Gfatm 081208 partnership forum arnsa pres v9

227 views
194 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
227
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Gfatm 081208 partnership forum arnsa pres v9

  1. 1. Information Clinic: Architecture Review & National Strategy Applications 8 December, 2008 Global Fund Partnership Forum 2008, Dakar
  2. 2. <ul><li>Background to ke y ongoing initiatives: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Architecture Review </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>National Strategy Applications </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Update of recent Board Decisions </li></ul><ul><li>Ongoing work on both initiatives </li></ul><ul><li>Q & A </li></ul>Objectives of session
  3. 3. <ul><li>Current architecture designed at the GF’s inception and has been added to over time </li></ul><ul><li>This architecture has achieved powerful results </li></ul><ul><li>Increasingly funding needs of applicants are to expand or extend existing programs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The GF is supporting programs in 97% of all eligible countries </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>>75% of components requesting R8 funding are from repeat applicants </li></ul></ul><ul><li>In this context the architecture is proving to be overly complex and not scalable </li></ul><ul><li>Objectives of the architecture review: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Simplify </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improve alignment and harmonization </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Support growth </li></ul></ul>Architecture Review: Context
  4. 4. There are numerous challenges with the current architecture… <ul><li>Annual Rounds-based timing: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>creates alignment challenges </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>impedes rapid re-submission of failed proposals </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Dual channels – RCC and Rounds have created confusion </li></ul><ul><li>Phase 2 review process: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>occurs too early </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>disrupts implementation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>separation of two phases impedes grant consolidation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Access to funding not sufficiently flexible </li></ul><ul><li>Multiple grants for the same disease: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>significant reporting and management burden </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>results in project approach </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Current architecture 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Round 2 Round 4 Round 5 Round 7 Phase 1 Phase 2 Round 1 Phase 1 Ph 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 Example: Cambodia HIV grants with MoH as PR Multiple grants for same PR Different timelines for Phase 2 reviews Difficulty aligning reporting and disbursement timelines Multiple budgets Different sets of indicators Encourages “project approach” with complicated and burdensome management of multiple grants
  6. 6. “ Single stream of funding” as the basis of new GF Architecture Cambodia MoH HIV Grant Continuation funding Scale-up and continuation funding 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Example: Cambodia HIV grant as envisioned under single stream of funding 1. Single stream of funding 2. Simplified access to new funding 3. Enhanced performance-based management 2. Simplified access to new funding Periodic Periodic … Review cycle:
  7. 7. <ul><li>The Board endorsed a “Single Stream of Funding per PR per Disease” </li></ul><ul><li>The PSC also stressed the following: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Performance-based funding must remain a key operating principle; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A single stream of funding should be established for each PR for each disease, in a way that: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Supports Dual-Track Financing </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Mitigates the risk of “PR entrenchment” </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Supports principle of multi-stakeholder involvement </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>TRP review an important step in securing additional funding; and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Implement as soon as possible. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Secretariat to present necessary policy changes </li></ul>Summary of 18 th Board Meeting outcomes (1/2)*
  8. 8. <ul><li>The Board also endorsed following proposed changes to the Global Fund’s access to funding model, for implementation commencing in Round 10: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Two application windows per annum; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rapid, robust TRP feedback to facilitate re-submission; and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The ability for the TRP to recommend proposals based on the removal of specific elements </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The date for Round 10 will be determined at the 20th Board Meeting </li></ul>Summary of 18 th Board Meeting Outcomes (2/2)*
  9. 9. Next steps in architecture review <ul><li>More detailed design of specific elements in proposed new architecture: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ Single stream of funding” grant agreement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Access to funding </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Performance management to complement the single stream </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transition and implementation plan </li></ul></ul><ul><li>In-country “walk-throughs” of model to test concept </li></ul><ul><li>Proposed policy changes for PSC recommendation to the Board </li></ul><ul><li>Plan for implementation of and transition to the proposed new architecture </li></ul>
  10. 10. <ul><ul><li>Increasing recognition of need to fund national strategies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>However current strategies often seen as: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Not sufficientl y robust </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Therefore cannot be used for funding decisions </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Also, funders often have their own donor specific requirements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consequently: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Countries do not have incentive to strengthen national strategies </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Funders do not have sufficient confidence in national strategies </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>&quot;National Strategy Applications&quot; is a key initiative to enable countries to base their applications primarily on their national strategies </li></ul></ul>Over time, it is hoped that increasing numbers of applicants will seek funding through a shared National Strategy based application process National Strategy Applications: Context
  11. 11. Anticipated approach for NSAs Countries Validation National strategy Validated national strategy “ National strategy application” for funding (= validated national strategy + minimal supplemental information) Shared validation mechanism Funders Financing decisions by funders (incl. Global Fund)
  12. 12. Expected benefits of NSA approach <ul><li>NSA focus on development, financing and implementation of robust national strategies will lead to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Increased country ownership </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A greater common focus on managing for results and mutual accountability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improved alignment with country priorities and national timeframes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Greater harmonization of funder approaches to financing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reduced transaction costs </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. <ul><li>Multi-stakeholder IHP+ working group on validation of national strategies * </li></ul><ul><li>Key output so far: Consultation paper with proposed </li></ul><ul><ul><li>attributes of sound, fundable national strategies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>possible options for the validation process </li></ul></ul>* With participants from Developed NGOs/International HIV-AIDS Alliance, GAVI, Global Fund, Netherlands, UNAIDS, UNFPA, WHO, World Bank Current status <ul><li>Country consultations on validation (visits to IHP+ and non-IHP+ countries) </li></ul><ul><li>Work toward agreement on validation approach and implementation of shared validation mechanism </li></ul>Next steps Work on validation within IHP+
  14. 14. <ul><li>Phased roll-out of the NSA approach, beginning with a First Learning Wave in 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>First Wave aims to draw policy and operational lessons that enable the broader roll-out of NSAs </li></ul><ul><li>Key characteristics of First Wave: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A limited number of applications </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A focus on applications based on national disease strategies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Validation of national strategies exceptionally performed by the TRP – since shared validation not operational by mid 2009 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>TRP-recommended applications from the First Learning Wave will receive same funding priority as proposals submitted through rounds </li></ul>Nov. 08 Board decision: “First Learning Wave” of NSAs
  15. 15. Main steps for first learning wave of NSAs <ul><li>Identification of countries who wish to participate (~ Jan. to March 2009 ) </li></ul><ul><li>Development and submission of NSAs (~ by July/August 2009 ) </li></ul><ul><li>Validation of national strategies and review of applications by a group of TRP members (~ by Sept./Oct. 2009 ) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Validation of national strategy (against attributes); and, separately </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Review of NSA submitted to GF </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interactive process for both steps to allow countries to submit additional information if needed </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Development of grant agreement and ongoing grant management (for NSAs approved for funding) in a way that is adapted as necessary to NSAs ( from Nov. 2009 on ) </li></ul>

×