dr joseph stephen mambo - Mar 20, 2006

To me, I may say that the Global Fund is doing its best to serve both local and global institutions, be it in rural and urban areas. The major problem is, global funds in most of countries have been utilized in extravagant ways and the areas which need to be mentioned are on political grounds rather than to the meant scenario. Else, ministries of health v/s the country coordinating mechanisms -it seems there is some kind of confusion.
The Global Fund as to the scope of my knowledge is meant for Malaria, TB, and HIV/AIDS control. The communication factor, eligibility factor also accountability is the problem with most of the CCMs. Lastly may I take this opportunity to congratulate the global fund headquarters and the secretariat. My request is, please consolidate your services to Ethiopia and to sub-Saharan countries, mostly to Tanzania where the crisis of new HIV infections is a threat to date.

Timothy Mbugua - Mar 20, 2006

The structures that the Global Fund put in place were important to ensure transparency, accountability and proper coordination. However, these structures could very well be the source of bureaucratic red tape the organization was avoiding in the first place.

For instance, there are cases where the CCM are too large to be able to make quick and meaningful decisions. In other cases, they are dominated by one sector, most often government ministries, who want to impose their decisions and thereby killing the spirit of collective decision-making. The GF should give guidelines on the formation and composition of the CCM to streamline them so that they continue to play their role more effectively.

Closely linked to this, the roles of different actors and agencies should be well defined and specified. The PR, CCM, LFA should have clear roles that will not lead to ambiguities, duplication and overlapping but strengthen and build on each other’s efforts. For instance, while the GF approves contracts with the PR and the LFA in legal and contractual terms, the responsibility to implement, report and impact assessment lies with PR and not the CCM, the Government or the LFA. Yet the CCM is the body that is meant to oversee the process of selection and disbursement.

vmarencop - Mar 20, 2006

Bureaucracy is the highest transaction cost developing countries pay; only second to corruption. But, can there be transparency without these structures in place? I strongly encourage to reduce protocols that local partners put in place, that consume too much time. These vary from meetings, bureaucratic approvals and agreement signing etc... It is important to make sure that we monitor the transparency of the process, but be more efficient in transfering the funds to actions on the ground. I understand the consesus process is important but perhaps the Global Fund could invest now in training stakeholders on how to be more efficient in the inital stages of the CCM process, and once the funds are being used. This could be an investment that will pay off in the future, a one time expenditure that will reduce some of the transaction costs of the years to come.

It is important to treat the different levels of the structure. We can start by localizing the root problems at the different bodies of the process. Working our way up could be a start. Perhaps some of these lessons learned could be applied to the processess of the Global Fund rounds, disbursement and selection process. Lets also ask how the successes of the top could enhance the local stakeholders, which bring me back to my original comment: Local CCM's would benefit from organizational capacity (building) and training from the Global Fund in its different stages.

Best,
_________________
Vanessa Marenco
International Programs Director
Institute for Behavioral Change and Research
Washington, DC
USA

LPPrayas - Mar 20, 2006

I am a member of an NGO since 1997; as the secretary of our Organization I look after all the different administrative jobs and related functions and duties of the organization.... I am also associated with different types of Micro-Enterprise Cluster Development Programmes (MECDP) that are being carried on in different regions of West Bengal, India.... My nearly a decade of experience in this field has induced me to believe that it is only the Micro-Enterprise Cluster Development Programmes (MECDP) that can set the right compass course for the people while making the UN Slogan “Make Poverty History” to be most significant. ...
Pinaki Mukherjee
Secretary
Lotus Park Prayas

Sammi Fredenburg - Mar 20, 2006

Please let me see if I comprehend this question correctly - pretty much, how can overhead be reduced and minimized, right? It seems to me that to be aware of this fact, as you are, is the first step. And The Global Fund is to be commended on that. May I first take a moment to thank The Global Fund. I found out this week that they are major contributors to a few projects that I love and am observing on the ground in Ethiopia. It makes me proud.

Likewise this question to me would be more of a concern were the funds going towards projects here in the west. I believe by nature of the regions they benefit that funds are not being used for extravagance and waste. This would be blatantly noted in these regions.

My thought is along the line of the executive models the likes of the United Way, where a major corporation "donates" the person on their payroll to the work of leadership in that NGO for one year, maybe longer. It would be a tax benefit for the company and provide an experienced manager for the projects at hand. Possibly even a form of mentorship for the local leadership at hand. I've often wondered about the possibility of an economic Peace Corps of sorts, to mentor locals in how to effectively distribute and invest the funding coming their way. Experienced project managers could circumvent the learning curve when it comes to regional matters, consequently dollars are saved in this way.

Thank you very much.

Sammi Fredenburg

-------

Moderator: Transaction Costs & Comprehensive Funding Policy

Thanks Sammi, we are glad to have you back. Your suggestions are right on target, because they provide concrete options for reducing the Global Fund's transaction costs. Again, the Global Fund is currently one of Ethiopia's largest donors.

Since the beginning of discussions, members have mentioned delays, bureaucracy, excessive protocol etc. as some of the major challenges they face both locally and globally.

Transaction costs refer to the costs incurred in terms of money, effort and time during the search for information, partners, the proposals process, negotiation, monitoring, enforcing contracts etc. They are different from the usual price or administrative costs in that while these refer to the price paid for products or services, transaction costs on the other hand also include the energy, effort and time spent, for example, in: arriving at selection criteria, selecting and researching, traveling to and from where services are provided, waiting, negotiating and signing agreements, and the effort towards disbursing funds. Transaction costs can be significantly high- to the point of influencing any organization’s performance. Modern economic, financial and other institutions have noticed this and currently determine how they operate and relate to partners by taking into account transaction costs.

You have therefore responded to this question very well. We look forward to more members' responses: Looking at the Global Fund's financing processes and architecture, how can these transaction costs be reduced and how can coordination with global and local partners be improved?

For more on the Global Fund's Comprehensive Funding Policy, please click here: http://forum.theglobalfund.org/en/viewtopic.php?t=78

Thank You.

Mar 19, 2006

Introductory paragraph for the new theme and this week's question:

Working more efficiently with local and global partners: The Global Fund was established to be a financing mechanism that would fit with existing country systems and impose minimal transaction costs (defined as requirements on administrative systems, implementation processes and personnel in working with the Global Fund) on the countries it funds. Furthermore, it was designed to be an additional source of funding, complementing the efforts of existing donors. However, after four years of implementation, it has become clear that some areas of the Global Fund’s financing model (including the rounds system and the Comprehensive Funding Policy) and architecture (including CCMs, PRs, LFAs and the TRP) could be improved.

Specific areas that may need improvement include the structures and processes that the Global Fund has established to work with its partners at the global and country levels. These have been implemented in various ways in different regions and countries. A range of sources, including the previous Partnership Forum, highlighted that these structures and processes range in the degree to which they encourage coordination with country level partners and other global donors. In order to better enable the lasting impact of its funded programs and to reduce transaction costs, some aspects of the Global Fund’s financing model and architecture may need to be re-examined.

Question: What parts of the Global Fund’s financing model (including the rounds system and the Comprehensive Funding Policy) and the Global Fund’s architecture (including CCMs, PRs, LFAs and the TRP) might need to be examined to reduce transaction costs and improve coordination with global and local partners?