Selection of Principal Recipient (s)

12-15-2008 11:10 PM

Mexico
Country Coordinating Mechanism (CCM)
Posts 1

Re: Selection of Principal Recipient (s)

Reply Contact

In dual track financing, is it imperative that one PR is a government agency and one a non-government agency?

Answer from the Global Fund:

The answer is yes. Dual-track financing is, by definition, the inclusion of both government and non-government Principal Recipients in proposals for Global Fund financing. A country can always choose to have more than one non-government PR for program implementation, but this is not dual-track financing.

With regards to dual-track financing, the Global Fund recommends the routine inclusion of proposals with both government and non-government PRs in Round 9, but this is not a requirement. It is recognized that dual-track financing may not be possible in all proposals due to current in-country contextual situations.

Where dual-track financing is not possible, applicants are requested to summarize in the proposal form the reasons why this option has not been pursued, and discuss alternative ways in which their proposal aims to ensure both government and non-government sector involvement in grant implementation.

For more information, you can download the dual-track financing fact sheet, available in English, Spanish, French and Russian.

Any other questions regarding the development of a proposal for Round 9 submission, can be posted on the Round 9 forum.

11-29-2008 2:01 AM

hernanlaca

Uruguay
Not currently affiliated with the Global Fund
Posts 8

Re: Selection of Principal Recipient (s)

Reply Contact

Some of Uruguay's proposal weaknesses were related to the selection of the PR. In the mayor revision recommended by the TRP, selecting a new PR is going to be a key issue.

So far, only one agency was taken into consideration as a potential PR. It is relatively new, last fiscal year's budget was 17 m. USD and has good record implementing projects. The lack of experience in health care issues was considered a main weakness, but on the other hand, they know how to monitor and evaluate scientific and technological projects.

The other default candidate seems to be the Ministry of Health, that has the experience in health related issues, but lacks the efficiency of the first agency I mentioned.

If you need to travel, it would be the dilemma of giving gasoline to a senior driver with a broken car or to a rookie with a brand new convertible.

Feels like being between a rock and a hard place, but I wonder if anybody involved in similar scenarios regarding the selection of a PR is willing and able to share his or her experiences

Any comments will be greatly appreciated.

Tag(s): CCM, transparency, Technical Oversight, selection of PR ministry of health

02-16-2008 11:03 PM

Gracia Violeta Ross

Bolivia
Global Fund Board
Posts 8

Re: Selection of Principal Recipient (s)

Reply Contact

In Bolivia during the first phase we almost accepted offers with not enough technical revision, we trusted this PR because it was a NGO organization and a bilateral agency together. Sadly this coalition did not work and we had to change PR even with the warning that such a decision could be a suicide of the project.

At the end we did well changing the PR because the corruptions warnings of the PR were so evident. In order to solve the problem because the project was running, we adopted a transitional PR wich has been UNDP. For the second phase we developed guidelines:

* Not one single PR for the 3 projects (TB, AIDS and Malaria) but each for one disease, so if one fails, the others may remain.

* A Public call for PRs for each disease.

* PRs presented in coalitions could never separate in the middle of the process (this is what ruined the perfomance of the first PR partly)

* A group of experts not linked to the CCM reviewed the proposals and score them accoding to: Technical capacity, Experience on the disease, Experience working with communities, Financial proposal, and some other criteria that I cannot remember exactly now.

* The Executive Committee of the CCM did not have a direct input on the selection, we only received the scoring of the pannel of experts and after we made a decision together with the entire CCM.

AIDS was the most required, we did not make it for Malaria and TB had no good proposal, therefore we decided to continue with UNDP for TB.

The readinsess to work in an open flow of communication in the current PR for AIDS really made a difference. CCM looses power over whatever activities the PR has once the agreement is signed. The LFA will not deliver information to the CCM using the excuse that they work for the fund and not for the CCM. CCMs will face challenges if willing to have a watch dog role in these conditions.

This is pur experience. I was part of the Executive Committee of the Bolivian CCM on behalf of the Bolivian Network of PLHA, during the most difficult time of the project. It was such an exhausting time but a time of big learnings.

Gracia Violeta Ross

LAC Alternate Delegate UNAIDS Board

LAC Region, Developing Countries NGO Delegation, GFATM Board

02-11-2008 7:01 PM

Info

Switzerland
Global Fund Secretariat
Posts 829

Selection of Principal Recipient (s)

Reply Contact

New discussion topic in CCM Forum: Selection of Principal Recipient (s)

One of the key responsibilities of a Country Coordinating Mechanism is to nominate a principal recipient(s) that will be responsible for grant implementation and management.

During phase two, when the submission for continued funding is sent, the CCM can choose to nominate a new principal recipient or continue with the existing one(s).

The methods by which CCMs nominate and select principal recipients can prove to be a challenge and controversial.

What are your experiences on the different methods used? Are these methods transparent enough? What experiences can you share from your country or other countries in terms of PR selection?

Tag(s): CCM, representation, structure, PR