Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Gfatm 081208 partnership forum arnsa pres v9

278 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

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>

×