FOR THE CCM BEING HOUSED WITH PRE-EXISTING GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS: 

1.      As CCMs have limited resources and no infrastructure to house the secretariat, hosting it in a government institution would facilitate its daily activities and reduce costs. 

2.      Close proximity of the government can improve coordination with various departments or sections of the Ministry, which makes for speedier actions. In the long run, it may be less expensive, more efficient and sustainable.  

3.      But there must be transparency and a clear mandate, with capable watchdogs invited into secretariat proceedings to report on its activities.  

4.      It would foster government ownership, which is essential for sustainability and accountability. Strong government presence is necessary as it further legitimizes the CCM’s decisions and strengthens the monitoring of programs. 

5.      Secretariats are better situated within the government institutions that we are trying to strengthen. Creating parallel institutions sometimes weakens governments and makes accountability problematic.  

AGAINST THE CCM BEING HOUSED WITH PRE-EXISTING GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS: 

6.      It will burden the already overloaded units and personnel of the government agency in question. Overheads are also likely to increase and accountability levels in most instances leave a lot to be desired. 

7.      Government institutions do not always have the infrastructure to run a secretariat; the high turnover of employees make the processes and decision making very slow.  

8.      This would be like nationalizing the CCM. It would pose a conflict of interest issue, particularly if the agency itself is a principal recipient, or where there are political interests at play; monitoring and evaluation could also be compromised where it is the government that is responsible for these processes.  

9.      Corruption in many countries means that more funds will be diverted. The CCM secretariat should be separate from government institutions if for no other reason than the perception of transparency. 

10. An independent/autonomous secretariat would mean a more accessible platform for civil society, which, in turn, would receive greater recognition from this sector. 

11. Dependence of the CCM on the State makes the independence of its secretariat impossible. 

OTHER COMMENTS: 

12. Each country must be taken on its merits, its ability to handle the CCM and to promote the partnerships.  

13. It really makes no difference where the secretariat is housed. It is the government that calls the shots, especially when most services are integrated with existing public sector facilities. All negotiations and channeling of funds is done via government, and ultimately it is the government that is responsible and answerable for the grants to the Global Fund. 

14. This issue is secondary. The main thing is that the secretariat functions effectively, without feeling political pressure. 

15. What seems to be the solution is better monitoring of the CCMs by the donor, a balanced structure of the CCM itself, alignment of programs to national strategies, use of competent technical experts to review programs, and strict requirements of accurate record keeping and reporting. 

Contributions by: 

English:    Raonebrida - Macdarlingc - Sixolile - Michael Ngaara - Ashish Srivastava (2) (3) (4) - Dereje Alemayehu - C.Ravichandran (2) - Nformi Edward Komusong - Najibullah Safi - Bvplaetse - Javed S. Ahmad (2) - Mahesh Sharma - Jbpaikins (2) - Jane - Tree (2) (3) - Svetamcgill - Dr Hilary Ene Otimanam - Rele - Gausik - Mukonjia - Berhanu Tesfaye - Jmgurnick. 

Spanish:   Hugo Rolando Valladares Morales (2) (3) - Solitario Espinozo Rojas, Redtrasex - Alfonso Donizetti Mar - Sergio Flores Urrutia - David William (2) - Mirta Villanueva Dominguez (2) - Alejandra Victoria Portatadino. 

French:    Maroc - Tbadonte - Malakona - Tambalou - Souleymanetraore - Famaramane - Honvou. 

Russian:   Kahn Alexander (2) - Chujkov - Janna.

A majority of members on this Forum have advocated, recommended or prescribed an independent CCM Secretariat, which is situated in a separate building, and away from the government buildings. I cannot agree more with these members. Their recommendations are surely made out of the goodness of their hearts and knowledge of the reality on the ground.

However, when all is said and done, the tough question remains: who controls the system of requesting and receiving grants from the Global Fund? Is it not the government? The amount of grants can be in millions of dollars. Is there any government in a developing country which does not drool over such grants? It is a rare few who might let go its management and control to civil society.  If Global Fund still insists that they would only disburse the funds through NGOs, overnight, NGOs population will start to mushroom, all managed directly or indirectly by public officials or their kith and kin.  This formula has been tried and tested by other donors and has generally resulted in the fast growth of such spurious NGOs.

 So is there a solution? Not really. Perhaps, well thought out procedures and close monitoring may work. International oversight and monitoring may also make a difference, though not much. In an environment of deeply ingrained corruption, even those few leaders who would like to go straight, are not allowed to act or are quietly removed. I wonder about the value of giving aid in such circumstances when the actual target population does not receive even a fraction of the benefit? This is a debatable question. May be Forum can choose to discuss it next?

RE: GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS AS CCM SECRETARIATS 

      Global fund is doing its best for various countries. I also know that all or almost all countries have their own departments that are taking care of cases involving HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria in their respective countries.

      However, the Global Fund must make sure that its achievements are safeguarded and not “stolen”. By that I mean the “recognition” and “thanks” and “praise” due are to the Global Fund should not unduly go to the government.

      Again, I know it is the Almighty God who rewards, in this case, those who are funding the Global Fund (may God richly bless them). But that does not mean governments should “hijack” the achievements of the Global Fund as if they (governments) are the ones that are providing the funds/medicines/resources to help the people of the world. Apart from the Almighty God, praise and thanks should go to the person or organization to who praise is due.

      I still believe that Global Fund can stay under the same umbrella with the various government departments that handle HIV/AIDS, TB AND MALARIA cases. But let me emphasis strongly that Global Fund should be autonomous with no political strings attached to it.

JOSEPH B. POKOO-AIKINS/ASP

GHANA POLICE COLLEGE, ACCRA-GHANA.

Dear all interestingly, most people here interacting with the issue “Not currently affiliated with the Global Fund!”...hahahahhaa....

May be the situation here in term of interaction prove my previous posting and prediction. How we can protest ourselves. May be we need more CCM member on discussion.

May be we all know about government and political influence there with people who always around government. But I extremely found problem with present mechanism with CCM and running the secretariat. Even it is free from any influence but people specially marginalized people can’t imagine CCM impartial. So, its creating a vicious circle of mistrust!