PartnersGF - 2004-04-15

Investing in CCM innovation
Anonymous
*********

“ONE PART OF THE ANSWER IS THAT THE GF SHOULD INVEST IN THE CCMS.....THE GF CANNOT CONTINUE TO FREE-RIDE ON THE BACKS OF THE ORGANIZATIONS IT WAS TRYING INITIALLY TO BY-PASS AND WHO HAVE KEPT THE GF ALIVE.”


I am a member of a CCM and also a member of an organization that has invested considerable effort to make the GF work in this country. If the CCM doesn't work as well as we would like, it is because of the realities of the country (similar to those in other least developed countries) and the failure, to some extent, to take these into account.

The GF wants to be innovative, creative, flexible, involving stakeholders and better than existing mechanisms for channeling funding to the fight against the three concerned diseases. Achieving these worthy aims requires hard work in countries specifically aimed at each of these outcomes. Many of us, despite the characterizations of our organizations that would suggest the contrary, have been struggling to do just these things for years, with some successes and some failures. It is not enough for the GF just to declare itself innovative, creative, flexible, efficient.......... So, who, at country level, is supposed to do the work of creating this apparently much-needed alternative to the status quo?

Perhaps the PR [Principal Recipient]. But the PR is, in many cases, the government, clearly one of the key players in existing "failed" mechanisms. The people in the government are usually so busy dealing with the priorities of understaffed under-resourced ministries and the heavy transaction costs of interacting with external partners (the GF represents some of the heaviest) that they are unlikely to have time for innovation and creativity. Our PR has worked hard to meet the demands of the GF; there has been no time for innovation.

So maybe it is the CCM that will ensure that things are done differently. Here the CCM was constituted to include all the groups recommended by the GF. But CCM members are all (at least in this country) extremely busy people. To have some influence, and experience in its ranks, a CCM is likely to include "senior" people, including those from the government and multi and bilateral development assistance partners (again, two of the key partners of the pre-GF model). To some extent the donors see in the GF a mechanism that works contrary to what they are otherwise trying to do through their development assistance (support government-led, sector-wide approaches to health and get away from vertical programmes). So they have some reservations but, mostly, they are just too busy to give more time to the GF.

So what about the international NGOs? In the real world NGOs are competing for scarce resources. Some of them claim that resources through their usual channels have dried up since the creation of the GF. So they have a lively interest in participating in the CCM but a very real vested interest too. They find themselves confronted with a new system that looks very similar to the old system in terms of complexity. But they already knew how to work the old system. They are still learning the GF game. Not surprisingly the big and powerful NGOs (and those that function essentially as consulting companies) can play the game more easily. They can readily produce a proposal that corresponds to international standards and they can satisfy the needs of the PR and the LFA [Local Fund Agent].

And the local NGOs, civil society and PLWA, TB or M? Overwhelmed, scarcely able to be heard in the confusion (the GF, the PR and the CCM are making up the rules as they go and the communication is all in English), unable to influence the CCM and unable to compete effectively in the proposal writing frenzy that each round of the GF provokes.

None of this helps the GF at country level to be innovative and creative. Innovation is stifled by the fact that, inevitably, it's the "usual suspects" who dominate the scene and by and large, play safe. (Better to get the grant than to take a risk with innovation.) The parts of government that have strong technical assistance can put together good proposals. Those who don't but might have truly innovative approaches (e.g. Ministries of Women's Affairs, Social Affairs, Labour, Information, etc.) can't get the winning proposals together in this environment. The strong NGOs can do it; local community oriented organizations are struggling.

As for flexibility, this is not always a great idea in countries where accountability is a problem. Some well-targeted "rules" from the GF would be helpful. There are all sorts of reasons why the CCM cannot make them. And as for efficiency, in this country at least, no prizes are being won by the GF mechanism.

So is the GF a bad idea? Maybe (but that is not the focus of this note). We have it and the aspiration to do business differently is good. And it has lots of money. So let's do our best to make it work and to help it correspond to all the good adjectives by which it wants to be described. How?

One part of the answer is that the GF should invest in the CCMs. Never has any organization tried to pump so much money into developing countries in so little time, with so little guidance and with SO LITTLE CAPACITY on the ground. The GF doesn't need to open offices in countries. But, at least, give the resources to the CCMs that they need to function effectively with some full-time technical assistance, a small local secretariat and some funding for non-grant activity. Why should this be paid for tacking together bits and pieces of funding from non-GF sources? Why shouldn't the GF pay its way on this? If we want good governance (and we do) there must be some investment made in it. If we want the civil-society and PLWA, TB or M (and "weaker" government ministries) to have a voice in the CCM (and we do) then we must have resources to build their capacity specifically to have that voice.

Becoming efficient in the use of funds will also require investment. It might seem like a good selling point for the GF to say that it has few staff and low overheads (though this might be questioned), but it is surely false economy to not invest in making sure that the all-important country work is well done. The GF cannot continue to free-ride on the backs of the organizations it was trying initially to by-pass and who have kept the GF alive. It might have worked up until now but with more and more implementation activities starting up, the potential for things to go badly wrong is increasing by the day. The GF must recognize that it needs help on the ground from organizations that have experience, and give them the resources to do the job.

We hope the GF will look carefully and self-critically at the case studies on CCMs. It will be important to read between the lines and not only look for the good news. Many of those interviewed are receiving funds, are hoping to receive funds or do not have a particularly strong interest in governance. They are not likely to have been very critical of the process to date. Those who are being rather more critical, might just have something to say that is worth listening to. There is lots of room for improvement.

There is also a chance to be truly innovative. But this too will require specific investment, a lot of hard thinking, and continuous involvement of independent people who have grappled with the GF on the ground over the past few years. With all due respect to the GF secretariat and the GF board, there are lots of reasons why the solutions are not likely to come from them. Let us hope the portfolio managers (and GF management) can be bold enough to identify their harshest (but constructive) critics on the ground and give them a chance to shape the future work of the GF. Then we might see some innovation.

These views are based mostly on experience in one country and I make no claim that they would be relevant elsewhere. I have taken the time to write this comment because I think the GF is too expensive an experiment to allow it to fail. But, frankly, like all of the busy people on the CCM, I do not have time to read all of the many communications on the GF, including in this email forum. I hope someone, with potential to use all this input, does have the time (and discrimination) to make this worthwhile.


Anonymous