Effective Country Coordinating Mechanisms (CCMs) are a vital part of the Global Fund architecture at country level. CCMs are responsible for submitting requests for funding and for providing oversite during implementation. With the introduction of the Global Fund’s New Funding Model (NFM) in March 2014, CCMs play an even more important central role, convene stakeholders to engage meaningfully in inclusive country dialogue, agree on funding split, and participate in the development of National Strategic Plan (NSP) discussions for the three diseases at country level.

With the enhanced responsibility, the NFM also introduced more rigorous CCM assessment processes. Previously, CCMs submitted a self-assessment attached to their proposal. Now, CCM assessments are conducted by an external evaluator – either the International HIV/AIDS Alliance or Grant Management Solutions. Further, CCMs are also mandated to have a performance improvement plan to accompany their assessment, ensuring that areas of weakness are addressed in an open and transparent manner.

All the project working documents can be found here: including research methodology, questionnaires, training tools, PowerPoints etc. We hope they will be a good resource for you in your work! 

AI Ghana Shadow Report Final 2017

AI Kenya Shadow Report Final 2017

AI Malawi Shadow Report Final 2017

AI Nigeria Shadow Report Final 2017

AI Rwanda Shadow Report Final 2017

AI Swaziland Shadow Report Final 2017

AI Tanzania Shadow Report Final 2017

AI Uganda Shadow Report Final 2017

AI Zambia Shadow Report Final 2017

Despite the importance of CCMs in Global Fund decision-making at country level, studies have flagged issues with CCM membership balance, poor representation and limited constituency feedback.

Further, the recent audit report from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found several persistent shortcomings with CCM performance:

• 10% of the 50 countries reviewed did not have the required oversight committee;
• more than half of the countries did not have specific information on roles, timelines, and budget in their oversight plans, or they had oversight plans that were outdated;
• 62% of the CCMs were non-compliant with the requirement of seeking feedback from non-CCM members and from people living with and/or affected with the disease;
• more than half of the 45 CCMs that have oversight bodies did not adequately discuss challenges with the PRs to identify problems and explore solutions;
• 58% of the CCMs had not shared oversight reports with country stakeholders and The Global Fund Secretariat in the previous six months; and
• 26% did not share the oversight reports with relevant stakeholders in a timely manner that could have ensured well-timed remedial action.

In light of the OIG CCM Audit, and the enhanced role of CCMs in country level disease governance in the Funding Model, there is a need for a wide range of stakeholders to be empowered to demand improved CCM performance. While the move to have an external evaluator to conduct CCM Assessment & Performance Improvement Plans is an improvement, the fact that these CCM Assessment & Performance Improvement Plans are not public is an obstacle to accountability. Vested stakeholders and communities must be able to use CCM assessments and improvement plans as accountability mechanisms to demand better performance.