My comments are generic and not made with reference to the specific country coordination mechanism Global Fund requires. Hence, please discard if found to be irrelevant.
Often, coordination is the critical yet the weakest link in programme implementation. People use different techniques to coordinate. Some donors divide geographic territory between players. Some try to set up Coordination Committees and hope to accomplish coordination through voluntary action. Committees usually do not accomplish this objective because partners are not always forthright, do not want to reveal everything, and only say things to impress or criticize others. Of course, there can be a more harmonious group that works well with each other. Also best coordination takes place at the individual level. If coordination committees are empowered to hold or release funds, their role changes to administration.
Coordination is relatively easier when all players are under one coordinating mechanism. However, if programs are running under different donors, it can be very tricky. Major donors do not like to let others know their real plans, successes and failures. For instance I know from experience that USAID pretty much kept to itself and so did UN. Only in the last few years, UN has developed mechanisms to practically enforce coordination in program planning. I am not aware if it is working as expected.
Invariably, at the country level, coordination is left to the government, often on an overburdened and not very powerful bureaucrat. Such an individual would not like to, even if wants to, tell about one donor’s activities to others. It is not surprising if even government may want to extract maximum benefits from donors by not telling them that someone else was already funding same activity. This raises the question of coordination between donors. This normally does not happen because each donor may have a different agenda for the country, that may have over riding political objectives that may have nothing to do with the HIV/TB/Malaria programs.
I feel best coordination takes place if it is built in the plans themselves, after a country’s systems are adequately assessed. Assessment should highlight what other donors are planning for the country. Project documents should spell out relationships and expectations vis-à-vis other actors in the program. To the extent possible, duplication and redundancies should be taken care of before the projects are approved.
To improve and strengthen coordination, effective and efficient monitoring should play a pivotal role. Coordinating managers should receive progress reports regularly and provide prompt feedback. They should also seek and look into progress reports of others. Finally, project evaluations should highlight strengths and weaknesses of the coordination mechanisms, that should be taken account in the next planning cycle.
Regards.