Board Decisions

GF/B02/DP05

Approved by the Board on: 22 April 2002

Country Coordination Mechanisms, Proposals and Eligibility Criteria - Part one

1. Country Coordinating Mechanisms:
   1. The Board approved the principle of sub-regional Country Coordination Mechanisms for small countries, based on the small islands state classification of the United Nations.
   2. The Board approved the eligibility of sub-national proposals provided that they are consistent with nationally formulated policies and that there is evidence of a legal framework for the sub-national entity stating its autonomy.
   3. The Board confirmed that regional proposals can be accepted, provided that they clearly add value beyond the national level, include appropriate NGO and other civil society partners, and that they are supported by national Country Coordination Mechanisms."
   4. Confirming that CCMs should be inclusive, involving members of civil society and the private sector as partners in preparation, approval and implementation of proposals, in accordance with the guidelines of proposals and stressing the importance of improving their effectiveness and capacity, the Board: – recognized the Secretariat as the lead advisor to the TRP and to the Board on CCM confirmation, as necessary;– noted the importance of linking this to the development and leverage of partnerships at the country level.
2. Proposals:
   1. The Board adopted a three-year approach to balancing the portfolio between regions, diseases and interventions, subject to a mid-term review of balancing after the third round and after ongoing reviews and drawing on existing data from technical partners as well as recommending use of a needs assessment instrument.
   2. The Board adopted an approach regarding the balance of prevention, care, support and treatment whereby if a given proposal can explain and document that a particular intervention is available through other arrangements it is not necessary that this intervention be a part of the proposal. The most appropriate balance of interventions will differ according to country contexts.
3. Eligibility Criteria:
   1. The Board reaffirmed the decision that priority be given to proposals from countries in greatest need, as determined by level of poverty and disease burden and that proposals from members of the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) are not eligible for funding by the Global Fund.
   2. The Board confirmed that proposals from eligible countries in lower need situations will be considered for funding, but will be given lower priority and lower overall allocation relative to those with greater need
   3. The Board decided that proposals from eligible countries whose overall needs are of lower priority but which focus on particularly vulnerable populations will be considered as specified in the above decision.
   4. The Board decided that multi-year proposals can be approved. The Fund will allocate funds for a two-year period with funding for the third and following years contingent on a satisfactory performance assessment and the Fund’s available resources at that time.
4. Approval guidelines:
   1. The Board decided that multi-year proposals can be approved. The Fund will allocate funds for a two-year period with funding for the third and following years contingent on a satisfactory performance assessment and the Fund’s available resources at that time.
   2. The Board endorsed the importance of additionality with regard to resources made available by the Global Fund relative to other sources of funding.The Board agreed that there is a need to further clarify the questions of funding ranges, resource gaps, percentage justification and additionality.
   3. Noting the desire to ensure economies of scale, to have maximum impact, and not to overburden the operations of the Secretariat and the TRP, the Board agreed to the principle of a lower limit of total requested funds by a single applicant. The Board asked that exceptions to this limit be considered by the TRP on a case-by-case basis.
   4. It was decided that the Secretariat would continue to work on the development of specific guidelines and report back to the Board at its next meeting.
5. Emergency decision: The Board decided that in the case of complex emergencies – identified by the Secretariat referencing international declarations such as those of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs – specific decisions on eligibility in each case should be made by the Executive Director in consultation with the Board to avoid delays in proposal review.
6. Next steps: Recognizing the need to ensure high quality proposals from countries in greatest need and noting the existing availability of resources from current partners to work with countries at the local level, the Board requested the Secretariat to recommend at its next meeting specific ways for the Global Fund to support countries where capacity to prepare proposals is less strong both by leveraging existing partnerships and possibly catalyzing new processes.
7. Communication guidelines:
   
   1. The Board authorized the Secretariat to share information on the reasoning behind the different decisions taken on proposals only with their authors, other groups that are part of the proposal (e.g. all members of a CCM listed on the CCM certification sheet), and Board Members and their representatives. All others making inquiries about specific proposals would be informed of these guidelines and directed to make their inquiries directly to the proposals’ authors.
   2. The Board authorized the Secretariat to share information related to the review process so long as proposal-specific deliberations remain confidential
   3. The Board requested the Secretariat to send a regular e-mail to Board members listing all inquiries made by Board members on information related to the review of specific proposals
   4. The Board asked the Secretariat to make the arrangements for posting information of the approved proposals on the web site"