1 / 73

Round 11 Partner Information Session

Round 11 Partner Information Session. IFRC Global Fund Round 11 workshop 3 October 2011 Geneva, Switzerland. Objectives for the day. Provide factual and detail information on Round 11 application materials Put Round 11 in the wider context Explain how the TRP functions

alima
Download Presentation

Round 11 Partner Information Session

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Round 11Partner Information Session IFRC Global Fund Round 11 workshop 3 October 2011 Geneva, Switzerland

  2. Objectives for the day • Provide factual and detail information on Round 11 application materials • Put Round 11 in the wider context • Explain how the TRP functions • Present new eligibility, counterpart financing and prioritization policy, new CCM requirements • Opportunity for Q & A with GF Secretariat teams

  3. Agenda • Recent Board decisions and timelines • Overview TRP • New eligibility, counterpart financing & prioritization policy • New architecture and consolidated proposals • Applications material for R11

  4. The Board decided to delay the Round 11 submission deadline and examine options BD: GF/B24/DP4 Addressing Funding and Approval Process for Round 11, Second Wave of National Strategy Applications (NSAs) and Health Systems Strengthening Platform (HSFP) The Board recognizes uncertainties in relation to the expected funding envelope for Round 11, the Second Wave of NSAs and HSFP applications and notes that it has been revised downward to a current estimate of not more than US$0.8 billion, which may not be available until the fourth quarter of 2013. The Board and the Secretariat will examine options for modification of the application, renewal and approval processes for new and existing investments in light of these resource constraints, the recommendations of the High Level Panel and the Global Fund’s strategy and reform processes. The Board will communicate the results of those deliberations no later than 1 December 2011. These deliberations will also consider options for reallocation of existing commitments to prioritize high-impact interventions, which could increase resources available for new investments. As a result of the expected delay in availability of resources, the Board extends the application deadline for Round 11, the Second Wave of NSAs and HSFP applications until at least 1 March 2012.

  5. The Website has been updated accordingly • “The Board made an important decision at its 24th Board Meeting on 26 September 2011 relating to Round 11 proposals, Second Wave of National Strategy Applications and funding requests through the Health Systems Funding Platform. Due to uncertainties in the amount of financing which is expected to be available to fund this Round, the Board has agreed to: • Delay the closing date for Round 11 proposals, Second Wave of National Strategy Applications and funding requests through the Health Systems Funding Platform from 15 December 2011 to at least 1 March 2012; • Examine options for modifications to the application, renewal and approval processes for new and existing investments; and • To make further decisions in relation to the options at its forthcoming 25th Board Meeting on 21-22 November 2011. • Applicants are therefore informed that the application, renewal and / or approval processes for new and existing grants are liable to change. • The Board made these decisions in recognition of a revised current estimate that not more than US$ 0.8 billion is expected to be available for approving Round 11 proposals Second Wave of National Strategy Applications and funding requests through the Health Systems Funding Platform, and the fact that these resources may not be available until the fourth quarter of 2013. • The Board has committed to communicating its decision on the modifications that may apply to the application, renewal and approval processes no later than 1st December 2011. However, until such time, the existing application forms, processes and guidance for Round 11 (including the Eligibility List (PDF - 645 KB)), the Second Wave of NSAs and the Health Systems Funding Platform remain valid and applicable (although they are subject to future changes). Further information will be provided following the Board decisions no later than 1 December 2011”

  6. Important questions and answers (1/2) • The Global Fund 2011 eligibility list remains valid until the Board makes a decision at its meeting in November 2011 Will the eligibility list be updated? • The implications for applicants will become clear after the Board meeting in November 2011 • However, applicants should not make the assumption that they will become eligible and that the proposal no longer has to be consistent with the proposal concept Will this affect applicants with proposal concepts (related to “funding history”)? Will the current application forms remain the same? • The current application forms remain valid but are subject to future changes • But the Board is considering modifications to the application, renewal and approval processes this could affect the forms

  7. Important questions and answers (2/2) • The Board will examine options for Round 11, Second Wave of NSAs and HSFP proposals in light of resource constraints • Further guidance only available after 1 December 2011 What happens if demand exceeds the $0.8bn • Prospective applicants may wish to consider reallocation of other funds, including from existing grants, to meet critical gaps that need addressing earlier • Further guidance only available after 1 December 2011 What does the potentially “late availability” of funding mean for applicants?

  8. Agenda • Recent Board decisions and timelines • Overview TRP • New eligibility, counterpart financing & prioritization policy • New architecture and consolidated proposals • Applications material for R11

  9. Signature & First Disbursement PR: Grant Negotiations Proposals Process: Overview Board: Call for Proposals Applicant (CCM): Proposal Development Secretariat: Screening TRP: Technical Review 1 - Recommended Board Approval 2 – Rec. Minor changes Periodic Reviews 3 - Re-submission CCM: TRP clarifications(as required) 4 - Rejected

  10. Secretariat: Eligibility Screening Proposals Process: Pre-Technical Review NEW CCM Guidelines • 6 minimum eligibility requirements reviewed at proposal • submission • Ensure the input of a broad range of stakeholders, key population groups and most-at-risk populations • Have documented and transparent processes to: • Solicit and review submissions of proposals for possible integration into a consolidated national proposal • Nominate the Principal Recipient (s) • Conflict of Interest plan in place

  11. TRP: Funding recommendations to the Board Technical Review Panel • Who: • Group of independent and impartial experts appointed by the Board. • Diverse geographic and programmatic backgrounds • Consists of disease experts and cross-cutters • Review: • The TRP looks for proposals that equally demonstrate 27 review criteria, reflecting: • Soundness of approach • Feasibility • Potential for sustainability & impact • Value for Money TRP Review Criteria

  12. For its assessment the TRP looks at the proposal and additional information Documents reviewed by the TRP Proposal From: proposal documentation as submitted by the applicant (including attachments) Secretariat documentation on existing Global Fund grants (Grant Performance Reports, Grant Score Cards and country reports by disease, and previous TRP Review Forms) Epidemiological data provided by WHO and UNAIDS (country profiles, progress reports and epidemiological fact sheets) Other relevant documents from other donors

  13. TRP review process Small groups of 4 members: 2 disease experts + 2 cross-cutters Plenary session of 43 members: Recommendations discussed & finalized If necessary, second review: Additional TRP members asked to provide 2nd recommendation Final plenary : Last day for quality assurance + lessons learned

  14. TRP recommendation categories

  15. TRP Review Form • Summary of TRP decision and rationale • Comprehensive and specific feedback: key strengths and weaknesses • If applicants do not understand the comments  Proposals Inbox, technical partners

  16. TRP: What makes a good proposal? (1 of 2) • Interventions based upon and responding directly to current, documented, epidemiological situation • Coherent strategy, based on national strategies • Robust gap analysis • Clear and realistic analysis of implementation and absorptive capacity constraints • Logical strategy to address capacity constraints

  17. TRP: What makes a good proposal? (2of 2) • Appropriate implementation arrangements • A clear plan for how to monitor activities and evaluate the impact of interventions • Detailed budget and clear workplan • Planned outcomes included as indicators in the ‘Performance Framework’ For more information, TRP Reports Rounds 8-10

  18. Key weaknesses – all diseases and HSS • Not evidence-based or are part of an inappropriate approach for the epidemiological context. • Lacks a coherent strategy. • Inconsistencies between objectives, SDAs, activities, budget and indicators. • insufficient detailed information to assess the feasibility. • Impact and/or outcome indicators are inappropriate or poorly defined (weak performance framework). • The budget is inaccurate or not sufficiently detailed. Information Note, “Most Common Weaknesses Identified by TRP”

  19. Agenda • Recent Board decisions and timelines • Overview TRP • New eligibility, counterpart financing & prioritization policy • New architecture and consolidated proposals • Applications material for R11

  20. In 2011 the Board approved a new eligibility,counterpart financing & prioritization policy • Determines whether an applicant is eligible to apply; for which component and under which conditions • Two pools of funding: “general” and “targeted” (like the MARPs channel in Round 10) • Addition of a “history of recent funding” provision to the eligibility criteria; • Refers to the minimum level of the government’s contribution to the national disease programme • Requirement that all countries – including low income countries – make a minimum contribution to funding the national disease programme • Comes into play when there is not enough money to cover all of the proposals recommended for funding Eligibility Counterpart Financing Prio-ritization

  21. Eligibility: Two pools of funding Two pools of funding • GENERAL: • 90% available funding allocated • Applicants are free to choose between pools, except for upper-middle income countries with high disease burdens • Applicants cannot apply to both pools for the same disease component • TARGETED: • 10% available funding allocated • No cross-cutting HSS • Budget ceilings Each pool covers all three diseases

  22. Eligibility: Focus of proposals is a key difference between two pools • All applications must focus 100% on key populations and/or “highest impact interventions” regardless of income level. • GENERAL • Do not have to meet any focus criteria LICs L-LMICs & U-LMICs • LMIs must focus at least 50% on “underserved and most-at-risk populations” and/or “highest impact interventions.” UMICs • UMIs must focus 100% on “underserved and most-at risk populations” and/or “highest impact interventions”. Definition on next slide • TARGETED • The TRP (not the Secretariat) will determine whether applicants meet the proposal focus requirements during its proposal review.

  23. Eligibility: Definition of focus Underserved and most-at-risk population • Defined within a defined and recognized epidemiological context • Have significantly higher levels of risk, mortality and/or morbidity; AND • Have significantly lower access to, or uptake of, relevant services is than the rest of the population Highest impact interventions • Defined within a defined and recognized epidemiological context • Address emerging threats to disease control, lift barriers to the broader disease response and/or create conditions for improve service delivery • And/or enable the roll-out of new technologies that represent best practice; AND • Are not adequately funded

  24. Eligibility: additional requirements – history of recent funding Exception criteria • Applicants that have received funding for the same disease or cross-cutting HSS component which has been implemented for less than 12 months cannot submit a proposal for the same component • 12-month period calculated from the implementation start date to the closing date for submission of proposals Rule • The proposal corresponds to either one of the exemption situations • A proposal has a different geographical coverage than previous proposal • A proposal calls for the roll-out of new technical guidance requiring significant investment • The need cannot be addressed through reprogramming of existing funds • There is adequate absorptive capacity and ability to roll-out the proposed new intervention 1 2 3 • Applicants ineligible under this rule were able to apply by July 22nd for an exception

  25. Counterpart Financing: Objectives • Improved additionality and sustainability • Shared responsibility that applies to all countries • Improved measurement and accountability over time

  26. Counterpart Financing: Main Criteria 1 Minimum threshold: • Governments of all applicant countries are required to make a minimum contribution to the country’s national disease program • Minimum contributions*: • Low income countries: 5% • Lower LMICs: 20% • Upper LMICs: 40% • Upper-middle income countries: 60% Increasing contributions: Demonstrate that government contribution to the national disease program and to overall health spending is increasing each year Improving expenditure data: Required to report information on financing for the national disease programs on an annual basis, and to show the source of the data in their reports. If non-compliant applicant can submit justification and an action plan 2 3 • These criteria apply whether the proposal is recommending gvt. or non-government Principal Recipients. • All applicants have to meet the counterpart financing criteria, independent of income level (except for regional and non-CCM applicants).

  27. How to calculate the minimum threshold? 1 Government Contribution Government contribution • Annual average govt funding earmarked for disease for past two years expenditure (e.g. 2009 and 2010) and the current year (e.g. budget 2011) • Govt revenues • Govt borrowings from external or private creditors (e.g. World Bank loans) • Debt relief proceeds GF Financing • Annual average of funding requested and other existing Global Fund grants for first three years of implementation

  28. Counterpart Financing: Disclaimer! 2 3 • It is not perfect but a good start! • Steps taken to address the issues • Grant funding can be used by countries to conduct disease expenditure assessments (NHAs, NASAs etc) • Board approved additional funding for GF to collaborate with partners on improving quality of their databases – GMP, STOP TB, UNAIDS, and WHO NHA

  29. Prioritization will take place if there aren’t sufficient funds • Only to be used when there are insufficient funds for all TRP-recommended proposals at the time of Board approval • Different prioritization model for each of the two funding pools • GENERAL • TARGETED • Surplus funds (if any) will be transferred from the Targeted Funding Pool to the General Funding Pool (or vice versa)

  30. Prioritization: General Funding Pool • GENERAL • Builds on the Round 10 model • Gross national income (GNI) per capita will be used as the “tie breaker” for countries with same score • Scores for multicountry proposals will reflect the average for the individual countries included • The total allocation given to upper-middle income countries will not exceed 10% of a funding window

  31. Prioritization: Targeted Funding Pool • TARGETED 2-step process Review Score The TRP will prioritize proposals being recommended for funding in the Targeted Pool • Review of proposals • Category 1, 2 or 2B • Score for each proposal • Based on a methodology developed and agreed on by the TRP • Income level will not be factored in

  32. Eligibility: Overview

  33. Agenda • Recent Board decisions and timelines • Overview TRP • New eligibility, counterpart financing & prioritization policy • New architecture and consolidated proposals • Applications material for R11

  34. New grant architecture: context & overview • Context • The old grant architecture was designed at the GF’s inception and has been added to over time • This grant architecture has supported the achievement of powerful results • And yet, the grant architecture proved overly complex and not scalable New grant architecture (as approved by GF Board in November 2009): Single Stream of Funding per PR in each disease Consolidated disease proposal Periodic Reviews • Objectives of new grant architecture: • Streamline grant management • Enable improved alignment to country plans, programsand cycles • Facilitate a shift from projects to a program-based approach

  35. 1. Single Steam of Funding GF Funding: Kenya TB Program Under the “old” grant architecture… Grant Closure Round 5 Phase 2 Progress Update / Disbursement Grant Closure Phase 2 MoF Round 6 Phase 2 Review Grant Closure Phase 1 Phase 2 Round 9 Grant Closure Phase 1 Phase 2 AMR Round 9 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 • Key Features: • Different grants for each PR, with different budgets, workplans, M&E indicators, etc. with at least 2 PU/DRs every six months. • Grant close-out requirements for activities still ongoing with same PR • Several different “project-based” Phase 2 reviews • Misalignment with national reporting and fiscal cycles • Multiple grants = multiple Audit Reports and Enhancing Financial Reporting

  36. 1. Single Steam of Funding 1. Single Stream of Funding Single Stream of Funding per Principal Recipient (PR), per disease/HSS program is a foundational feature of the new grant architecture • Maintains core Global Fund principals • Dual track financing • Performance based funding • Progress updates and disbursement requests (PU/DR), EFR, OSDV… • Periodic performance reviews • With additional aspects for new single streams of funding • Single funding agreement per PR, per disease/HSS program • Fixed regular Implementation Periods of up to 3 years • Alignment of Implementation Periods with country cycles • Alignment of all PRs in a disease area so that periodic disease program reviews are possible

  37. 1. Single Steam of Funding GF Funding: Kenya TB Program Progress Update / Disbursement Under the “new” grant architecture… Implementation Period start / end Periodic Review 1st implementation period 2nd Implementation period MoF SSF 1st implementation period 2nd Implementation period AMR SSF 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 • Key features: • Transition to SSFs through R9 grant signings • 1 Single Stream Funding per PR, with one budget, workplan, performance framework • Reporting significantly reduced and more program-based • More holistic periodic review across PRs, aligned to national programmatic reporting cycle • Financial commitments aligned to national fiscal cycle

  38. 1. Single Steam of Funding Entry points for transitioning to SSFs

  39. 2. Consolidated Proposals 2. Consolidated Proposals Disease/HSS Program Expected benefits include: • Encourages more holistic, program-based in-country resource planning • Facilitates rethinking of the program and implementation arrangements • Enables CCMs to coordinate the development of proposals based on the larger programmatic picture, and to provide better oversight during implementation • Provides TRP with holistic picture of the program for decision making 2012 2015 2018 PR1 PR2 PR3 • Consolidated Proposal includes: • Continuation of existing & new activities for PR1 & PR2 • Introduction of new PR3 Start of activities from consolidated proposal Means to create and maintain SSFs

  40. 2. Consolidated Proposals Consolidated Proposal vs. Grant Consolidation • Consolidated Proposals are not the same as Grant Consolidation • Consolidated Proposal: • A completeprogrammatic picture of the funding requested from the Global Fund for a disease/HSS program for the duration of the proposal term; and • A request for additional money above what is expected from existing grants/SSFs (incremental amount) in order to expand program coverage and scale-up activities. • Grant Consolidation (to transition to SSF): • Happens at the level of the individual Principal Recipient (outside of the proposals process); and • Involves merging two or more existing grants for the same Principal Recipient and disease/HSS program into a single grant agreement.

  41. 2. Consolidated Proposals Tools to facilitate development of a consolidated proposal

  42. 2. Consolidated Proposals What happens if the consolidated proposal is approved? • Following approval of a Round 11 proposal: • if the country is receiving funding for the first time for a given disease/HSS program: a single stream of funding agreement will be signed for each Principal Recipient; or • if the country has nottransitioned to the new grant architecture for a given disease/HSS program: a single stream of funding agreement will be signed for each Principal Recipient, replacing any existing grant agreement(s); or • if the country hastransitioned to the new grant architecture for a given disease/HSS program: the existing single stream of funding agreement will be amended for the existing Principal Recipient. A newly nominated Principal Recipient in this situation would sign a new single stream of funding agreement. • *If the proposal is not approved, existing activities and funding are not affected

  43. Agenda • Recent Board decisions and timelines • Overview TRP • New eligibility, counterpart financing & prioritization policy • New architecture and consolidated proposals • Applications material for R11

  44. Round 11 application materials have been improved Revised forms • Restructured and simplified Proposal Form and more practical guidelines New tools • New/improved tools to help applicants with consolidated disease proposals • New Applicant Disease Profile (ADP) will provide applicants with existing Global Fund grants an overview of their current financial and programmatic portfolio • Logframeadded to interventions section to help applicants prepare a consolidated summary of their programmatic request New measures • New measures to help smooth the transition to grant signing • Clear delineation of responsibilities between PRs in logframe, performance framework, budget and work plan • Introduction of “PR endorsement” to ensure PRs aware of nomination at time of proposal submission

  45. Overview of important documents for Round 11 Proposal Form Guidelines Proposal inbox proposals@ theglobalfund.org Information notes Online FAQs And many other online resources from partners

  46. Applicant Disease Profiles are a new tool to support applicants • New tool in Round 11 • Provides applicants with • Application history (with CCM info) • Existing grants information (financial and programmatic) • Targeted to support consolidated disease proposals • Complimented by epidemiological partner reports

  47. Overview of all required proposal forms and what to fill out for what Applicable to Form • Section 1-2 • Section 3-8 • Applicant • Component • Attachment A Performance Framework • Attachment B Preliminary list of Pharmaceutical and Health Products • Attachment C Membership details of coordinating mechanisms • Attachment D Logframe • Attachment E Budget, workplan & related tables • Attachment F Budget related tables • Other Eligibility supporting documentation (e.g. meeting minutes) • Component • Component • Applicant • Component • Component • Applicant Attach-ments ATM Either or Form • Part A- Proposal Summary and Applicant Information • Part B- Applicant Eligibility • Part C- Proposal Details • Component • Component • Component Only parts of it mandatory if applied for other ATM component • Attachment 2- HSS Logframe • Attachment 4- Performance Framework • Attachment 5- Financial gap analysis, detailed work plan and detailed budget HSS Attach-ments • Component • Component • Component

  48. Disease componentSection 1: Applicant Info & Funding Summary • Country/economy eligibility information • Funding summary and choice of funding pool • Contact details

  49. Disease componentSection 2: CCM Eligibility • Makes use of proposal wizard to give applicants only the specific sections they need (CCM, non-CCM, etc.) • Link between questions and six minimum CCM eligibility requirements emphasized • Proposal development and PR selection processes (dual-track financing) highlighted • Certain questions not relevant to CCM eligibility screening removed (e.g., Knowledge in Cross-Cutting Issues)

  50. Disease componentSection 3: Country Context • New section in Round 11 • Consolidates all contextual background information, including: • National Program • Major Constraints and Gaps • Efforts to Resolve Weaknesses and Gaps • Epidemiological Profile (updated tables) • Round 11 Priority Interventions • Draws on Applicant Disease Profile and related partner country profiles

More Related