04 srhr fund

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Department for Development Policy and Global
Cooperation (UGS)
File no.: 104.N.151.SRSR-facilitet
External Grant Committee Meeting 17 June 2014
Agenda Item no.: 4
1. Title: Joint civil society SRHR advocacy fund
2. Partners: Fund manager consisting of MannionDaniels Ltd. (lead)
in consortium with Global Fund for Women and African
Women’s Development Fund
3. Amount: 167.2 million DKK (2014: 82.2 mill. DKK, 2015: 85 mill.
DKK)
4. Duration: 48 months (Aug. 2014 – Aug. 2018)
5. Previous Grants: None
6. Strategies and policy priori-ties:
“Strategy for Denmark’s Development Cooperation –
The Right to a Better Life”
“The Promotion of Sexual and Reproductive Health and
Rights - Strategy for Denmark’s Support”
7. Danish National Budget ac-count
code:
06.36.03.11 IPPF and others (IPPF m.fl.)
8. Desk officer: Sanne Frost Helt, UGS
9. Head of Department: Nathalia Feinberg, UGS
10. Summary:
Despite progress, MDG5 on maternal health remains the MDG furthest from reaching its target. Sexual and
reproductive health and particularly rights are in many contexts not a given. Advancing these rights for wom-en,
men and youth at national, regional and global levels and translating internationally agreed norms and
standards into practice at country level requires a stronger, more vibrant and better networked southern based
civil society. A joint donor funding mechanism will support capacity building for civil society advocacy on sexu-al
and reproductive health rights. Particular attention will be given to the most sensitive issues and vulnerable
and marginalised groups. A fund manager will be responsible for grant making, capacity building and tech-nical
and financial oversight. The fund will support both southern and northern based civil society organisa-tions
for their advocacy efforts in the South through core and project support.

2
Objective and problem formulation:
Denmark is at the forefront of advocating and promoting sexual and reproductive health and
rights (SRHR) for all women, men and youth. SRHR concerns the right to decide over one’s
own body, whether to have children, how many, when and with whom. It relates to access to
sexuality education, safe abortion and other reproductive health services including HIV preven-tion.
It is also about being able to live a life without force, violence or discrimination regardless
of sexual orientation and gender identity. Denmark’s engagement is founded in the Right to a
better life and the strategy for the Promotion of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights.
An external review conducted by the Netherlands on behalf of a group of likeminded donors
has identified a gap in relation to funding of civil society engagement in advancing SRHR, par-ticularly
for organisations in the South. While support to and through international organisa-tions
is important, it is increasingly evident that in order to promote SRHR commitments, the
“SRHR voice” of the South itself must be strengthened. With the present grant, Denmark will
contribute to the establishment of a joint donor1 funding mechanism to enable increased and
harmonised funding for civil society SRHR advocacy in the South, particularly towards the sen-sitive
issues and the most marginalised and vulnerable groups.
The strategic objective is to gain universal recognition of SRHR as human rights, allowing
women, men and young people to realise their full potential in safe and supportive environ-ments.
The underlying theory of change is that a stronger, more vibrant and better networked
SRHR civil society at national and regional levels is able to influence change in policies, norms
and positions thereby resulting in improved sexual and reproductive health rights at country
level. Further, it is the aspiration that strengthening the voice in the South advocating these
rights may translate into advancement of SRHR in international fora and thus have dual impact.
Resource efficiency
The establishment of a joint funding mechanism makes possible what has so far not been fea-sible,
namely to support civil society in the South directly, on a large scale and in a coordinated
and harmonised manner. A joint mechanism with pooled resources, shared administration and
dedicated technical expertise constitutes a cost effective solution. It enables Denmark to scale
down the number of direct engagements with international SRHR organisations which fall
within the envisaged scope of the fund. The Danish Finance Bill has an annual allocation of 85
million DKK for the promotion of sexual and reproductive health and rights. Currently, Den-mark
has bilateral agreements with twelve international SRHR organisations. Going forward,
this will be reduced to around three direct partners of key strategic importance to the global
SRHR agenda and likely to fall outside the scope of the SRHR fund. The rest will be encour-aged
to seek funding on a competitive basis through the fund.
While Denmark thus stands to gain both in terms of additional impact and in terms of reduced
administrative costs, the establishment of the fund will require investment of time and effort,
particularly during its early years. This will involve participation on the Advisory Board during
inception when strategies and procedures are further defined and subsequently in approval of
grants, strategies, budgets etc. External technical assistance may be called upon when required.
Challenges and underlying reflections:
Despite recognition of the crucial role played by national civil society in pushing for change and
translation of internationally agreed norms and policy recommendations into practice at coun-
1 Initial contributors are Denmark, The Netherlands, the Packard Foundation and the Hewlett Foundation.

3
try level, Denmark has so far only been able to support these organisations to a limited extent.
Without these efforts, much of the policy advancement fought for by Denmark and others at
the normative level, will not translate into actual change for women and youth in countries
where sexual and reproductive health and particularly rights are not a given. But it also works
the other way around. In the absence of policy engagement by civil society at national level, it
may not be possible to advance the SRHR agenda internationally. Advocacy from Northern
organisations alone can easily prove counterproductive. The need for a concerted push is evi-denced
by the fact that of all the MDGs, MDG5 remains the furthest from reaching its target.
Reducing the number of direct collaborations with international SRHR organisations of course
affects Denmark’s relation with a number of important organisations. However, through the
SRHR fund and other fora, Denmark will strive to maintain strategic dialogue with these organ-isations
in order to inform policy and Danish development cooperation.
Project description:
A group of donors including Denmark, The Netherlands, the Packard Foundation and the
Hewlett Foundation has taken the initiative to establish a joint funding mechanism to support
civil society work on sexual and reproductive health rights in the South. The fund is open for
other donors to join and several have already expressed interest (cf. “Budget”). The establish-ment
of the fund is based on a background review Improving mechanisms to support civil society organ-isations
working in sexual and reproductive health and rights, conducted by the Netherlands Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. The review showed that in order for civil society in the South to have the de-sired
impact, they must be able to access reliable, sustained and flexible funding allowing for
capacity-building in technical areas and in financial management, resource mobilisation and
strategic planning. The review assessed existing funding options2 and confirmed a need for a
mechanism focusing on SRHR advocacy and enabling particularly smaller, southern based civil
society access support.
Scope of the fund: Geographic focus is mainly sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Countries in
South America, Central Asia and Middle East may be included in cases of specific SRHR crises.
Thematically the SRHR fund will focus broadly on the sexual and reproductive health rights
requiring attention in a given context as determined by the southern based civil society and
context. Special attention however is provided towards the neglected areas of the ICPD agenda
such as (i) violence against women and girls; (ii) discrimination and stigma on grounds of gen-der
identity or sexual orientation; (iii) unsafe abortion; (iv) inadequate sexuality education for,
and engagement with, young people; and (v) the lack of access to comprehensive services.
While the fund will focus primarily on advocacy and rights, service delivery may form part of
the interventions as the vehicle to promote the rights, eg. in the area of safe abortion.
The SRHR fund will operate four different grant windows. Network grants (estimated 20% of
total portfolio) will support civil society coalitions and networks in their concerted dialogue
with policy makers etc. and in their work to support convening, lesson learning and capacity
strengthening of smaller organisations. Capacity strengthening grants (estimated 50% of total port-folio)
are the mainstay of the fund and are intended for building and supporting the civil society
voice to effectively engage and advocate for improved sexual and reproductive health rights.
Innovation grants (estimated 5% of total portfolio) are seed grants allocated towards new organi-sations
and/or themes and to test innovative approaches and ideas. Lastly, Strategic grants (esti-mated
25% of total portfolio) will support international SRHR organisations in their work in
2 Found to be mainly supporting service provision rather than advocacy and be geographically/thematically narrow in scope.

4
the South, including capacity and alliance building among local civil society organisations.
Grants may be provided both as project and core support within all grant windows.
Grants will be given based on a competitive funding model through web-based calls for pro-posals.
The procedure and formats will be especially responsive to potential capacity constraints
to ensure that smaller organisations, less experienced in seeking international funding are not
crowded out by the larger organisations. The fund manager stands by with technical support to
such organisations and the fund website will be bilingual (English and French) and operate an
“interested but require assistance” button for easy access to technical assistance.
Management and governance. The SRHR fund will be managed by a fund manager. A consor-tium
of three partners: MannionDaniels Ltd. (lead), the Global Fund for Women and the Afri-can
Women’s Development Fund has been selected through an international competitive pro-cess
run by the Packard Foundation on behalf of the donors. Together, the consortium has a
strong track record of grant management, and of supporting civil society to address the most
challenging SRHR issues, in the most difficult places. The fund manager will deliver core over-sight,
management and fiduciary functions and undertake sub-grant arrangements with civil
society organisations. A fund director is responsible for the daily operations of the fund.
The SRHR fund will be governed by an Advisory Board which will set the overall strategic direc-tion
for the fund and approve grants. The composition and full mandate of the Board will be
determined by the donor agencies in collaboration with the fund manager during inception.
This process will take into consideration aspects of ensuring an independent oversight function.
Civil society representation will be included. As the delegation to third party of decision on al-location
of Danish development assistance is not permitted according to the Danish Ombuds-man,
Denmark has reserved the right to have a representative on the Board3. An independent
technical review panel will support the fund manager in the assessment of applications recom-mended
for approval by the Board and provide technical guidance required by the Board. The
panel comprises strong technical experts within a broad range of SRHR themes including abor-tion,
gender based violence, stigma and discrimination and addressing youth.
The consortium has established a Consortium Steering Committee as an internal management struc-ture.
This committee is responsible for ensuring the quality and accountability of the fund
though internal quality assurance mechanisms. To save cost, meetings among the consortium,
the Advisory Board, the technical review panel and among the contributing donors will primari-ly
be held as virtual meetings and existing infrastructure (office space etc.) will be utilised.
Operations. Three grant support teams – one from
each consortium member and each consisting of
technical, financial and M&E expertise will be re-sponsible
for promoting the fund, identifying civil
society organisations for support, providing capacity
building and technical sparring and ensuring M&E
compliance. The grant support teams are supported
by an existing consortium network of 29 strategic
advisors (dots on the map) already in place across
sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.
3 The other “founding” donors are prevented from participating on the Advisory Board due to their respective regulations.

5
As lead, MannionDaniels is responsible for all contractual obligations with the donors and for
sub-grants made to civil society, including disbursements and audits. The grant implementation
process is depicted in the below figure.
M&E: The fund manager will operate a web based Management, Information and Learning
system for electronic uploading of results, as well as more qualitative ways of learning (includ-ing
stories, videos and photos). Appropriate aspects of the system will be open access, allowing
stories and results to be accessible to a wide range of grantees, partners and the public.
The fund manager will report annually to the donors on the performance of the fund against
benchmarks and indicators approved by the Advisory Board. Donors have agreed to receive
one joint annual report and audited financial accounts. Annex 3 contains the draft Danish re-sults
framework for the fund including draft benchmarks. This will be further developed during
inception as the performance measurement framework for the fund is fully elaborated. It will
be validated by an inception review within six months of the start-up of the fund. Individual
theories of change for the thematic intervention areas (safe abortion, violence against women
and girls etc.) with associated indicators and results will be developed.
A joint, independent mid-term review is scheduled to take place after two years. It is expected
that any independent technical or financial review or evaluation will be carried out jointly.
Denmark, however, reserves the right, if need arises, to carry out separate reviews or evalua-tions.
Such a decision will be taken in consultation with the fund manager as well as other con-tributors
to the joint SRHR fund.
Previous results and lessons learnt:
The SRHR fund is a new initiative. It complements other Danish support in the area of SRHR
by enabling – and mainly targeting – southern based civil society. Current Danish engagement on
SRHR comprises a strong commitment in international fora and negotiations, amplified
through support to the multilateral system4 and strategic international organisations5 for their
SRHR advocacy at the global, regional and national levels. Support to southern based civil soci-
4 UNFPA, UNAIDS, GFATM and UN-Women.
5 International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), Marie Stopes International, Ipas, Population Council and Interna-tional
Women’s Health Coalition to name a few.

6
ety has been limited to a few bilateral engagements within sector programmes and the local
grant authority and support through international organisations such as International Planned
Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International. The latter received a large advocacy
grant November 2013 pending the establishment of the present joint donor fund. Results of
the work of these organisations include SRHR policy restrictions reduced in a number of coun-tries,
including Bangladesh, Kenya, Afghanistan, Yemen, Sri, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Uganda.
Topics addressed include medical abortion and post abortion care, task-sharing of family plan-ning
services to lower cadres of health workers enabling service provision to reach more clients,
reduction of import duties on reproductive health commodities to name a few.
The 2014 Danida commissioned external study Support to civil society through multi-donor funds high-lights
lessons learnt and recommends areas for particular attention when engaging in such
funds. Benefits identified include greater harmonisation and less duplication, reduced transac-tions
costs and increased impact due to larger volumes of support channelled to civil society.
Special attention should be paid to ensuring that the purpose of the fund is aligned to Danish
strategies; that management and governance structures are clear and that the fund manager –
preferably selected competitively – has capacity for financial/fiduciary oversight as well as
technical capacity building. Smaller, less sophisticated civil society organisations, often operat-ing
in poorer and remote areas, on sensitive issues or with marginalised groups should be in-cluded
for support. Lastly, the performance measurement system, particularly for rights based
funds, should have a balance of quantitative and qualitative indicators to be able to understand
the process (what recipient organisations are doing) and the product (measurable change in
people’s lives). These lessons and the resulting draft guidance note6 have formed part of the
design of the SRHR fund and will guide the work during inception.
Exit strategy. The fund is expected to continue as long as there is demand and need for its sup-port
and sufficient donor contributions are available. Denmark envisages continued support to
the fund beyond the initial four year phase, subject to changes in strategic priorities for Danish
development cooperation and annual Parliamentary budget approval. However, in case it is
decided to discontinue the support, notice will be given well in advance to the donor group and
the fund manager in order to avoid jeopardising on-going activities of grantees. The fund man-ager
is mandated to expand the funding base for the fund and thereby limit its vulnerability to
the exit of individual contributors.
The fund is not created as a new organisation but rather hosted within the existing organisation-al
set-up of the three consortium members, making use of existing infrastructure. The host or-ganisations
are expected to continue regular operations during and beyond the existence of the
fund. Sustainability of the civil society organisations supported through the fund is considered
through a strong focus on capacity development both of organisational capacities (financial,
M&E, technical capacity), advocacy capacity and ability to seek and attract funding for their
organisations. Grants will be given to civil society based on commitments; hence any on-going
interventions should not be affected by a discontinuation of Danish (or other donor) support.
Special considerations and priorities:
Promotion of sexual and reproductive health and rights is a key priority for Denmark both at
the normative and country level. The objectives of this intervention are in line with the Danish
Development Corporation Strategy Right to a better life and the human rights based approach,
focusing on enabling people to know and demand their rights and hold governments accounta-
6 Multi-donor funds in support of civil society: A guidance note for Danish Missions, draft

7
ble to international commitments. It is further consistent with the Strategy for the Promotion
of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights, the draft Guidance note for Multi-donor Socie-ty
Funds and the draft Civil Society Policy; the latter by enabling direct support to southern
based civil society as well as capacity development for effective advocacy, participation in na-tional
and international networks and alliances and promotion of their agendas of change.
Budget:
Initial contributors to the joint SRHR fund include Denmark, the Netherlands and the two US-based
Packard and Hewlett Foundations. A number of bilateral donors have expressed interest,
including United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden, France and the Flemish Government. In addi-tion,
UNFPA has indicated interest as has a number of other private US based foundations.
Denmark will enter the fund with an initial grant of 167.2 million DKK comprising 82.2 million
DKK on the 2014 Finance Bill and 85 million DKK on the Finance Bill in 20157. The com-mitment
of DKK 82.2 million/2014 will be divided over four years release-wise. This will ena-ble
Denmark enter into an agreement with the fund manager of a duration which provides pre-dictability
and enables time for at least three years implementation of activities by civil society.
This is necessary as the fund manager is unable to enter into contracts with civil society organi-sations
beyond the duration of the fund manager’s own contract.
In addition, annual contributions of between 70-85 million DKK will be released each year to
the fund8. The actual annual allocation will be determined based on the proportion of funds
required for direct collaboration with strategic SRHR organisations cf. “Resource efficiency”
above. A Danish organisation strategy will be developed for the fund to form the basis for an-nual
releases from 2016 onwards. The organisation strategy will be based on the findings and
recommendations of the independent mid-term review after the initial 2 year period as well as
the strategy and performance measurement framework of the SRHR fund itself.
Table 1. Tentative resource envelope, SRHR fund (2014-2017) in DKK and EUR:
2014 2015 2016 2017 Total
Denmark (2014 commitment ) 28,2 18 18 18 82,2
Denmark, additional allocation on annual basis* 85** 70** 70** 225
The Netherlands*** 15 15 30
Packard Foundation**** 1,1 1,1 0,5 2,7
Hewlett Foundation**** 1,1 1,1 0,5 2,7
Total donor contribution in DKK 45 120 89 88 343
Total donor contribution in EUR 6,1 16,0 11,9 11,7 46
Fund Management cost (15.4%)***** 0,9 2,5 1,8 1,8 7
Available for grants in EUR 5,1 13,6 10,1 10,0 39
* Subject to annual approval of the Finance Bi l l by the Dani sh Parl iament
** Es timated between 70 and 85 mi l l ion DKK annual ly. Di ffers based on di rect support to s trategic SRHR organi sations .
*** NL support ini tial ly for 2 years . Extens ion expected based on mid-term review. Additional thematic al locations may
be added.
**** Packard and Hewlett Foundations both provide ini tial support for 30 months . Extens ion beyond 2016 has been
placed in thei r respective pipel ines . The two foundations wi l l cover admini s tration/management cos t exclus ively.
***** Detai led in TFP. Covers a range of project related cos ts incl . M&E, technical as s i s tance, fund rai s ing etc. Of thi s ,
overhead charge i s 3.4%.
7 The 2015 commitment subject to Parliamentary approval. Commitment will only be given upon approval of FL 2015.
8 Only 2014 and 2015 approved with this appropriation note.

8
A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) will be signed by the contributing donors. The MoU
will outline the “rules of engagement”, including roles and responsibilities as well as principles
around dialogue, transparency and mutual accountability. It will also indicate that while ear-marking
towards specific thematic areas is possible, the full scope of the fund may not be com-promised.
The annual Danish contribution will be released in two tranches (70/30 split) to minimise ac-cumulation
of resources with the fund manager. Releases will be made against achievement of
agreed bench marks in the legal agreement between Denmark and the fund manager. A budget
allocation for reviews and technical assistance provides the flexibility to contribute towards in-ception,
mid-term etc. and to call upon technical assistance to support the Danish engagement
on specific issues. Denmark does not intend to earmark its support. However, in case other
donors earmark their funds, Denmark reserves the right to balance the funding profile by ear-marking
towards areas of strategic importance to Denmark9.
Table 2. Budget for Denmark’s contribution (2014-2017) in million DKK
2014 2015 2016 2017
Contribution to joint SRHR-Fund* 27,2 102 87 87
Reviews and technical assistance** 1 1 1 1
Total 28,2 103 88 88
* Combined releases based on 2014 commi tment and subsequent annual commi tments
** Budget l ine admini s tered by MFA to support reviews , technical as s i s tance etc. When not uti l i sed in a
given year, i t wi l l be trans fered to the Fund.
An indicative summary of the envisaged distribution of use of resources is presented in the ta-ble
below. The budget allocation for administration by the fund manager constitutes 15.4% of
the total expected grant disbursement, which is reasonable compared to similar joint funding
mechanisms10. The administrative allocation includes project related costs such as M&E, tech-nical
assistance and capacity building. Packard and Hewlett Foundations fund management ex-clusively
thereby reducing the fund management cost for the other donors.
Table 3. Indicative budget allocations for grant and fund management for a two year
period. In million EUR.
2014 2015 2016* 2017* Total %
Networks grants 1,6 2 2 2 7,6 20
Strategic grants 3,6 3 3 9,6 25
Strengthening grants 3 7,5 4,5 4,5 19,5 50
Innovation grants 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 2 5
Total grants 5,1 13,6 10,0 10,0 38,7
Fund management (15,4%) 0,9 2,5 1,8 1,8 7,0
Grand total 6,0 16,1 11,8 11,8 45,7
* Projections as MannionDaniel 's proposal covers only 2 years based on the Reques t for Proposal .
9 Donors have agreed that funds may be earmarked towards a specific issue, but the overall thematic scope of the fund cannot
be limited, i.e. away from sensitive issues.
10 Study on Support to Civil Society through Multi-Donor Funds, Intrac Jan. 2014.

9
Significant risks:
Assumption Risk Mitigation measures
Contextual risks
Other donors will
join the SRHR fund
Others do not join,
leaving the SRHR fund
vulnerable and highly
dependent not least on
the comparatively large
Danish support.
 The founding partners will strategically advocate
with potential donors. Arguments will include co-ordination,
harmonisation with an increased reach
and reduced transaction costs both on the side of
the donor and the receiving organisations.
 In the absence of other funding, the relatively
large Danish and anticipated increased Dutch con-tributions
will be able to provide a significant
boost to civil society in the South. Without the
fund, DK and NL would not be able to provide
any significant direct support towards organisa-tions
in the South.
The interventions
supported will
promote sexual and
reproductive health
rights.
Interventions have un-intended,
negative im-pact
on the SRHR
agenda and/or situa-tion.
 Addressing sensitive SRHR issues may stir debate,
dialogue and public attention. This is part of creat-ing
policy change and removal of restrictions.
Care should however be taken to avoid negative
and counterproductive impact such as an SRHR
deterioration or exposure of certain groups.
 The fund manager will develop a risk management
approach during inception.
 Recipient civil society organisations will prepare
risk assessments relating to their specific interven-tions
and contexts based on “do-no-harm”.
Programmatic risks
The SRHR fund is
able to reach and
support civil society
work all the way
down to the com-munity
level.
The fund ends up sup-porting
“the usual sus-pects”
as awareness of
the existence of the
fund combined with
the capacity of the
smaller organisations
to write good pro-posals
is limited.
 The primary purpose of fund is to reach civil soci-ety
at country level. According to the background
analysis and feedback from the field, the demand
is so big that even the spread by word of mouth
may result in attention to the funding mechanism.
Nonetheless, a variety of approaches will be uti-lised
to raise awareness:
 Web-based calls for proposals will be announced
through relevant networks, fora and media,
through the international organisations and coali-tions
as well as multilateral and bilateral channels.
 Simple but sufficient procedures and requirements
will be pursued. The procedures should enable an
informed decision on grants, but not exclude or-ganisations
less experienced in professional pro-posal
writing from accessing funding.
 Capacity development and technical guidance will
be provided by the fund manager and through in-ternational
and network organisations to their re-

10
spective networks and partners.
All donors sub-scribe
to the full
SRHR-agenda
Certain donors wish to
join, but with ear-marked
support to-wards
certain thematic
and/or geographical
areas.
 The fund is intended as supporting the full range of
sexual and reproductive rights. All the founding
partners subscribe to the full SRHR agenda. Ear-marking
towards certain areas may be possible, but
a limitation on the overall scope of the fund in
terms of thematic areas covered will not be accept-ed.
This will be specified in the MoU between the
contributing donors.
The SRHR fund
will support the full
range of SRHR
themes and focus
on sub-Saharan
Africa and South
Asia.
With a wide geographic
and thematic focus,
funds are spread too
thinly to have an im-pact.
 The grants will be context driven from civil socie-ty
in the South, i.e. it is not possible up-front to
determine which issues to include and which not.
However, focus will be on support towards the
neglected areas under the ICPD agenda.
 Geographically focus will be on settings furthest
from achieving SRHR as well as countries where it
is deemed possible to progress on the SRHR
agenda (eg. tipping point countries).
 The fund manager will report to the Advisory
Board on progress, impact and obstacles. This will
enable strategic prioritisation of thematic or re-gional
calls for proposal.
Institutional risks
Organisations re-ceiving
grants have
the financial man-agement
capacity
and systems to ac-count
for resources.
Danish development
assistance is misman-aged
or subject to cor-ruption
and fraud.
 The scope of work for the fund manager includes
strengthening financial management capacity of
grantees, where required.
 The fund manager is required to have a solid
M&E system, incl. regarding financial manage-ment
compliance through audits etc.
The SRHR fund
will be able to ef-fectively
and effi-ciently
utilise 70-85
million DKK on an
annual basis.
Inception takes longer
than anticipated and/
or demand is slow to
build, creating a build-up
of funds with the
fund manager with
consequences for re-lease
of DK funds.
 Funds kept aside to enable support towards initia-tives
of strategic importance may be increased to
cater for a short-fall in demand.
 Annual contributions will be released in 2 tranch-es
over the year. In case of build-up of funds, the
contribution may be withheld.

11
Annex 1: Partners
The joint SRHR fund will be managed by a consortium of three partners consisting of
MannionDaniels (lead), African Women’s Development Fund and Global Fund for Women.
The technical proposal details the division of labour among the three. Below are brief descrip-tions
of each partner organisation.
MannionDaniels
MannionDaniels Ltd is an international public health and social care consultancy group. Its
core focus of work is the promotion of equitable and sustainable services by engaging policy
makers, donor agencies and communities in effective dialogue. MannionDaniels works in col-laboration
with key stakeholders to provide innovative and proactive solutions in the fields of
health and social care.
Head offices are located in Bath, United Kingdom. MannionDaniels Africa limited is a Kenyan
registered company with offices located in Nairobi, Kenya. The company has implemented
over 80 assignments in over 25 countries for over 30 clients including international organisa-tions,
bilateral/multilateral donors and foundations.
Focus of work
 Health Systems Strengthening: extensive experience in coordinating multiple partners
to identify gaps in health systems and strengthen linkages across governments, civil soci-ety
and other stakeholders.
 Aid Effectiveness: aid effectiveness reviews at the global level as well as within a num-ber
of countries.
 Governance, Leadership and Programme Management: The company manages a
range of large scale comprehensive programmes which include the provision of grants
to a diverse network of CSOs, institutions and other groups. Particular examples in-clude
the £10 million Partnership for Transforming Health Systems programme and the
follow-on £5 Million Maternal and Child Health Programme in Nigeria. The Health
Management Information Systems Strengthening project in Somalia under the GF 10
Grant for Malaria and the DFID Somaliland Development Fund. In addition
MannionDaniels is a partner on the Social Change Communications Component of the
DFID project ‘Towards Ending Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in Africa and Be-yond’.
 Designing monitoring and evaluation frameworks: MannionDaniels has specific
expertise in supporting the design, and leading the development of, monitoring frame-works
to enable effective measurement, learning and evaluation plans. The company
aims to be innovative in information management approaches and recently developed a
methodology for tracking European donor funding and policy change for reproductive
health and family planning for IPPF Europe.

12
Recent work in the field of SRHR includes:
Partnership for Transforming Health Systems in Nigeria (PATHS2) 2008-2014; and
awarded the follow-on programme, Maternal and New Born Health Programme in
Northern Nigeria (MNCH2); 2014 – 2019: PATHS2 is a six-year project to strengthen and
reform Nigeria’s health system, working towards the MDGs for sustainable, pro-poor
healthcare. MannionDaniels is responsible for Output 5 - Informed Citizens relating to innova-tive
behaviour change communication strategies at the community level around safe mother-hood
and child health. Through this project, MD has provided grants to a diverse network of
CSOs at the local level (many specialised in accountability, and going beyond only women-led
organisations) who are responsible for advocating for increased access and use of health ser-vices.
Towards Ending Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in Africa and Beyond – Social
Change Communications Component 2014-2018: In March 2013, DFID announced a new
programme of up to £35 million to support efforts to end Female Genital Mutilation/ Cutting.
MannionDaniels is a partner under the Social Change Communications Component which will
work with stakeholders to build a movement for ending FGM/C at the community, national
and global levels. In its early inception stage MannionDaniels is undertaking technical appraisals
in Somalia and Sudan to make strategic recommendations for the programme’s focus.
Review of Evidence for Action (E4A) – External Reviewer 2013 – 2016: MannionDaniels is
providing external Monitoring & Evaluation quality assurance to DFID in Malawi, Tanzania,
Ethiopia, Nigeria, Ghana, and Sierra Leone. The scope of work includes providing objective
review and independent rigour into the M&E components of this programme – this includes
review of research protocols, discussion of analyses, providing advice on annual reviews and
end-of-project evaluations etc. Evidence for Action (E4A) to Reduce Maternal and Neonatal
Mortality (E4A) is a large-scale five-year programme (Nov 2011 – Oct 2016) funded by DFID.
The aim of the programme is to improve maternal and newborn survival through a combined
focus on evidence, advocacy and accountability across the six sub-Saharan African countries.
Review of the DFID Zimbabwe Sexual and Reproductive Health: MannionDaniels has
recently reviewed DFID’s £57 million Sexual and Reproductive Health Programme in Zimba-bwe.
This review covered DFID’s programme with both the private and the public sectors to
provide integrated SRH and HIV/AIDS services.
Analysis Tracking European Donor Policies & Funding for Reproductive Health and
Family Planning (IPPF European Network): MannionDaniels recently developed a meth-odology
for tracking European donor funding and policy change for reproductive health and
family planning for IPPF Europe.
Review of Equipop’s project ‘Activate French stakeholders on future UNITAID contri-butions
to Family Planning and Reproductive Health’: MannionDaniels was contracted by
Equipop, a French NGO specialising in SRHR advocacy, to conduct a review of a 3 year advo-cacy
project focused on activating French stakeholders to influence UNITAID contributions to
reproductive health. The review included a synthesis of key documentation and personal inter-views
with relevant stakeholders within the field of SRHR, these included representatives of
Countdown 2015, I+ Solutions, Oxfam and the CEO of UNITAID.

13
African Women’s Development Fund
The African Women’s Development Fund (AWDF) is a women-led grant-making organisation
which supports efforts to ensure social justice, equality and respect for women’s rights in Afri-ca.
Headquarters are in Accra, Ghana. Between 2001–2012, the African Women’s Develop-ment
Fund has funded organisations in 42 African countries. AWFD’s funding comes from a
variety of bilateral, civil society and private foundations.
Focus of work
Since the African Women’s Development Fund was founded in 2001, it has invested USD 21
million in over 1000 women’s organisations across Africa.
As a grant making foundation, AWDF has made a significant contribution towards ensuring
donor resource flows to ‘hard to reach’ communities of African women. 60% of AWDF grant-ees
have annual budgets of less than US$150,000. For the vast majority of these grantees,
AWDF has been their first external supporter. AWDF has developed a unique model of grant
making which is flexible, accessible, and responsive to the needs of the most marginalised
groups of women on the continent.
The main areas of focus for the African Women’s Development Fund are:
 Transforming the lives of some of the most marginalised groups of women on the
continent (women living with HIV, sex workers, disabled women, young women, lesbi-an,
bisexual, transgendered and intersex communities of women, trafficked women
amongst others) to address their basic needs and broaden their economic and livelihood
choices.
 Strengthening the institutional effectiveness, and infrastructure of women’s rights
organisations and networks in Africa able to ensure an enabling policy and legislative
environment for women’s rights on the continent.
 Promoting and profiling women’s leadership and agency, increasing in both quan-titative
and qualitative terms, women’s presence, voice, perspectives and contributions.
This has added to efforts to tilt the balance of narratives, challenging harmful and stere-otypical
depictions of African women that currently dominate international develop-ment
discourses.
 Reproductive Health and Rights as a key thematic grant making area: Proposals
focusing on Reproductive Health and Rights are actively encouraged to apply for fund-ing
from AWDF, as a result AWDF possesses a comprehensive understanding and ex-perience
of the current issues on sexual and reproductive rights.
 Networks and links with strategic bodies at intergovernmental, legislative, policy, aca-demic
and civil society levels working on key issues affecting the reproductive rights of
African women. Some of these networks are: African Grant Makers Network (AGN);
International Network of Women’s Funds (INWF); Women’s Funding Network
(WFN).
 Involvement in the Advanced Family Planning Initiative coordinated by the
Johns Hopkins Bloomburg School of Public Health: this initiative carries out global
advocacy for family planning is supported by Packard Foundation and the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation.

14
Global Fund for Women
Global Fund for Women is a grant-making foundation advancing women’s rights worldwide by
increasing the resources for, and investing in, women-led organisations.
The Global Fund for Women was founded in Palo Alto California by Anne Firth Murray,
Frances Kissling and Laura Lederer to pursue women’s human rights and dignity to enable the
advancement of global agendas for social, economic, and political change. The headquarters of
the Global Fund for Women is California, US. The Global Fund for Women has grant making
capacity in Africa, Asia and Latin America and draws on a pool of strategic advisors who are
based in these regions.
Focus of work
Since Global Fund for Women was founded in 1987, it has invested $113 million in more than
9,500 grants to over 4,700 organisations. Of these, the Fund provided $54.6 million to 2,238
organisations advancing SRHR (including HIV/AIDS, health education, STDs, maternal
health, reproductive choice and rights, and sexuality, sexual identity and sexual rights) as a part
of its work. The organisation has well-established connections to civil society organisations in
both Africa and South Asia.
The Global Fund for Women is able to access and support disadvantaged populations and
groups, marginalised by identity, issue, or geography. This includes women from rural and con-flict
prone areas, women workers and farmers, sex workers, and lesbian and trans women,
bringing these marginalised voices into a network of women’s groups in their countries, their
region, and globally.
 Support for advocacy for women’s reproductive rights in 94 countries, including suc-cessful
efforts to legalise abortion in Mexico City, Colombia, and Uruguay.
 Investment in the first “out” lesbian groups in several countries, including China,
Croatia, India, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Mexico, Slovenia, Thailand, and Turkey.
 Raising awareness of health issues: Women’s Association Aska in Visegrad in Bosnia,
established in 2006, conducts informational sessions on sexual and reproductive rights, pro-vides
education and direct financial support to women affected by breast cancer.
 Investment in women’s rights organisations promoting sexual health awareness,
such as:
 Malaysia: Knowledge and Rights with Young People Through Safer Spaces, Inc
(KRYSS) works with young people to create opportunities and spaces for dialogue,
discussion, and debate on sexual rights, sexual orientation, and gender identity
 Israel: Muntada – The Arab Forum on Sexuality, Education and Health provides
services to the Arab community regarding reproductive health and sexuality.
 Nigeria: Gender Development Organisation (GDO) works in a region of south-eastern
Nigeria, with high rates of fistula among women.

15
Annex 2: Background
Gender equality, the empowerment of women and girls and the promotion of their SRHR are
priority areas in Danish development work - both as goals in themselves and as means to create
sustainable development. Denmark supports SRHR both bilaterally and multilaterally, at policy
and programmatic level, through normative work and negotiations in the EU and the UN as
well as through advocacy and alliance building. As part of the Danish support to SRHR, Den-mark
has for several years granted DKK 85 million a year to strategically selected (limited
number of) international organisations and civil society organisations.
Denmark’s SRHR efforts are based on the Cairo Programme of Action, which was signed by
179 States in 1994 at the International Conference for Population and Development (ICPD),
the Beijing Platform for Action from 1995 and the Millennium Development Goals, especially
MDG5/improving maternal health underpinned by the targets of reducing maternal mortality
and achieving universal access to reproductive health. These international documents are based
on basic human rights principles such as non-discrimination and participation. Women and
girls should have equal access to health systems, education, deciding over their own bodies, etc.
This is further emphasised in the policy for development cooperation Right to a better life (2012).
However, in developing countries, most civil society organisation, and especially those which
engage in advocacy for and promotion of non-discrimination within SRHR issues, do not have
easy access to reliable sources of funding, since they work with sensitive – and in some coun-tries
controversial and even illegal - areas of this human rights agenda. It is particularly difficult
for them to raise money to invest in strengthening their own core capacities to influence and
monitor the implementation of government policies and programmes, since many governments
are not interested in being held accountable on these issues. Thus, working through govern-ments
and providing support to these efforts through elements of broader budget or sector
support is often not the way forward. In the context of SRHR, it is therefore particularly im-portant
to empower rights-holders, as governments often do not live up to their overall respon-sibilities.
Along with the Netherlands and Packard Foundation, Denmark has been exploring ways to
support national SRHR civil society organisations in developing countries to advocate for a
public health and human rights-based SRHR agenda and influence their governments positive-ly.
A study was conducted ‘Improving Mechanisms to Support Civil Society Organisations working in Sex-ual
and Reproductive Health and Rights’. While identifying a number of thematically or geograph-ically
targeted funding mechanisms with a lean towards service delivery rather than advocacy,
the study recommended establishment of a new funding mechanism, with its own identity, visi-bility
and profile, hosted within an existing organisation selected through an open and competi-tive
tender.
The grant would follow-up on one of the above-mentioned study’s findings, which underlines
the civil society organisations’ need for specific and more reliable sources of funding to reach
their full potential to hold governments accountable for improving SRHR for rights-bearers,
particularly in the neglected areas and for vulnerable groups. It further confirms the view that
current civil society-SRHR funding mechanisms do not provide sufficient, satisfactory or co-herent
support to organisations; particularly those working in the developing world on issues
that tend to be overlooked in major funding instruments. One reason for this is that although a
substantial number of global health (funding) initiatives have been set up, most have been
aimed at combatting HIV/AIDS while other aspects of SRHR have been neglected, and thus
have not benefited to any significant degree.

Annex 3: Indicative Results Framework
A results framework is needed for the SRHR fund to measure performance against strategies
and associated targets, to promote accountability and to support learning throughout the fund
process. The results framework for the SRHR fund will be fully developed during the incep-tion
phase, and approved by the Advisory Board and inception review. Separate Theories of
Change for each specific SRHR component (gender based violence, abortion, sexuality educa-tion
etc.) may supplement the overall framework to show pathways of change for each subject
matter. These will be developed in the inception phase.
Below is an illustrative framework that depicts how Denmark intends to monitor the impact
and results of the SRHR fund. It is followed by a table of performance benchmarks elaborated
by the fund manager to judge the performance of the SRHR fund. The below matrix will be
refined and adjusted in line with the overall performance measurement framework of the
SRHR fund which will be established during the inception phase.
Thematic Pro-gramme
Denmark’s Support to a joint SRHR fund for civil society engagement in
South
Thematic Pro-gramme
Objective
To support the promotion of SRHR to gain universal recognition of SRHR as
a human right, allowing women, men and young people to realise their full
potential in safe and supportive environments
Impact Indicator Improved fulfilment of SRHR at national level
Outcome indicator Number of policy/strategy/budget changes supportive of SRHR in countries
of SRHR fund activities
Baseline Year 2014 To be established (selected countries)
Target Year Target to be set in the Inception Phase
Outcome indicator Number of ‘proof of concept’ interventions aimed at SRHR and vulnerable
populations
Baseline Year 2014 No comparison – new programme
Target Year Target to be set in the Inception Phase
Output indicator Proportion of grants to national and sub-national organisations that include
capacity building for advocacy
Target Year Target to be set in Inception Phase
Output indicator Diversity of civil society organisations representative at regional meetings (di-verse
by topic specialisation, target populations, countries of origin etc.)
Output indicator Number of civil society organisations who advocate for legal and/or regulato-ry
reform on neglected SRHS issues
Baseline Year 2014 To be established (selected countries)
Output indicator Disaggregation of data from national HMIS that enables prioritisation of ne-glected
SRHR issues and vulnerable physical locations
Baseline Year 2014 To be established
Target Year Target to be set in Inception phase
Output indicator Proportion of management cost to grant portfolio
Baseline Year 2014 15.4% in budget
Target Year Will not exceed 16%

17
The benchmark table below will allow the SRHR fund manager, and the Advisory Board, to
monitor and learn from the SRHR fund’s performance throughout the implementation cycle.
Baseline, and milestones will be confirmed at the inception phase.
Issue benchmark covers Benchmark
Is the SRHR fund, covering
the appropriate regions /
countries?
-Proportion of grants going to organisations and projects
in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia (probably 65:35
ratio)
-Proportion of grants going to top ten focal countries (as
defined during Inception Phase)
Is it reaching the right civil
society organisations?
-Proportion of grants awarded to local civil society (not
affiliates or local offices of INGOs)
-Proportion of funded civil society organisations for
whom this is the first international support received
Are we managing the
SRHR fund appropriately?
-Proportion of management cost to grant portfolio (will
not exceed 16%, as defined in the financial proposal)
-Proportion of grants distributed through four windows
equalling 20% networking: 50% strengthening: 5% inno-vation:
and 25% strategic grants
Are additional resources
being mobilised for the
SRHR fund?
-Amount of additional funds generated for the fund from
other donors (EUR 15 million additional grant money
raised by 2017)
Is the fund covering all
SRHR themes fairly?
-At the end of two years, the spread of the fund portfolio
includes all five themes (abortion, Gender Based Vio-lence,
LGBTI, young people, family planning for the
poorest), proportional grant values not to be less than
10% or exceed 25% for each theme, appropriate propor-tion
to be confirmed with donors at Inception Phase and
to be reviewed during Year 2.
-Production of at least one ‘Learning Memo’ per theme,
gathering main lesson learning on that theme.

Annex 4: Approved response by representation to summary of recommendations in the
appraisal report
Title of programme support
Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights
Fund
File number
104.N.151.SRHR-facilitet
Appraisal report date
5.5. 2014
Board meeting date
17 June 2014
Summary of possible recommendations not followed
(to be filled in by the Representation)
N.A. – all recommendations followed or to be followed up during inception.

19
Overall conclusion of the appraisal
The overall goal of the project is to ensure an increased participation of CSOs in the area of
SRHR. This is an area of particular importance to Denmark and is mentioned in the “Right to
a Better Life” strategy for Denmark’s Development Cooperation. A recent study concludes
that currently CSO support to SRHR funding mechanisms do not provide sufficient, satisfac-tory
or coherent support to CSOs, particularly those working in the South. The proposed pro-ject
is anticipated to cover SRHR issues that are neglected at present. Furthermore, SRHR is
an area which under increasing attack from many sides, which also justify support to the pro-ject.
The Consortium managing the project has submitted a technical proposal, which forms the
basis of support for the donors committed to support the project. There is still a need to de-velop
procedures and administrative aspects of the project including the results framework. It
is therefore recommended to develop a process action plan to the approach paper, to clarify
how and when these aspects will be addressed. And furthermore, conduct an inception review
to follow up on the implementation of the process action plan.
Denmark is the main contributor to the fund, with three other donors providing significantly
less funding compared to Denmark. It poses a risk leaving the SRHR fund vulnerable and
highly dependent on the Danish support.
It is recommended that the agreement with the Fund Manager includes a possibility to discon-tinue
the cooperation if deemed necessary by the MFA.
Recommendations by the appraisal
Follow up by the Representation
1. Adequacy of the preparation process of the partner programme and of the support
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
2. Quality of the partner planning framework and its alignment to national and sector strategies
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.2
3. Consideration of relevant Danida thematic strategies
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.2
4. Proposed programme support design including justification, strategy and partner choices.

20
4.1 The technical proposal should include the
possibility of both core funding and project type
grants for all type of proposals.
4.1
Agreed. This will form part of the development
of procedures etc. for the Fund during inception
at which stage the finer details of the different
types of grants provided by the Fund will be
teased out.
4.2. 4.2.
5. Adherence to the aid effectiveness agenda
5.1
5.1
5.2
5.2
6. Measures to address identified capacity needs in the partner organisation
6.1 To increase capacity of staff members to han-dle
proposals including SRHR involvement of
men and boys in ensuring SRHR for all.
6.1
We do not know the current capacity of the con-sortium
staff members on this issue. The im-portance
of male involvement in addressing
SRHR is already reflected in the Fund Manager
technical proposal and hence recognised as an
issue by the Fund Manager consortium. The mat-ter
will be brought up in the Advisory Board and
during inception. If found wanting, the matter
will be addressed.
6.2
6.2
Recommendations by the appraisal
Follow up by the Representation
7. Management, monitoring, reporting, steering committee arrangements
7.1 It is recommended that the agreement with
the Fund Manager includes a possibility to dis-continue
the cooperation if deemed necessary by
the MFA.
7.1
Agreed. A clause to this effect will be incorpo-rated
into the Agreement.
7.2 A Memorandum of Understanding among
participating donors should be agreed upon and
signed prior to signing of the contract.
7.2
Agreed. A draft MoU has already been drafted
and is being reviewed by the initial donors. The
MoU describes the “rules of engagement” for the
contributing partners and subsequent donors will
also be requested to sign on to it. We will strive to
have it signed before entering the Agreement with
the Fund Manager. This is however also subject
to the input of the other partners.

21
7.3. A process action plan should be prepared
prior to the signing of the contract, outlining out-standing
procedures and legal/administrative
aspects.
7.3.
Agreed. Draft process action plan will constitute
an annex to the Danish Approach paper.
7.4. An inception review should be scheduled at
the end of the inception phase and a joint mid-term
review is recommended after the first two
years of operation.
7.4.
Agreed. Draft TOR have been developed and
included in the Danish approach paper.
7.5. ToR for the advisory board should be pre-pared
and agreed upon during inception.
7.5.
Agreed. Will be addressed during inception.
8. Budget
8.1 Add an extra budget line for reviews and stud-ies
in the approach paper in the areas of DKK ½-
1 mio. annually.
8.1
Agreed and done.
8.2
8.2
9. Identified risks and risk mitigation
9.1 The Consortium needs to develop risk man-agement
approach during the first six month of
implementation.
9.1
Agreed. Will be done during inception.
9.2
9.2
10. Follow-up to the recommendations of the MFA Programme Committee
10.1
10.1
10.2
10.2
11. Other recommendations
11.1
11.1
11.2
11.2

22
Annex 5: List of relevant supplementary material
 Fund Manager consortium technical and financial proposal
 Danish approach paper for support to the joint SRHR fund
 Appraisal report SRHR Fund May 2014
 Improving mechanisms to support civil society organisations working in sexual and re-productive
health and rights, the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs
 Study on Support to Civil Society through Multi-Donor Funds, INTRAC, 2014
 HRBA/Gender screening note
 Environment and Climate Change screening note

04 srhr fund

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (15)

Similar to 04 srhr fund

Similar to 04 srhr fund (20)

04 srhr fund