Here is a chance for PSI or AZG to apply for a massive five year grant. Or other crossborder actors …
Thanks to AIDSpan for this excellent preparation work.
********************************
Deciding Whether to Submit
a Non-CCM Proposal
for the Global Fund’s Round 7
David Garmaise
5 February 2007
This is one of three documents that Aidspan has prepared to provide potential applicants with guidance on decisions they need to make prior to the release of the Call for Proposals for Round 7 (expected on 1 March 2007). The other two documents are “Deciding Whether to Apply for a Round 7 Global Fund Grant” and “Deciding Whether to Submit a Regional Proposal for the Global Fund’s Round 7.” All three documents are available in PDF, Word and HTML formats on the Aidspan website via www.aidspan.org/guides. The text of each of the documents has been extracted from a forthcoming guide entitled “The Aidspan Guide to Round 7 Applications to the Global Fund.” The guide will be available on or about 1 March 2007. Readers will be able to download the guide in PDF, Word or HTML formats via www.aidspan.org/guides.
The Global Fund prefers that all applications come from Country Coordinating Mechanisms (CCMs), Sub-National CCMs (Sub-CCMs), Regional Coordinating Mechanisms (RCMs) and, to a lesser extent, Regional Organisations. The Fund strongly discourages applications from other organisations (Non-CCMs). Although, in theory, proposals from Non-CCMs can be submitted by organisations from any sector, in practice the vast majority of such proposals have emanated from NGOs and faith-based organisations (FBOs).
The main reasons the Global Fund discourages proposals from NGOs and FBOs is that the Fund wants to promote partnerships among the stakeholders. Another reason is that the Fund does not want to be swamped with multiple applications from one country, with objectives pointing in different directions. But some proposals from NGOs were funded in the first five rounds of funding, and there may be circumstances where NGOs or FBOs should consider submitting a proposal in Round 7.
What the Global Fund Guidelines Say
The Global Fund’s “Guidelines for Proposals – Sixth Call For Proposals” for Round 6 (hereinafter the “R6 Guidelines for Proposals”)1 state that organisations from countries in which a CCM does not exist may apply directly, but must provide evidence that the proposal is consistent with and complements national policies and strategies.)
Note: As of this writing, the Guidelines for Proposals for Round 7 had not yet been released. It is unlikely that they will differ significantly from the Round 6 guidelines. Nevertheless, readers should consult the Global Fund website at www.theglobalfund.org to see if the Round 7 guidelines have been issued yet. In previous rounds of funding, the guidelines were issued at the same time as the Call for Proposals.
For countries where there is a CCM, the R6 Guidelines for Proposals state that proposals from Non-CCMs are not eligible unless they satisfactorily explain that they originate from one of the following:
• countries without legitimate governments (such as governments not recognized by the United Nations);
• countries in conflict, facing natural disasters, or in complex emergency situations; or
• countries that suppress or have not established partnerships with civil society and NGOs (including a country in which the CCM has failed or refused to consider a proposal for inclusion in the CCM’s consolidated proposal).
The guidelines state that a Non-CCM proposal must demonstrate clearly why it could not be considered under the CCM process, and provide documentation of these reasons. The guidelines further state that if a Non-CCM proposal was provided to a CCM for its consideration, but the CCM either did not review it in a timely fashion or refused to endorse it, the steps taken to obtain CCM approval should be described; and arguments in support of the CCM endorsement, as well as documentary evidence of the attempts to obtain CCM approval, should be provided.
For further information, consult Section 3A.6 of the R6 Guidelines for Proposals.
Experience in Previous Rounds of Funding
For the most part, in the first six rounds of funding, proposals from NGOs or FBOs have been funded only in very limited circumstances – i.e., either there was no CCM in existence in the country; or the country or the region was torn apart by war (or both). (A large number of NGOs and FBOs submit proposals each round, but the vast majority are deemed ineligible and are screened out by the Secretariat.)
In Round 1, when many CCMs were still being formed, the Global Fund approved four proposals from NGOs. In Round 2, two proposals were approved from NGOs in Madagascar where, at the time, there was no CCM in existence. However, because a CCM was in the process of being formed in Madagascar, the Global Fund stipulated in its grant agreements for these programmes that once the CCM was formed, the CCM must oversee the implementation of the programmes.
In Round 3, the Fund approved a proposal from an NGO in Russia, where, at the time, there was no CCM in existence. In Rounds 3 and 4, the Global Fund approved proposals from NGOs in Somalia and Côte d’Ivoire, two war-torn countries. (The NGO for the Somalia proposal was an International NGO.) In Round 5, the Global Fund approved another proposal from an NGO in Côte d’Ivoire.
There have only been two instances of proposals from an NGO or FBO being funded outside the circumstances described above. One was a proposal to provide prevention services to injection drug users in Thailand that was funded in Round 3. Several factors made this situation unique:
• The government was not funding prevention activities targeting injection drug users.
• A military and police crackdown on drug traffickers and individual drug users was underway.
• The NGO submitting the proposal said that it had been informed that some members of the CCM would not support any proposal that included prevention programmes for injection drug users.
The second instance was a Round 5 proposal from a group of NGOs in the Russian Federation. Again the target audience was injection drug users. Previous proposals from the CCM in that country had not targeted injection drugs users, and the CCM was not planning on submitting a proposal for Round 5. The TRP agreed that the proposal from the NGOs addressed clear service gaps and met “a clear and compelling need.”
In Round 6, no Non-CCM proposal was approved for funding.
The Bottom Line
For Round 7, therefore, we suggest that NGOs and FBOs consider submitting a proposal only:
• if there is no CCM in the country (which now is very rarely the case);
• if they are working in a country or region severely affected by war or natural disasters; or
• if they are working in a country where services are not being provided to a particular vulnerable group, and the existing CCM has indicated that it is not prepared to submit a proposal that addresses this population.
In all other cases, NGOs are best advised to work through the CCM. As indicated in the previous section, exactly how NGOs become involved in the applications process will depend on the process that the CCM uses to prepare proposals. It may also depend on the degree of satisfaction that NGOs have with this process. If an NGO is unhappy with the process, one option it might consider is to prepare a proposal and then attempt to get the CCM to adopt it as its own proposal.
Special Note: The R6 Guidelines for Proposa
ls leave open the possibility that proposals will also be accepted from NGOs working in countries that either suppress or have not established partnerships with civil society. To the best of our knowledge, to date no proposals have been accepted based on this criterion.
1 The R6 Guidelines for Proposals are available via www.theglobalfund.org/en/about/policies_guidelines/.
4
http://www.aidspan.org
Copyright © February 2007 by Aidspan, New York, USA. All rights reserved.
