feelings.

We must link MDG # 6 to all our client objectives. This is not done right now as I have seen throughout this forum.

Those at the grassroots don't understand us when we use sophisticated abbreviations and big words. We must explain them in our submissions if we want wider participation and inclusiveness. We take for granted what people understand and how they will respond. If the information is shared in bite sizes we can see more participation and greater inclusivenes. Certain terminology are self explanatory, but it appears that use of the Global Fund terms/abbreviations are challenging to some and need to be mentioned with an explanation everytime we refer to it.

I think what is critical in both submissions seems to be a missing link or lack of clarity in terms of definitions, roles, structures, relationships and accountability. This will seriously affect our leadership and social responsibility towards those we serve.

Alistair, thank you for your gracious interpretation from Spanish to English. This is a task that is to huge. We are all very indebted to your extraordinary skills and competencies. We learn alot from you and we now not to use the "C" word. Can you please program the toolbar into the discussion forum so that we can write nice letters just like you and Marcela?

Thank you again to Alistair and Marcela. We are deeply indepted to you and say that in all humility from the bottom of our heart.

Supervision and coordination of the program between the CCM and the PR should have a legal framework, similar to the one that the PRs sign with the Global Fund. This is because, in general, there isn’t a clear assignment of roles, functions and competencies for each. On the other hand, program supervision should be more thorough when the PR needs to collect the information from SRs. This information should have more details regarding what the SRs do with their projects. This is because the proposals presented to the Global Fund are generated from the CCM, and this is different from what it is implemented afterwards by the SR. It is not easy for those that implement programs to understand the whole logic behind the proposals, so the induction period is very important , as well as the technical support, to avoid that the nature of the proposals change during the implementation process. CCM supervision has serious limitations if there isn’t enough funding. Funding received by the Global Fund is not enough when a country is handling more than one round. Adding financing requirements for supervision of joint programs should be mandatory in the proposals so that CCMs can effectively perform that role. When there is more than one round in motion, it is difficult to coordinate programs, as well as the implementation capacity when there is only one PR. This should all be taken into account when designing proposals.

From Mirta Villanueva Dominguez, (2) Cuba:

The Country Coordinating Mechanism is an effective organ as long as it works properly, but this is not enough because it is necessary to involve influential people, technically prepared to contribute, highly committed or with similar attributes that really contribute to fulfill the role of this organ. These people are generally very busy and only do field work from time to time, rather than supervise the projects or monitor them within their area of work. 

The LFA has a supervisory function, but the time they dedicate to it is not enough in order to be a guarantee for the Global Fund since most of the time they are reviewing documents in detail, putting emphasis on the financing aspects – even if the projects have annual audits – and since they are only present temporarily they don’t “live” the development of the project so they do not always understand, know or have elements to evaluate them and almost always they evaluate using the criteria of one specific finding (whether positive or negative). 

The Fund Portfolio Manager has had little mobility up to now and even when the projects get larger and their responsibilities and Secretariat work grows, it is necessary that they get involved in field work, more directed to the interventions in the field than in the supervision of PRs.

The proposals that I wish be evaluated are:

• Fund Portfolio Manager annual visits that are long enough to perform field visits and to discuss strategies or other issues of interest to the CCM.
  
• Modify the terms of reference of the LFA, giving more attention to visits and field evaluations and not so much focus on financing aspects that are already being reviewed in annual audits so the processes get repeated.
  
• Share with projects' SRs, CCMs or other in-country actors the new procedures before they are published, because generally the formats are complex, without really fulfilling the objectives for results, evidence, strategies, lessons learnt, etc.

I also want to add something about the relationship between the LFA and the CCM. This was never clear to me and there is no mention in the current guidelines about the performance of the LFA. I participated in the 2nd Partnership Forum and this was discussed a lot as the performance and work of the LFA did not match in any of the cases that were shared in the different work groups. I do not have a concrete proposal for this, but there is a lack of information on this matter.

If the LFA, CCM and PR are three work structures of the Global Fund, why not define the relationship that is missing?

       i am taking an oppurtunity  send this mail  as the acting presidant of ngo / Holy family vo luntary org Routhulapudi ,we are ameture in