CCM EPA Methodologies, Impact and Shortcomings CIVIL SOCIETY AND COMMUNITIES CCM SCORECARD AND SHADOW REPORTS TRAINING WORKSHOP CCM EPA Methodologies, Impact and Shortcomings NAIROBI: 24 – 25 OCTOBER 2016

CCM EPA Approach Three different strategies to conduct the annual CCM EPAs: Standard Light Superlight. CCMs are informed of the current strategy relevant to them by their Fund Portfolio Manager (FPM).

Standard Strategy Has three components referred to as ‘Pillars”: ‘Pillar 1’ - Desk review by TA and self assessment by CCM members, using a Performance Framework ‘Pillar 2’) - a set of interviews with stakeholders ‘Pillar 3’) - Development of an Improvement Plan CCMs should request Technical Assistance from GF specified TA Providers EPA completed via an online platform (a specific link for each CCM)

Light and Superlight Strategies Light and Superlight Strategies are simplified versions of Standard strategy Include only EPA Pillars 1 and 3 (self-assessment and Improvement Plan) CCMs do not have option to request TA support In Light Strategy CCMs need to comply with both the six ERs and the Minimum Standards In Superlight Strategy CCMs need to comply with only the six ERs

Areas covered in the interviews Membership Composition and Representation CCM Operations and CCM secretariat Communications (Internal and External) Orientation and Capacity Building Oversight Function Conflict of Interest: prevention, mitigation and management

CCM Eligibility Performance Assessment (EPA) Process I EPA preparations II Diagnostic work 1 CT communicates with CCM to request TA 2 CCM selects TA provider. Secretariat assembles documentation 3 TA facilitates the CCM EPA self assessment TA provider conducts interviews 4 5 TA presents the results of the diagnosis to the CCM If the ER are met, GF will grant a CCM clearance 8 7 6 10 9 CCM fixes outstanding issues before grant making GF checks the improvement plan progress when concept note is submitted GF advises if improvement plan is reasonable TA and CCM design an action plan to address gaps – share with GF CCM decides if an improvement plan will be needed IV Final adjustments III Improvement Plan designed and implemented

Impact EPAs have had a very positive impact in enhancing continuous improvement of CCMs Methodologies have ensured inclusion of all stakeholders, especially civil society, KPs and PLWD in development of improvement plans Feeling of ownership and more participation Other boards have looked at the template with a view to adopt/adapt the idea

Shortcomings The correlation between ‘ticking boxes’ in the EPA and the portfolio’s performance is not clear. Assumption that representatives provide wide reaching feedback EPA approach – Very thorough but technology intensive????

EPA Technical Assistance providers U.S. Government (USG) French 5% Initiative The International HIV/AIDS Alliance (except in countries where the Alliance a Global Fund recipient) BACKUP Health (GIZ) A pool of consultants working for the Global Fund Secretariat (Request support through FPM) Regional Coordinating Mechanisms (RCMs) should request support through FPM