View
33
Download
1
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
REGIONAL GLOBAL FUND GRANT CONSOLIDATION WORKSHOP DATE. MODULE 1. An Introduction to the New Global Fund Financing Architecture. MODULE OVERVIEW. SESSION I : Context & Rationale Similarities and differences between old and new architecture SESSION II : Key features of the new architecture - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
MODULE 1
An Introduction to the New Global Fund Financing
Architecture1
REGIONAL GLOBAL FUND GRANT CONSOLIDATION WORKSHOP
DATE
MODULE OVERVIEW SESSION I: Context & Rationale
o Similarities and differences between old and new architecture
SESSION II: Key features of the new architectureo Single Stream of Funding (SSF)o Periodic Reviewo Access to Fundingo Expected benefits and challenges
SESSION III: Grant Consolidationo Recapo Grant Consolidation Scenarioso Group Work
o Flexibilities in the transition period
o Key success factorso Key messages
2
SESSION I: GRANT ARCHITECTURE REVIEW CONTEXT
Old Grant Architecture:
The old architecture was designed at the GF’s inception in 2002 and has been added to over time.
GF was conceived to: Scale-up without duplicating funding or effort. Fund holistic, nationally owned programs. Fund accountable and performing programs.
GF has achieved powerful results but as it matures it is increasingly funding program scale up & extension.
In this context old architecture became overly complex and not scalable
3
NEW GRANT ARCHITECTURE: OBJECTIVES
Shift from project to programme based funding
Simplify the funding architecture
Contribute to improved alignment and harmonization.
Support and effectively manage growth and transaction cost
4
SIMILARITIES : OLD & NEW ARCHITECTURE
5
DUAL TRACK FINANCING
Recommendation that countries propose at least one government and at least one non-government PR remains
PERFORMANCE BASED FUNDING
Maintains key mechanisms of PBF of grants e.g. PU/DR; LFA assessment; financial evaluation and reporting; site visits
Periodic Performance Reviews maintain core aspects of Phase 2 reviews
CORE ASPECTS OF CURRENT PROPOSAL SUBMISSION PROCESS
Calls for proposals
Clear guidelines and proposal forms
CCM coordination of proposal development
Consolidated grants
Streamlined proposal application system
Increased applicant- GF collaboration
Intention is to give everyone (CCMs, PRs, TRP, the Secretariat) an holistic picture of GF-financed part of the national program and further streamline
systems
SESSION II: KEY FEATURES OF NEW ARCHITECTURE
1. Single Stream Funding per PR: One funding agreement per PR per disease. Shifts from project to programme based funding.
2. Periodic Reviews: Shift to programme-based evaluations and reviews (every 3 years for all PRs in the same disease at the same time) in alignment to national cycles.
3. Access to New Funds: Mandatory consolidation with new proposals and periodic reviews; then maintenance and further funding of a single grant agreement for any PR for the same disease in the long term. 6
KEY FEATURE 1: SINGLE STREAM FUNDING
7
Example: Government of Tanzania MOFEA (PR)- Global Fund Grant Agreements
Before Consolidation(7 Separate Grant Agreements)
After Consolidation(3 Single Stream Fund Grant
Agreements)
Round 6 TB Grant AgreementSingle Stream Funding Agreement
for TBRound 9 TB Grant Agreement
Round 7 Malaria Grant Agreement
Single Stream Funding Agreement for Malaria
Round 8 Malaria Grant Agreement
Round 9 Malaria Grant Agreement
Round 8 HIV Grant Agreement Single Stream Funding Agreement for HIV
Round 9 HIV Grant Agreement
KEY FEATURE 2: PERIODIC REVIEWS
Long-term 3-Year Model for the Periodic Review
… …
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 … …
IP 3…Implementation Period 1 Implementation Period 2
Year 7Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
Cut off date (month 24)
CCM request(month 27)
Board decision (month 30)
SSF extension signing
Periodic Review Process # 1
Periodic Review Process # 2
Cut off date (month 60)
CCM request(month 63)
Board decision (month 66)
SSF extension signing
8
Review of 36 months of performanceReview of 24 months of performance
Grant Closure
COMPLEXITY UNDER THE OLD ARCHITECTURE: SENEGAL HIV AND AIDS GRANTS
Round 9
Round 6
CNLS
Phase 2
Phase 1Grant
ClosurePhase 2
DLSI
Round 9
Round 6 Phase 2Grant
Closure
Phase 1 Grant Closure
ANCS
Phase 1 Phase 2 Grant ClosureRound 9
Key features before consolidation:• About 25 grant activities in 2 years: different budgets,
workplans, indicators etc• Misalignment with national reporting and fiscal cycles• Multiple Audits and Financial Reports• Burden on PRs and CCM
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Progress Update / Disbursement
Phase 2 Review
Phase 2
9
AFTER SINGLE STREAM FUNDING…..
CNLS SSF1st implementation
period
DLSI SSF
Key Features After Consolidation: • 1 SSF grant per PR: one budget, work plan, performance framework• Rationalised 3 yearly Periodic reviews covering all PRs for disease• Reporting and financing now program-based; 5 activities bi-annually• Simpler implementation, proposal coordination, and grant oversight
by CCM
These + 50 other SSF agreements globally reduced GF Portfolio size by 10%
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
1st implementation period
2nd implementation period
Progress Update / Disbursement
Periodic Review
ANCS SSF1st implementation
period
2nd implementation period
2nd implementation period
10
KEY FEATURE 3: ACCESS TO FUNDING (CONSOLIDATED DISEASE PROPOSALS)
Phase 1 Phase 2
Phase 1 Phase 2
Phase 1 Phase 2
R6
R7
R8
Consolidated Application
Program Expansion
All previous and proposed Global Fund support is shown in the proposal for all PRs in that disease. Expected benefits include: Holistic, national program-based resource planning and gap analysis CCMs coordinate development of proposals based on wider
programmatic view Facilitates rethinking of the program and implementation
arrangements Gives TRP a wider programmatic picture
11
EXPECTED BENEFITS OF NEW ARCHITECTURE
Improved alignment and harmonization
• Better fit with in-country planning cycles, Three Ones and IHP through new grant start & periodic review dates
• SSF promotes program-based approach & better harmonization of donors
• Country CCMs choose timing of funding commitment and review cycles
Increased funding predictability
• More predictable cycle replaces unpredictable proposal Rounds• Simplified and streamlined application process linked to Reviews• Up to 3-year implementation periods • More time between review and start of next funding cycle
Strengthened performance-based funding model; and increased impact
• More program-based periodic reviews - simultaneous review of all PRs
• Longer review periods allow more rigorous review of outcome and impact information
• Larger, focused funds can achieve results faster and with more confidence
12
EXPECTED BENEFITS OF NEW ARCHITECTURE (2)
Enhanced roleof CCM & sector bodies (CSOs, national health
system)
• More meaningful engagement of CCMs and national partners during proposal submission, gap analysis, periodic reviews – enhances CCM governance role
Decreased transaction costs for
implementers and Secretariat
• Reduced No. of grants less disbursement and reporting needs• Reduced No. & frequency of reviews & need for extensions or
bridge funding• Eliminates RCC-related processes and administration
Increased national ownership
• Can strengthen reliance on national plans & involvement of national systems and varied stakeholders: shifts from projects to resemble the national programme more
13
GENERAL CHALLENGES
In the beginning requires effort and team work
May require substantial technical support in some countries
Places more responsibilities on health sector coordination to function optimally and be more results-oriented
Challenges related to periodic reviews e.g. additional info requirements on program effectiveness and impact
Greater oversight required of CCMs
14
SESSION III: RECAP – MOVING TOWARDS SSF
Grant consolidation
Alignment through Periodic Reviews
New modalities for Access to funding
Also
Reprogramming: Move same disease grants to one PR, merging activities and targets, etc Mainly at times of proposal submission and periodic review, but
also others subject to GF policies and procedures on material reprogramming
National Strategy Applications : Apply for funding against national disease strategy, to streamline funding and align GF to national cycles and strategies.
15
GRANT CONSOLIDATIONQUICK FACTS
Grants can be consolidated during or separate from a GF proposal process
From Round 11, consolidated disease proposals are mandatory
Consolidation can be initiated through PR or CCM
Implementation period of up to 3 years
Consolidation of grants that have less than 12 months from planned start date is not encouraged; efforts outweigh benefits
Gives an opportunity to review conditions precedent and other aspects in grant documents
Consolidating at a time just following Phase 2 renewal has advantages16
TRANSITION TO SSFQUICK FACTS (2)
Future approved proposals for an existing PR will be added to the single grant agreement with that PR
Secretariat shall recommend continuation funding based on performance after periodic reviews “Phase 2” process replaced by one periodic review every 3
years
Rolling Continuation Channel (RCC) application is being discontinued
TRP terms of reference and Proposal Guidelines will be reviewed before R11 to cover new architecture requirement 17
GRANT CONSOLIDATIONSCENARIOS
Scenario 1: Many grants, 1 PR
e.g. Country has 2 HIV grants, both of PR A. They can consolidate into 1 grant under PR A.
Scenario 2: Multiple grants for a disease with multiple PRs
e.g. Country has 3 HIV grants, 2 being managed by PR A and one by PR B
The 2 grants under PR A can be consolidated into 1 grant. Only same-PR grants are consolidated. The PR B grant remains as-
is.
Scenario 3: A country negotiating a Round 10 grant Can addresses alignment issues and sign a SSF grant.
Scenario 4: A country writing a proposal. Can consolidate all grants under the same or even different PRs.
18
GROUP EXERCISE AND QUESTIONS
Group Exercises Tanzania Grant Consolidation decision Exercise
Lesotho Exercise
True or False/ FAQ Exercise
Further questions to participants In your opinion, what would be the potential benefits of the new
architecture to your country or one that you have worked in?
What do you think may be some of the challenges or disadvantages of SSF?
19
FLEXIBILITIES DURING GC TRANSITION PERIOD
GF Board has approved certain flexibilities to facilitate GC transitions
Alignment: Able to set grant start date and review period to align with in-country cycles
Initial implementation period(s): Allows reasonable adjustments to length of the first funding implementation period
Borrowing from Phase 2: Can “borrow” up to 12 months of uncommitted Phase 2 funds to consolidate grants and align to country cycles
Reinvestment of efficiencies found: Able to reinvest efficiencies found in grant consolidation to scale up program activities and increase targets
Potential for reprogramming within GFATM guidelines and boundaries e.g. as part of rounds based proposal process
20
KEY SUCCESS FACTORS FROM PREVIOUS GC EXPERIENCE
Early preparation by countries and partners
Clear guidance on transition scenario from the Global Fund
Using board-granted transition flexibilities such as drawing year 3 funding early or re-scheduling targets.
Early engagement of LFA in the process
Open communication channels involving all major stakeholders e.g. CCM; PR; LFA; Ministries of Finance, planning etc;
health sector committees; others.21
KEY MESSAGES
New architecture: SSF, Periodic Reviews & Access to funding
Grant Consolidation mandatory for R11 proposals.
Use Consolidation to promote program-based approach and optimise contribution of grants to national priorities
Benefits of the new architecture outweigh its challenges
Involve the GF and LFA early for clear guidance on transition scenarios, a critical factor
The GF board allows useful transition flexibilities Advanced and careful planning is critical for success Identify and address national capacity and TA issues
early22
USEFUL RESOURCES
GF Architecture Review - Transition Provisions.pdf GF :New Global Fund Grant Architecture Frequently
Asked Questions Aidspan Q&A Grant Consolidation and SSF.pdf
Further information available from: Architecture webpage:
For communications, guidance materials & morewww.theglobalfund.org/en/grantarchitecture
For further questions: FPMs Architecture inbox: ARCinbox@theglobalfund.org
23
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Global Fund Secretariat UNAIDS Technical Support Facility Grant Management Solutions AIDSPAN The AIDS Alliance
24
Recommended