Periodic Review ccm request template

a) When was the last time that changes were made in the CCM/RCM/sub-CCM membership of people living with HIV and people affected by tuberculosis and malaria? Please provide details for those changes, including the current membership of people living with and/or affected by the diseases.

The current membership of the CCM is dramatically different from that of the RMC in that it (a) is more representative of different sectors (b) has greater representation from some sectors, and (c) now includes the Heads of the 9 Provincial Council on AIDS Secretariats.

Like its predecessor entity, the CCM has two members representing PLHIV:

1. 
   Mr. Beau Nkaeleng, representing PLHIV from the National Association of People living with HIV/AIDS (NAPWA ); and
   
2. 
   Ms Lihle Dlamini, representing PLHIV from Treatment Action Campaign (TAC). Unfortunately Ms Dlamini resigned in January 2013 and the PLHIV sector is still in the process of nominating a new representative.
   

b) When was the last time that changes were made in the representation of non-government constituencies (e.g. community based organizations, faith based organizations, private sector, private academic institutions, people living with and/or affected by the diseases, key affected populations) on the CCM/RCM/sub-CCM? Please describe how new members were selected by their own constituencies based on a documented, transparent process developed within each constituency.

Changes were made in 2012 in connection with the restructuring of the SANAC Governance Structure.

The SANAC Secretariat issued formal invitations in September 2012 to all sectors represented on the CCM to nominate representatives and the names of nominees were submitted to the Secretariat in writing. The SANAC Civil Society Forum held elections in November 2012 to select civil society representatives on all SANAC Committees and Task Teams including the GF CCM. The election and nomination process for all SANAC committees and Task teams (including the Civil Society Forum) was guided by the SANAC procedural guidelines. These prescribed the need for sectors to ensure adequate communication and deliberation within the sector, followed by a formal meeting that was coordinated and supported by the SANAC secretariat at which official nominations took place (with the full process minuted). The following people were selected by the Forum to represent the non-governmental sector on the GF CCM:

1. 
   Mr. Tshiamo Moela, representing the Men’s sector (Deputy CCM Chair)
   
2. 
   Mr. Brian Kanyemba, representing LGBTI sector
   
3. 
   Dr John Mkandawire, representing Research Institutions, from Wits Institute for Reproductive Health, HIV & Related Diseases
   

There are also three representatives from the AIDS and Health Development Partners Forum (AHDPF) who represent UNAIDS and the United States (PEPFAR) and the European Union, respectively. The AHDPF was formally constituted by Development Partners in South Africa in April 2011 to improve coordination and provide more effective support to the GSA, in line with the Paris Declaration and the NDOH Aid Effectiveness Framework² (AEF) and to support the implementation of the NSP. There are over 20 organizations represented on the AHDPF including embassies, UN, and other Development Agencies.

2.1.3. Programme Oversight

Does your CCM have an oversight plan which has been approved by the CCM? Yes

If yes, describe the oversight activities which are detailed in the plan. How has the CCM been implementing this plan? How does the CCM engage Programme stakeholders in oversight, including the CCM members and non-members, in particular non-government constituencies and people living with and/or affected by the diseases.

The CCM has developed and rolled out an oversight strategy (General Annex 3) which details the communications and management expectations for CCM members and PRs. Specific oversight strategies include:

• 
  Oversight of the grant renewal proposal development;
  
• 
  Regular review of performance of PR programmes through presentations at CCM meetings and site visits;
  
• 
  Use of the Dashboard to monitor progress, review grant performance and make key recommendations on short, medium and long term interventions;
  
• 
  Identify key issues for consideration by the GF secretariat, SANAC secretariat, PRs and LFA;
  
• 
  Follow up on the CCM decisions taken including verifications, site visits and investigations; and
  
• 
  Review the oversight strategy and plan periodically to address issues emerging over time
  

Since the CCM was constituted in November 2012 it has met four times. Members had the opportunity to approve the grant renewal work plan at its inaugural meeting, which is coordinated by the SANAC Secretariat. The CCM has provided oversight to the development of the current renewal application process by:

1. 
   reviewing the Periodic Review and Evaluation information and presentations,
   
2. 
   reviewing the financial gap analysis,
   
3. 
   reviewing the performance of the current 5 PRs at the Inaugural meeting, noting good practices and areas of concern and making recommendations for improvement, and
   
4. 
   Mapping interventions for the PRs to ensure complementarity with existing programmes and responsiveness to national funding gaps.
   

CCM recommendations were incorporated into the initial concept note and all drafts of the Grant Renewal proposal, until the final proposal was signed off and submitted. The CCM also approved the extension of the Periodic review by 6 months to enable the country to prepare adequately for the grant renewal application and to fully align all Principal Recipients.

As part of the first steps of the implementation of the CCM Oversight strategy the GF CCM members are getting to know the PRs and have been encouraged to visit the PRs in an effort to get a deeper understanding of the programmes being delivered. Based on the experience in developing this proposal there is a clear need to develop and implement a full training plan for all the PRs to ensure that the basic elements of programme development, planning, implementation, administration, risk identification and management, and monitoring and evaluation are addressed pro-actively. The SANAC Secretariat has already approached various funders (including the USG) to provide funding for this. There is likewise a need to provide CCM members with specific assistance to be able to direct and monitor factors relating to the implementation of the GF Gender Equality strategy and the GF Procurement and Supply Chain rules and regulations. SANAC has developed a basic Excel-based dashboard to track performance of the PRs, and updates take place at every GF CCM meeting. The SANAC Secretariat is in the process of preparing for a submission to Grant Management Systems for help in the development of a full dashboard and appropriate database. To date there has been clear direction from the GF CCM members that they expect the Secretariat to move fast to address these issues once the GF CCM Request for renewed funding proposal has been submitted.

2.1.4 Managing Conflicts of Interest and Constituency Engagement

How does your CCM manage conflict of interest among its members and/or grant implementers who sit on the CCM? What measures are in place to ensure the CCM’s conflict of interest section from your CCM governance documents is applied? How is the management of conflict of interest documented by the CCM?

In light of the conflicts issues raised by the OIG Report, conflict of interest is a central topic within the CCM. The CCM members were briefed at the inaugural meeting held on 22nd November 2012 on the CCM Conflict of Interest policy that is included in the CCM guidelines of the SANAC Procedural Guidelines.

CCM members have signed the COI declaration form and submitted this to the Secretariat. Conflicts of interest will be monitored regularly through quarterly reviews of PRs and during CCM meetings. To ensure the highest standards when it comes to conflicts of interest it has been determined that SANAC would not be a recipient of funds either as PR or SR now or in the future; clearing the way for it to chair the CCM and giving credence to its role as independent arbiter in the allocation of funds.

A copy of the COI policy is attached as General Annex 4.

2.1.5 Processes in chances for Programmatic, Budgetary and Implementation arrangements

In case of any proposed changes in Programmatic, Budgetary and Implementation arrangements (1.3.2), please describe the documented and transparent processes followed to ensure participation of all constituencies represented on the CCM/RCM/sub-CCM (including members and non-members) in the development and approval of these changes. Please describe the process that was used to ensure effective management of any potential conflict of interest that might have affected this process.

There were two simultaneous and sometimes overlapping processes:

• 
  engagement with PRs to review their programmes to align them with the new NSP and GF strategy, as well the latest evidence and changes proposed by the CCM members; and
  
• 
  Engagement of CCM members (and they, in turn, with their constituencies) to review: (i) NSP financial and programmatic gaps; (ii) PR performance (financial, programmatic, geographical coverage); (iii) the latest evidence; and (iv) PR submissions as the proposal was built up and improved.
  

This process started with the engagement of the PRs in May 2012 by the SANAC Secretariat, as the GF CCM committee had not yet been constituted. Work continued throughout the months of May, June, July and August ahead of formal notification from the GF that the requested six-month extension in the Periodic Review period was granted. During this time the SANAC secretariat set up a technical task team to:

• 
  work with the GF to request an extension in the timelines to ensure appropriate alignment of all PRs to the government and NSP timeframes;
  
• 
  learn more about the new GF strategy and how it impacts on our request for continued funding;
  
• 
  gather more information about the different PRs and programmes, as all PRs had not worked together previously and their work had not been collectively linked to the new NSP;
  
• 
  coordinate communication between the GF secretariat and PRs to ensure that current performance was maximised, and
  
• 
  Prepare for the big task of developing and writing the proposal.
  

The final SANAC sector meetings took place in August 2012, at which point the GF CCM was constituted and a date for the first GF CCM meeting was set for 22 November 2012. At the first meeting the proposal development process was discussed (i.e., review GF strategy, GF letter of invitation and specified requirements, review of latest evidence to determine areas of possible investment for maximum impact, review of the NSP priorities and key populations and how they relate to this evidence and then linking this to the findings of a review of the financial and programmatic gaps). The work plan for the development of the proposal was presented and the tight timelines for decision-making were highlighted so that members could prepare themselves and their constituents. The first concept note developed by the PRs was presented, and this was reviewed in light of the information provided. There was much discussion and feedback, and the SANAC secretariat then worked with the PRs (individually and collectively) to respond to the requests/guidance from the GF CCM members. A more detailed focused first draft of the proposal was prepared, showing the key focus areas and the detailed activities with budget envelopes. This draft, too, was shared with GF CCM members before the second meeting to allow time for deliberation. At the second GF CCM meeting on 17 January 2013, key issues for discussion were presented and discussed and an update to the programmatic and financial gap was presented. Issues raised were addressed ahead of the next GF CCM meeting on 8 March, at which a Logical framework with main activities and budget envelopes was presented. Once again this was shared some time before the meeting to enable discussion. The final draft proposal in its entirety was then presented at the GF CCM meeting on 25 March, with the document being shared 6 days week before the meeting.

Before deciding on the changes to be made to the proposal with the extra Interim funding that was made available, the CCM decided to send out a call for suggestions to all the SANAC sectors and this was then discussed and debated at a few meetings before the final allocations were made, with much engagement of different stakeholders inbetween. Once again the final draft was made available to the GF CCM members one week before the meeting where approval was sought.

In summary, all PRs and GF CCM members were actively engaged, with many members contributing on many levels to the technical aspects of discussions and presentations. There were numerous meetings with the PRs (collectively and separately), as well as engagement with other stakeholders when necessary, to ensure all suggestions or questions raised by the GF CCM members were addressed. The conflict of interest policy was strictly applied at all times with the SANAC secretariat being as transparent as possible given the tight timelines and numerous stakeholders.

SECTION 3: COUNTRY CONTEXT

3.1 Epidemiological situation