Civil society participation or their involvement is very important. most of the time they are involved during the proposal developments and once it is developed we forget about them. CCM needs to give more opportunity for their participation not only in proposal development but also in program implementation . i think its time that CCM should call up for the new NGO's to join and give them a opportunity to discover what is out there for them. also in addition to this these NGO's needs to know what are the opportunities or the doors open for them with global fund in terms of program implementaion.

From my view working for a global network of autonomous grassroots women's organizations, it seems that the problem is the type of civil society that are able to participate into the CCM processes. Even with the most active and enabled participation of the leading civil society organizations in a given country working on AIDS, TB and Malaria, grassroots voices will still be excluded unless there is a mandate to include them, as many AIDS Service and advocacy organizations are professionally run and driven, and their programs and priorities do not directly reflect the capacities and challenges facing grassroots women and men in poor communities who are the most affected by these three pandemics. Without their input being facilitated, national, regional and international strategies for mitigating the affects of AIDS, TB and Malaria will never be effective.

Dear members, Civil society i think at the moment they are not given fair opportunity to participate in the ccm proposal development Global fund should be able to bring on board both the ccm and civil society during the process of proposal writing so that ccm could give proper quideline on managing resourses Collins Kidega

The case for the Civil Society meaningful participation in development has long been made. Efforts to increase Civil Society participation in addressing issues that affect their lives are inextricably linked to strengthening democracy, and good governance. The involvement of the Civil Society must start with national policy development and implementation  for the three diseases. The key actions to facilitate this include:

• Developing national Civil Society policies;
• Adopting participatory process for national policies, programmes and strategies development;
• Developing clear national policies on Public/Private partnership;

The Country Coordinating Mechanisms (CCMs) do include  Civil Society representation. The challenge is that most Civil Society Organizations are  not coordinated by disease focus. CCMs can therefore take the following actions:

·        Develop Constitutions that spell out the quota and process for selecting Civil Society representation in CCM;

·        Build the capacity of the Civil Society representatives for understanding the GFATM processes and procedures,

·        Adopt a transparent process for programmatic and financial gap assessments, priority setting, and proposal development in response to the GFATM call for proposals.

 Further actions are needed to enable the Civil Society to manage result based grants. These are:

• Strengthen  Civil Society Institutional capacity;
• Strengthen the management capacity (Financial, Commodity Logistics and Personnel);
• Strengthen the technical capacity (proposal development, implementation, monitoring, and reporting).

In order to minimize the marginalization of the Civil Society in accessing GF resources. The GFATM could:

• Adopt a supportive rather than competitive grant awarding process;
• Work in partnership with the multilateral organizations through already developed frameworks to build national and civil society capacities to respond to the three diseases.

Dear Forum,
 
GFATM Round 9 announcement is round the corner.
 
I would like to focus on what needs to be done in for effective participation of CSOs and private sector players in GFATM proposal development processes where governments/ministries, CCM and biggies “mutual admiration and support gang” of UN system, Bilaterals, International NGOs and Foundation are on one side and CSO are on another.
 
There are several steps and stages as far as proposal development is concerned, so let us see it one by one and see where CSO partnership can be made effective, fair, transparent, meaningful and open.
1. Pre announcement of GFATM round to be made more visible, accessible not only through formal advertisements and web announcements but also through database, e groups, and through partners agencies including UN, Bilaterals, Foundations, etc.
2. Capacity building workshops and orientation workshops by govt and GFATM facilitators should be more accessible and not remain closed and limited invitation events only.
3. The briefing of the focus of the proposed proposal thematic should be presented more seriously and by the top official of the disease control programme. The rationale and gap analysis done by the department must be presented as a paper/backgrounder. This should be available on all information platforms and channels for easy access and download. It must be made a prerequisite by GFTAM as key qualifying criteria for the country proposal to be considered.
4. Usually the NGOs/CBOs do not have access to data and reports at the national level or sometime even the state levels and that becomes a deterrent for them to come up with a rigorous proposition. The updated reports, documents and results should be made easily accessible.
5. The coordinator at CCM as well as the names of the nodal persons at the respective disease control programmes/departments and ministries should be made available to NGOs/CBOs, prospective applicants. They should be exclusively available for the GFATM activity. The TOR and responsibilities of these persons should be specified.
6. A resource center of all relevant documents, papers, reports, previous proposals, Grantees reports, minutes of the CCM meetings, Sub committee reports, capacity building for NGOs reports, should be available for easy access to CSOs. This GFATM resource centre should not only contain country specific materials, but all other country materials as well. It is generally assumed that all this is perhaps available on web/net but it is not so and it is difficult to smaller players to have access to those electronic resources. The skills to effective utilise these resources may also be lacking.
7. The CSO representatives on the CCM should be made more accountable for serving and speaking up for the interests of the CSOs. They should not be working as co-opted members or token and rubber stamps of the government bodies or personal stooges of the big guns otherwise. The roles of the CSO members in the CCM should be monitored and made public of what they asked, what they commented in the meetings, and how they served the CSO interests. Usually they are afraid to speak up in the CCM meetings as they are either GFATM grantees, or receive other projects and grants from the Ministry, Department or even the Bilaterals, Foundations and UN agencies and do not want to be seen or labelled as "nuisance" value.
8. Another point in making more wider and effective participation in GFTAM proposal formulation by CSO representative in the CCM would be to track the CSO who have been wanting to participate and have been short listed for "further discussion" by TRC. The CSO members in CCM should be definitely part of the subcommittees if a CSO proposal is being evaluated. There have been cases where none of the CSO members have been part of the TRC or Sub Committees of screening committees. This is not to say that non deserving CSO proposals should be favoured just because they from CSOs. But surely if they have a good potential, they should be supported and encouraged to come up.
9. The Capacity building and technical assistance that is available should be made more transparent and easy for CSO to avail these opportunities. There no clear and easily accessible information on these as well as there are not clear procedures and processes laid out for this. Can the TA agencies pick up the cost of proposal development instead of imposing their own consultants and idea, strategic interests and biases?
10. Another problem usually have been coming up in the CSO participation in GFTAM proposal formulation is the pitching of CSO proposals with the government proposals. This is completely not fair. The government department, ministry obviously has all the access of information and data on policies, programmes and results, so clearly there is an imbalance the CSO can not match. Besides if there are two competing proposal where the lead is a ministry and another a CSO, it is no brainer that the Ministry proposal can not be put second to the CSO proposal. Also a ministry will never play an SR in a proposal where PR is a CSO.
11. Another dark area or black hole in India atleast, has been what happens to the proposals when they are being put together as a combined country proposals. CSO are not only not involved at that time they are the one who gets the cuts (arbitrary) and sometimes get eliminated if the overall country proposal needs to be pruned. They are not even shared the country proposal when it is finalised and being send to the GFATM Head Quarters. Sometimes there are major changes, made in indicators, teams, budgets, components, timeframes, targets and strategies are made (sometimes without the knowledge and approval of the CCM) and CSO neither are informed or shared the changes.
12. Never is the country proposal put up for comments and observation for persons in general public or people outside the CCM members. This is against the TOR of the CCM which states that CSO and general public should be given a chance to comment and suggest on the proposal.
13. The results, reports and performance of the earlier GFATM project are never put on the CCM website for CSO to learn and better their strategies and design of the new GFATM proposals.
14. The election and selection of CSO members in the CCM is faulty and non transparent. The CSO participation by these non transparent elections and selection are done to gain consent on the proposals as designed by the government authorities.
15. What is unfortunate is that the criteria of "additionality" and non duplication in the proposal is used against the CSOs and not on the partners the government brings in themselves. The criteria of additionality should be clearly spelt out for the Ministry and CSOs in the SOW/TOR and the gaps as initially identified by the CCM.
16. One more point will help the potential active and meaningful participation of the CSO in GFATM proposal development process is the CCM's role in taking the process through. CCM has to play a far more transparent role and not of big brother or the big boss who can not be questioned, who can not be asked for issues regarding conflict of interest. And most certainly, CCM has to have a more involved role and team working in its secretariat who is independent and non biased and not influenced by the gang of UN bodies, MInistry, Bilaterals and Foundations. CSOs, big or small, at national levels or at state levels would feel more comfortable if there is a continuous, faster and meaningful correspondence and interaction between CCM team and CSOs. CSO members/representatives in CCM should issue a newsletter where in they should give feedback and support to other CSOs who are interested in the proposal for GFATM grant.
17. One of the issues generally held against CSOs is that they do not have a larger or national perspective and they can not handle large amount of funds. It is a fallacy and a convenient way of keeping them on the margin. This is like not giving a job to a candidate because he/she does not have experience, but how will he/she have experience if he/she does not have first job and then start gaining experience and expertise.  This is also reflexive of the bias in favour of large and international NGOs who have opened “Trusts” and “India” offices and affiliations. For effective and better participation of NGOs in GFATM proposal development and participation it is imperative that CCM and respective disease control programmes have an on going continued education programmes, workshops and orientations and not knee jerk reaction when the announcements are round the corner.
18. It is to some extent also true that some CSOs are there only for running and augmenting their current programmes and agendas. They should be empowered to see and look beyond that narrow view by building their capacity. They can be better implementing partners in the state or the region. But do not expect all CSOs to have a national character. Small is still beautiful. If they are good and effective in a state or even a district and have come up with a good proposal, they should be considered and not rejected just because of small size.
19. Another major problem happens with NGOs when they are asked to work in consortiums. For government agencies to forge a consortium is not difficult but for NGOs who may or may not have worked together in consortiums it is not easy to do so in a short period of time. For effective and meaningful partnership and participation in GFATM proposal development CSOs should be facilitated to forge useful alliances and consortiums. This has several legal, financial and operational dimensions which require articulate handling. Besides there are financial commitments to come together and spend time, efforts and resources to come up with a good proposals. Many CSOs may not have monies for such efforts or have business development personnel who can devote exclusive time for such requirements.
20. Last, Since time period between the announcement of GFATM to the submission is so short that gearing up by CSOs itself takes a lot of time, there should be more frequent interface between the CCM, Disease control entities and the consultants to facilitate the process and support to the proposal development. Dual track mechanism should not be misused by having a token CSO in one small component to fulfil the criteria.
 
I am sure taking some of these measures shall make things better if not significantly solve the problem of effective CSO participation in the GFATM proposal development process.
 
Thanks
 
Dr Sanjeev Kumar New Delhi India

To, e-Forum(Civil-society participation)

Received reminder.For inclusive structure of CCM proposals  development process ,civil-society is one of the constitutional medium of representing civil-rights& prevention of social liberties against undemocratic approaches,discrimination,inequality, obscurantism,obsolete traditions,untouchable factors based on religious malpractices or by specific dominated communities. In these anti-social circumstances in many underdeveloped countries,civil-society could make constitutional,ethical& social environment & political leverage for democratic approaches.Civil-society could involve in community construction for providing hygienic shelter of large number labour migration & mitigate unhygienic slums expansion attributed many diseases. GF could encourage specific country civil-society & CSO participation in CSS component for specific grant consolidation, affected population & health system strengthening.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In CCM proposals development process,civil-society could give social representation of govt, legal,economical,constitutional institutional mechanism in countries.For above development process degree of civil- society definition,structure,&function might differ in various culture religion& ethnic values based countries. Definition of civil-society could be understood by democratic values, advanced cultural & social institution addressing gender sensitive approaches,reduction of conflict,disagreement,&problematic judgement by assessment of civil rights & liberties. In CCM proposals development process,if civil-society gets opportunity for participation than it should represent with constitutional, ethical,& formal interaction of community,groups & organisation. Civil-society participation could give rationalism in proposals development process with socio-legal structure exists in countries. Civil-society could interact with grassroot,rural,&affected population for providing civil-rights,articles,judgement,general equilibrium analysis of socio-economic indicators& factors(accessibility of products/services/resources/awareness of economical structures i.e.
market,specification,&standardization,agriculture,industry,social structure including  hospital, schools,college,family welfare centers, housing,NGO,welfare agencies. GF has complete formal components like CCM,CSS,country proposals, government,&GF secretariat for presentation of GF principles. Distribution of funding component could include development of GF banking provision,community construction with basic hosing, micro-finance based on gender education ,family welfare & universal coverage of basic health infrastructure to affected population in countries,could encourage countries to make CCM proposals development process more inclusive. GF could encourage civil-society for cost-effective measures,
relevant solution,use of technology,geographical connectivity for affected population,adequate medical & health services through civil distribution of channels,health insurance & financially products. GF could encourage participation of civil-society for gender equality strategy by providing funding decision based upon non-formal education,functional literacy,general education with vocational courses,constitutional gender organisation for addressing social injustice,provision of community construction & shelter for agricultural labour,unhygienic slums attributed diseases in many countries.

Thanking you

ASHISH SRIVASTAVA
ex-International Marketing
(SEAR-INDIA)81237

First let us understand what giving a fair opportunity to participate in something means. Fair opportunity means and not limited to allowing access, providing all enabling environments, giving free hands to operate and showcase ability, and   providing all necessary requirements that will enable one succeed in whatever is required of the person.

CSOs are the grass root implementers, monitors, observers and reporters of activities targeted at the larger population of the society. Going by the above context CSOs comprise Faith Based Organizations(FBOs), Community Based Organizations(CBOs) , Non Governmental Organizations(NGOs), other organized groups and bodies that have same objectives working directly in the communities around them with the sole aim of making life meaningful all around. It is believed that the above remains a watchword of any established CSO hence it is expected that such CSO must be legally recognized, objectively identified and committed in the process of community sustainable development.

Erroneously, the above objectives of CSOs have been jeopardized with the attitude of funding organizations. Funding organization, most of the time do not know these CSOs. Their selection process may be limited to Principal and Sub-recipients who are believed to be the nearest and direct contact to the CSOs. There is a saying that Power corrupts but Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. These Principal and Sub-recipients in a bid to show some level of integrity thereby covering their lapses and shortcomings go extra mile in the process of involving CSOs in project implementation.

These extra mile starts from the call for proposals where very stringent measures and guidelines are given. This of course will become criteria to drop CSOs who could have been better implementers of such projects. It goes to the next level of selection process, where “best proposal” that sound good are picked. But when it comes to actual implementation, the reverse becomes the case. Most times, no physical visits are carried out to ascertain the capabilities of CSOs in order to make an informed selection. This makes room to fix square peg in round hole. At times, such CSOs elope with the funds that would have been used by responsible CSOs.

Further more, since they are the direct funders, Principal and Sub-recipients will become demi-gods, harassing CSOs, influenced reporting to portray good reports that are not real, lack of zeal to monitor and report impacts of projects, lack of interest in accessing funds again, even when such observations are made, they are limited to the table of same Principal recipients who may start looking at such CSOs as treats.

CSOs are not supposed to be “beggars”. This is because funding agencies cannot provide funds and as well implement projects. Funding is not complete until it is executed and the impact felt by the people it is meant for. This makes it a two-way thing. If you give without any one receiving it, you cannot be seen as having given any thing. But if you give and it is received with thanks, then you are a giver and the blessings abound.

WAY FORWARD:

Let it be noted that CSOs comprise of Men and Women of repute from different fields of endeavours hence due respect should be given to them. Their opinions and recommendations should be carefully looked into because they are the nearest to the grass roots.

Secondly, there would be need for the GF to recruit CSOs to work directly with her but be attached to CCM. This is because the CSOs would be in a better position to present the grass roots information needed for proposal development by the GF. The reason for working directly with the GF is to reduce undue influence of CCM to CSOs.

The capacity of recruited CSOs should be strengthened as this will go a long way in positioning CSOs well for result attainment.  

There is still ‘tokenism’ in some context specially during developing a country proposal. However, the CCM could deploy appropriate team 3-4 months prior the PP development to hair the voice of the civil society. And give the scope to the civil society to get more engaged gradually with GF. This also shall act as capacity development initiative for the civil society in relation with contributing more to the GF.

There are quite a few examples of good practices in proposal development process that most of the CCM can follow, especially the process/mechanism of broad-base wide-consultation with civil society during proposal development. Posting of different issues in relation with GF in general and proposal issues in the local print and electronic media; invitation to the wide-rage of civil society and responding them by the CCM adequately; these few could be example that the CCM can do immediately. CCM is to be proactive and internalize the benefit of civil society engagements for the control of three-diseases.

Role of GF guidelines are of immense importance for CCM composition and all other GF relevant issues, hence continued improvement of the guidelines and guide the CCM is important. Capacity building/training of the CCM and understanding the value of civil society engagements and thus the CCM may become more aware of tokenism and avoid this meaningfully, and engage civil society more meaningfully.

If there is “Local GFO” kind of things with the support of GF that might lead to develop an independent body by the civil society to support/guide the GF issues.

I think some civil society forum can be supported by the GF for the GF. All the best-

Ali

To, e-Forum 2008(Civil-society participation)

In many developing countries,structure of civil society does consider religious,culture& specific faith rather than state specific formal mechanism e.g Non-religious,tribal,folk &Islam.Number of religion Christianity,Islam,Hindu,Buddism,tribal,Animism,Atheism,Therevada, confucianism,Taoism,folk,judaism, have certain religious guidelines. CCM proposals development process could consider civil-society's
understanding of GF principles with country's religious feasibility. From religion standpoint civilsociety should adopt differ religious, cultural,faith feasibility of social participation for inclusive  process.
Civil-society definition could be represented by different sectors contribution with social responsibility e.g trade,agriculture, industry,education,pharmaceuticals,scientific,cultural presentation, constitutional provision of natural resources e.g. land/water/shelter. in developing countries.

Thanking you

ASHISH SRIVASTAVA
ex-International Marketing
(SEAR-INDIA)8123

To e-forum 2008(Civil-society participation)

In CCM proposals development process,civil-society could engage with regional funding mechanism,global trade issues,unorganised sector employment& agriculture based economies.Degree of GF mechanism
presentation could engage countries to make the CCM proposals development process more inclusive.In developing Asian& Africa countries number of countries do not have trade architecture which is vital component of economic growth in countries.For more inclusive structure of the above process, CCM proposals developmet process could involve civil-society participation of specific countries for addressing trade negotiation with greater access to medicines (socialization of medicines & social mobility factors)for less, minimum income level,grassroot,marginalised groups(community who live in disaster prone regions).Civil-society role could be expanded by making GF trade fair space with awaremes,providing innovative health care structure,bio-behaviour,capacity building,campaigns, ethical support,grassroot,rural population for opportunity within national & international trade negotiation flora.(Discussion -participation-e-Forum) could define structure of civil-society  participation in differ socio-demographical,socio-technical,
socio-geographical environment countries.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Received above discussion. Regarding involvement & function of civil society in implementation of GF program,understanding & role of social culture & developed social institutions which constitute civil-societies are important in humorous implementation. In humorous implementation of GF program,clear definition & functions of social institutions should be based on GF objectives.Only technically, financially,scientifically,
ethically advanced social institutions can perform & give complete civil society function of GF specific objectives. Definition & function of civil society & social institutions might differ in various culture,religion & ethnic values based countries. In implementation of GF program & process in various countries ,GF program may counter with different & diverse culture, social, political,constitutional, religion ,ethnic,economical,environmental, conditions & factors.These factors & conditions do not exists
similar in many countries.In implementation of GF program , involvement of civil society concept,structure,process,social acceptability should be more detailted & broader than specific
performance evaluation e.g. Performance Based Funding.
--------------------------
Though private,public sectors& organisation  have given statistics for donations& contribution but its accessi-
bility& accountability should be more socially acceptable in less GDP& less essential for survival,countries.
1. Who will form civil society(culture& social institutions) 2. What is the structure of civil society in implementation of  GF program. These two questions could give understanding & needs of less GDP countries with religious,ethnic background to GF for promotion of civil-sciety role in implementation of GF program Civil society could play an important role in reducing  conflicts,disagreement,problematic judgment,unclear decision by social interventions& decision making capacity. Complete representation ,providing information of clinical conditions ,commercial support,ethical behaviour approaches
may give useful contribution in implementation of GF program. GF could give financial contribution,resources allocation,communication in social intervention ,decision making capacity& monitoring to civil society in less health systems infrastructure countries.

Thank you
ASHISH SRIVASTAVA
ex-Internatonal Marketing
(SEAR-INDIA)81237

Is civil society* being given a fair opportunity to participate in the CCM proposal development process? What could the Global Fund do to encourage countries to make this process more inclusive? My suggestion is Global did not give fair opportunity to participate in the CCM proposal development process. because Global Fund did not held international workshop discusing the issue of developing the proposal, i can say only international staff of global fund reached the decision and dectated others of the world. in my opinion towards how could Global Fund do to encourage countries to make this process more inclusive? first of all to hold international meeting participating all civil society activists, and parts of the stakeholders. this will lead to get all involved Global Fund projects to get fair proposals, instead of dictating the other ones ideas only.