Structured Abstract
| Document Title: | Country coordinating mechanisms. Building good governance. Discussion paper. June 2004. |
| Institution: | The Global Fund |
| Study commissioned by: | The Global Fund |
| Objectives: | to describe the Global-Fund-related governance arrangements in a selection of countries (Armenia, Cambodia, Ghana, Kenya, Rwanda), in order to increase the provision of evidence of good practice to stakeholders in other countries. |
| Methods: | review of existing studies on CCMs, of country documents related to relationships/contracts with the GFATM , as well as telephone interviews with key stakeholders. |
| Results: | the paper reviews some of the characteristics the five countries have in common, regarding governance-related experiences : all have developed structures and tools through which to organise the dealings with the Fund. Recommendations for further transmission of these experiences to other countries are proposed. (see original Executive Summary). |
Executive summary (authors')
The objective of this short paper is to contribute to the development of future guidance for country coordinating mechanisms on governance issues. The main text describes five countries' experiences of developing governance mechanisms for Global-Fund related activities. Its annexes provide full-text examples of CCM structures, terms of reference and other tools.The Fund's current guidelines deal with governance issues, usually in the form of suggestions or recommendations (except in relation to financial accountability, where the guidance is more binding). This paper focuses on country experience with structures, terms of reference and rules of procedure, but refers also to standard definitions in governance, in particular transparency, accountability, and predictability.
The governance-related experiences of five countries are examined, with the full texts of their terms of reference etc in annexes 1-5. The countries are Armenia, Cambodia, Ghana, Kenya and Rwanda. What sets these countries apart from most others is that they have developed a range of structures and tools through which to organise their dealings with the Fund. While they are diverse in many ways, they have several characteristics in common, including the following.
- They have all developed terms of reference and other management tools such as by-laws or operating procedures for their coordinating mechanisms, with the content based on their respective experiences. While governance performance is reported to be mixed, the tools represent major progress in the development of good governance in the context of the Global Fund.
- All five countries have established sub-groups as part of the coordinating mechanism (Kenya uses existing groups). The linkages among subgroups and with the top-level committee vary widely, but their common purpose is that they share the workload through delegation. Several of the countries continue to reform the structures as they learn what does and does not work.
- In all five countries, the rules of procedure specify that members can make decisions through voting. This may follow attempts to reach consensus, and in at least one case the Chair has a casting vote.
- The democratic selection of officers, and their rotation, is specified in some but not all of the rules of procedure. As the procedures have been developed only in the last year to eighteen months, democratic decisionmaking has yet to be fully put to the test.
- All five countries have established secretariats, though with mixed levels of resourcing. There is a tendency to move towards arrangements that can provide at least a minimum level of administrative support for the coordination structures.
- As most of the structures are new, and the one that is built on old structures is going through significant reforms, innovation is a common feature. Two forms of innovation stand out: the allocation of grants to NGOs, by competitive tender and through a contracted financial management agency; and the reforms in Kenya of its government-partner health-sector coordinating body, in which it is now considering a new subcommittee specifically for the Fund and other global health initiatives.
- All five countries are characterised, to differing degrees, by governments committed to partnership with international agencies and civil society. Without such commitment, the other aspects of good governance that are evolving in these countries would not be feasible.
- In summary, the comprehensive range of governance structures reflects the four criteria mentioned above: the countries are all working towards improvements in transparency, accountability, partnership and predictability.
There are a number of ways to carry forward the positive experience in these countries, to make the lessons available and usable elsewhere.
- The Fund's evolving monitoring and evaluation systems need to be able to track countries' performance in governance, beyond the area of financial accountability.
- This monitoring should be used both for controlling impropriety and for learning constructive lessons to share with other countries.
- The full-text material in the annexes to this report should be shared with other countries, as a source of ideas for developing tools and systems relevant to their own circumstances.
- The Fund Secretariat should establish a system for collecting, assessing and updating an information resource of countries' Fund-related governance systems, and for making them available to stakeholders at country level. Examples of good practice, with the technical assistance to help establish and run them, will go a long way towards helping countries and the Fund to meet the goal of expanding services for those who need them most.
