1 / 24

MODULE 1

REGIONAL GLOBAL FUND GRANT CONSOLIDATION WORKSHOP DATE. MODULE 1. An Introduction to the New Global Fund Financing Architecture. MODULE OVERVIEW. SESSION I : Context & Rationale Similarities and differences between old and new architecture SESSION II : Key features of the new architecture

nadine
Download Presentation

MODULE 1

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. REGIONAL GLOBAL FUND GRANT CONSOLIDATION WORKSHOP DATE MODULE 1 An Introduction to the New Global Fund Financing Architecture

  2. MODULE OVERVIEW SESSION I: Context & Rationale • Similarities and differences between old and new architecture SESSION II: Key features of the new architecture • Single Stream of Funding (SSF) • Periodic Review • Access to Funding • Expected benefits and challenges SESSION III: Grant Consolidation • Recap • Grant Consolidation Scenarios • Group Work • Flexibilities in the transition period • Key success factors • Key messages

  3. SESSION I: GRANT ARCHITECTURE REVIEW CONTEXT Old Grant Architecture: • The old architecture was designed at the GF’s inception in 2002 and has been added to over time. • GF was conceived to: • Scale-up without duplicating funding or effort. • Fund holistic, nationally owned programs. • Fund accountable and performing programs. • GF has achieved powerful results but as it matures it is increasingly funding program scale up & extension. • In this context old architecture became overly complex and not scalable

  4. New Grant Architecture: Objectives • Shift from project to programme based funding • Simplify the funding architecture • Contribute to improved alignment and harmonization. • Support and effectively manage growth and transaction cost

  5. SIMILARITIES : OLD & NEW ARCHITECTURE

  6. SESSION II: KEY FEATURES OF NEW ARCHITECTURE 1. Single Stream Funding per PR:One funding agreement per PR per disease. Shifts from project to programme based funding. 2. Periodic Reviews: Shift to programme-based evaluations and reviews (every 3 years for all PRs in the same disease at the same time) in alignment to national cycles. 3. Access to New Funds: Mandatory consolidation with new proposals and periodic reviews; then maintenance and further funding of a single grant agreement for any PR for the same disease in the long term.

  7. KEY FEATURE 1: Single Stream Funding

  8. Review of 36 months of performance Review of 24 months of performance KEY FEATURE 2: Periodic Reviews Long-term 3-Year Model for the Periodic Review

  9. Complexityunder the old architecture: Senegal HIV and AIDS grants Grant Closure Round 6 Phase 2 CNLS Grant Closure Round 9 Phase 2 Phase 1 Grant Closure DLSI Phase 2 Round 9 Phase 1 Grant Closure Phase 2 Round 6 ANCS Grant Closure Phase 2 Phase 1 Round 9 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Progress Update / Disbursement • Key features before consolidation: • About 25 grant activities in 2 years: different budgets, workplans, indicators etc • Misalignment with national reporting and fiscal cycles • Multiple Audits and Financial Reports • Burden on PRs and CCM Phase 2 Review

  10. After single stream funding….. Progress Update / Disbursement 1st implementation period CNLS SSF Periodic Review 2nd implementation period 1st implementation period 2nd implementation period DLSI SSF 1st implementation period ANCS SSF 2nd implementation period 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 • Key Features After Consolidation: • 1 SSF grant per PR: one budget, work plan, performance framework • Rationalised 3 yearly Periodic reviews covering all PRs for disease • Reporting and financing now program-based; 5 activities bi-annually • Simpler implementation, proposal coordination, and grant oversight by CCM • These + 50 other SSF agreements globally reduced GF Portfolio size by 10%

  11. KEY FEATURE 3: Access to Funding (CONSOLIDATED DISEASE PROPOSALS) Consolidated Application All previous and proposed Global Fund support is shown in the proposal for all PRs in that disease. Expected benefits include: • Holistic, national program-based resource planning and gap analysis • CCMs coordinate development of proposals based on wider programmatic view • Facilitates rethinking of the program and implementation arrangements • Gives TRP a wider programmatic picture Program Expansion Phase 1 Phase 2 R6 Phase 1 Phase 2 R7 Phase 1 Phase 2 R8

  12. EXPECTED BENEFITS OF NEW ARCHITECTURE

  13. EXPECTED BENEFITS OF NEW ARCHITECTURE (2)

  14. GENERAL CHALLENGES • In the beginning requires effort and team work • May require substantial technical support in some countries • Places more responsibilities on health sector coordination to function optimally and be more results-oriented • Challenges related to periodic reviews e.g. additional info requirements on program effectiveness and impact • Greater oversight required of CCMs

  15. SESSION III: Recap – moving towards SSF • Grant consolidation • Alignment through Periodic Reviews • New modalities for Access to funding Also • Reprogramming:Move same disease grants to one PR, merging activities and targets, etc • Mainly at times of proposal submission and periodic review, but also others subject to GF policies and procedures on material reprogramming • National Strategy Applications : Apply for funding against national disease strategy, to streamline funding and align GF to national cycles and strategies.

  16. GRANT CONSOLIDATIONQUICK FACTS • Grants can be consolidated during or separate from a GF proposal process • From Round 11, consolidated disease proposals are mandatory • Consolidation can be initiated through PR or CCM • Implementation period of up to 3 years • Consolidation of grants that have less than 12 months from planned start date is not encouraged; efforts outweigh benefits • Gives an opportunity to review conditions precedent and other aspects in grant documents • Consolidating at a time just following Phase 2 renewal has advantages

  17. TRANSITION TO SSFQUICK FACTS (2) • Future approved proposals for an existing PR will be added to the single grant agreement with that PR • Secretariat shall recommend continuation funding based on performance after periodic reviews • “Phase 2” process replaced by one periodic review every 3 years • Rolling Continuation Channel (RCC) application is being discontinued • TRP terms of reference and Proposal Guidelines will be reviewed before R11 to cover new architecture requirement

  18. GRANT CONSOLIDATIONSCENARIOS • Scenario 1: Many grants, 1 PR e.g. Country has 2 HIV grants, both of PR A. • They can consolidate into 1 grant under PR A. • Scenario 2: Multiple grants for a disease with multiple PRs e.g. Country has 3 HIV grants, 2 being managed by PR A and one by PR B • The 2 grants under PR A can be consolidated into 1 grant. • Only same-PR grants are consolidated. The PR B grant remains as-is. • Scenario 3: A country negotiating a Round 10 grant • Can addresses alignment issues and sign a SSF grant. • Scenario 4: A country writing a proposal. • Can consolidate all grants under the same or even different PRs.

  19. GROUP EXERCISE AND QUESTIONS Group Exercises • Tanzania Grant Consolidation decision Exercise • Lesotho Exercise • True or False/ FAQ Exercise Further questions to participants • In your opinion, what would be the potential benefits of the new architecture to your country or one that you have worked in? • What do you think may be some of the challenges or disadvantages of SSF?

  20. Flexibilities During GC Transition Period GF Board has approved certain flexibilities to facilitate GC transitions • Alignment: Able to set grant start date and review period to align with in-country cycles • Initial implementation period(s): Allows reasonable adjustments to length of the first funding implementation period • Borrowing from Phase 2: Can “borrow” up to 12 months of uncommitted Phase 2 funds to consolidate grants and align to country cycles • Reinvestment of efficiencies found: Able to reinvest efficiencies found in grant consolidation to scale up program activities and increase targets • Potential for reprogramming within GFATM guidelines and boundaries e.g. as part of rounds based proposal process

  21. KEY SUCCESS FACTORS FROM PREVIOUS GC EXPERIENCE • Early preparation by countries and partners • Clear guidance on transition scenario from the Global Fund • Using board-granted transition flexibilities such as drawing year 3 funding early or re-scheduling targets. • Early engagement of LFA in the process • Open communication channels involving all major stakeholders • e.g. CCM; PR; LFA; Ministries of Finance, planning etc; health sector committees; others.

  22. KEY MESSAGES • New architecture: SSF, Periodic Reviews & Access to funding • Grant Consolidation mandatory for R11 proposals. • Use Consolidation to promote program-based approach and optimise contribution of grants to national priorities • Benefits of the new architecture outweigh its challenges • Involve the GF and LFA early for clear guidance on transition scenarios, a critical factor • The GF board allows useful transition flexibilities • Advanced and careful planning is critical for success • Identify and address national capacity and TA issues early

  23. USEFUL RESOURCES • GF Architecture Review - Transition Provisions.pdf • GF :New Global Fund Grant Architecture Frequently Asked Questions • Aidspan Q&A Grant Consolidation and SSF.pdf Further information available from: • Architecture webpage: For communications, guidance materials & more www.theglobalfund.org/en/grantarchitecture For further questions: • FPMs • Architecture inbox: ARCinbox@theglobalfund.org

  24. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS • The Global Fund Secretariat • UNAIDS Technical Support Facility • Grant Management Solutions • AIDSPAN • The AIDS Alliance

More Related