CCM Reforms and examining opportunities for enhancing leadership roles

1. CCM Reforms and examining opportunities for enhancing leadership roles Kenya and Tanzania Experiences

2. KENYA REFORMS • Formation of CCM - 2002 Reasons for Reforms:- • Poor understanding of GF requirements, poor reporting, no oversight activities by CCM, poor gap analysis; non effective CCM; non alignment with other structures; poor Governance, lack of trust by members, etc • Reforms Supported by GF, UNAIDS, Italian Cooperation and CCM Constituencies

3. Reform Process • Process was very elaborate and inclusive • Two levels formed – National Oversight Committee (NOC) and Interagency Coordinating Committee’s (ICCs) for each disease component • NOC is coordinating level and in GF perspective is the CCM and ICCs – Technical (were already in existence and fully functional) • Government is the Chair and Non State Actors Vice Chair

4. Reforms outcome • Smaller teams formed within ICCs to handle GF matters • 4 PRs in place 3 for CSOs and 1 Public Institution • Specific roles for each level outlined and responsibilities assigned to specific people • Work plan funded by GF, Partners, Government, CCM Constituencies • CCM not legal but functions effectively

5. Achievements • CCM Meetings and those of stakeholders very productive • Members more committed and Oversight activities very successful – use of dashboards • Governance and management documents in place and in application • Election/Selection of Members done in an open and transparent manner. • Proposal Development Cycle in place

6. Achievements Cont’nd • GF rating of grants much improved from average of B2 to A2/A1 • Most Programmatic issues have improved greatly • Barriers unblocked • Commitment by members commendable with working structures

7. Tanzania Reforms • Outline: Demographic data, what necessitated reforms and achievements • Population 43.6 • Membership of CCM - 21 which is all inclusive Reasons for Reforms • Not effective CCM - Structures not performing as expected, Lack of oversight, etc • GIZ, PEPFAR and USAID supported reforms in various forms including TAs. • Engagement of various stakeholders during the reform process

8. Process commenced by end of 2012 and completed by 2013. • Capacity done to Members to understand roles and responsibilities • Reviewed all their Governance documents and orientated members on same • Management and oversight committees are in place. Each constituency represented in each committee • Development of CCM Work Plan and budget involved everyone and is almost ready for submission to GF.

9. Engagement in NFM • Invited for interim funding by GF but not approved due to some challenges but are resending the proposal. • Taking advantage of NFM and will involve all those concerned. • Oversight activities are being finalized and members very eager and committed to participate • Planning for multi-sectoral forums during development of Concept Paper for NFM • Have various CCM management and governance documents in place • Funding of CCM Work plans is by GF, DPs, Government, Business Community

10. PRs and other partners are invited to CCM meetings when necessary to provide information needed • CCM not legal but operating very efficiently • Name changed to look at wider issues than just GF • Performance indicators for CSOs are set and are supported in their capacity building

11. SIMILARITIES IN REFORMS • Driven by similar challenges • Supported by similar stakeholders/partners • Participating in New Funding Model • Involvement of various stakeholders in all processes • Very committed to grants performance • GF grant ratings improved

12. Reaction to Presentations • Presentations very informative and good guide to reforms by other countries. • Need for experiences to be utilized by other countries – e.g. production of videos, • Management and Government Documents readily available for use by needy countries • Plan for other learning forums • Legality for CCMs – due to nature of Membership legal status may pose challenges

13. Power dynamics between Government and Non State leadership in CCM has experienced challenges. • Empowerment of Secretariats necessary for effective CCM performance.

14. Way Forward • Respect country systems and explore best effective method of functioning within the country. • GF Secretariat to assist CCMs in operational challenges experienced in-country especially when carrying out its mandate. • CCM to operate within its mandate for harmony purposes

15. Way Forward Cont’nd • GF to provide guidelines which aid effective functioning of CCM. • Avoid conflicting principles/guidelines by GF Vs practice e.g. Legal status of CCM and grant signing requirements. • Dynamics of country ownership and seeing GF as a donor need to be better explained or changed.

16. Way Forward Cont’nd • Good relationship between the FPM and respective countries should be encouraged. • Political goodwill very crucial to effective functioning of CCM and improved grants performance. • Consultations between GF and Countries on CCM composition important.

17. Way Forward Cont’nd • Feedback by GF Secretariat very crucial. Many inquiries not responded to.