PartnersGF - 2004-04-21
CCMs a brief re-cap (3/4)
CCM participation is more than a signature
HDN eForum Moderation Team
***************************
During the planning stages for the Fund, successfully fostering genuine government/civil society/private sector partnerships in the CCM process was predicted as one of the greatest challenges to the GF.
Several contributions to the Partnership Forum have indicated that taking part in the CCM is not always the same as participating. Various levels of participation are possible, ranging from target audience involvement, through a seat at the table, contributors, speakers and implementers, to experts and decision-makers. CCMs clearly have them all.
GF guidance on CCMs state that they should be based, wherever possible, on existing structures, committees or programmes of work. The inherent contradiction is, of course, that if this type of broad-based and equitable mechanism were already in place and working, there would be no need for CCMs, or probably for the Fund itself.
Yet many people have commented to the Forum that CCMs are bringing state and non-state stakeholders together in an unprecedented way.
What is clear is that: i) CCMs are being formed within and at the heart of - the existing political and decision-making landscape in each country, and; ii) Appropriate composition of CCMs and transparent representation are of little importance if interactions between government, other public and key non-government stakeholders are unbalanced.
In many countries, the relationship between government departments and NGOs is far from equal, with NGOs often regarded as having a sub-contractor status at best. It is also a challenge to open government-NGO collaboration beyond established relationships with those organizations favoured by governments for reasons of mutual benefit and credibility or a track record of acquiescence.
This phenomenon is not only about escaping from existing government-NGO cronyism. Forum discussions have also highlighted the lack of capacity and experience on the part of many important CCM stakeholders in working with government and other potential partners, as well as in preparation of meaningful national-level proposals.
As the overwhelming focus on NGO participation in CCMs testifies, the realities and constraints this process faces in many countries must not be underestimated, and the barriers to NGOs and governments working together, for example, must be broken down in a practical and proactive way in order to move forward constructively.
With the majority of CCM members coming from the public sector, government leadership, for example, is hard to differentiate from government control of member selection, meeting agendas, discussion and decision-making. But this already appears to vary from country-to-country, and several CCMs have mechanisms in place for voting on key decisions.
During the first few rounds of GF proposals, CCM members participation has been hampered by the lack of time for proposal development, submission and review of documents. This may be due to tight deadlines for proposal submission and/or in-country delays. As we have heard, and according to various country studies that have taken place, many interviewees have stated that this has contributed to a lack of transparency in the submission of GF proposals.
But perhaps more significantly, involving non-government stakeholders in what are normally regarded as ministerial decisions goes against the institutional culture and power base in many countries. This culture is so deep-rooted that it is likely to be determined by the national democratic history as much as anything. Case studies published to date on the GF, for example, find broadly (but moderately) more NGO participation in CCMs in Latin America than parts of Asia or Africa.
The GF may be striving not to do business as usual, but genuine CCM participation is probably defined most by the extent of difference between the Funds promotion of a partnership approach and the established work practices and power balance in any given country.
The result of this difference is the very type of institutionalised tokenism that the GF seeks to unlock: despite having a seat at the table even many CCM members have not played a significant role in deciding the content of proposals. Nor have they had enough time to comment upon draft proposals before they are submitted to the GF. Nevertheless, many of these peoples and organisations signatures appear on the proposal submissions, giving the appearance of active participation in the CCM process.
Nevertheless, promoting and achieving genuine partnerships in the national CCMs remains one of the most important factors and challenges in determining the ultimate success of the GF at a country level.
In most countries, for the goals of the GF to be achieved, the political will and non-state capacity to do business in different ways must be created. As a significant anonymous contribution to the Forum asserted, a means must be established through which resources can be invested in the CCMs themselves - and for developing non-state capacity at the country level. The Fund itself should probably support such programmes among important NGO groups.
As one contributor to previous GF-related on-line discussions put it:
If [the] Global Fund committee is truly interested in receiving well-prepared and well-coordinated applications with equal partnership among government, private and NGO sectors, they should invest in assisting NGO/private sectors to coordinate their efforts with the government sector.
Probably the most significant contribution we as the members of the Partnership Forum e-discussions so far can now make, is to collectively formulate a set of specific recommendations and suggestions for ways in which CCM composition, representation and participation might be improved.
HDN eForum Moderation Team
Email: info@hdnet.org