The Global Fund December 2005
Dec 13, 2015
The Global FundDecember 2005
2000 July G8 endorse new AIDS, TB and malaria targets in Okinawa
2001 AprilJuneJuly
African leaders commit to greater response in AbujaEndorsement of the need for a global fund at UNGASSOver US$ 1.5 billion in pledges made by G8 in Genoa
2002 JanuaryAprilJulyNovember
Global Fund created at first Board meetingRound 1 proposals approved at second Board meetingExecutive Director assumes roleInitial disbursements of grants commence
2003 JanuaryJuneOctober
Round 2 proposals approved at fourth Board meetingAdditional funding pledges made by G8 in EvianRound 3 proposals approved at sixth Board meeting
2004 June Round 4 proposals approved at eighth Board meeting
Global Fund: History and key milestones
B&P/300704/9
2005 February First 24 grants undergo Phase 2 Review
Unique structure and operations
• Additional resources for the three diseases– US$ 8.8 billion has been pledged to the Global Fund through 2009-10.
– Non-traditional sources include private foundations and corporations – resource mobilization efforts on-going.
– Funding from donors and for recipient countries is expected to be additional to existing contributions and health budgets.
• Broadened public / private / civil society partnerships– At country level, public sector, NGOs, development partners and private sector participate in
a country-led coordination mechanism for proposal design and implementation.
– The Global Fund itself is governed by a Board with representation from donor and recipient governments, NGOs, communities, foundations and private sector.
• Performance-based funding aligned with harmonization efforts– Grant recipients to focus on results rather than on inputs.
– Building on existing systems and common/harmonized donor arrangements.
B&P/300704/11
Unique structure and operations
• Lean organizational structure – The Global Fund has no field offices and does not implement programs; its small
Secretariat is based in Geneva.
– Local Fund Agents are contracted to conduct program, budget & report assessments and to monitor activities.
– An independent Technical Review Panel of disease & development specialists meets to review grant proposals and to make funding recommendations to the Board.
• Transparency, openness, flexibility, responsiveness– Transparency as a key operating principle means all approved proposals, program details,
contact information and up-to-date financial data are available on the website at www.theglobalfund.org
– A Partnership Forum is held every two years – the first took place in July 2004 in Bangkok, second in Durban in 2006 – to invite the input and recommendations of all stakeholders, particularly those without a direct voice on the Board.
– Commitment to changing in response to lessons learned and valid criticisms.
B&P/300704/12
Model for grant accountability aims to find the right balance between key priorities
Sustainability/
Ownership
Speed
• Rely on local stakeholders at the country level to implement programs and manage grant proceeds
• Encourage the use of existing standards and processes
• Monitor and evaluate programs and make decisions on future funding based on performance and accountability
• Promote rapid release of funds to support target populations
Accountability
ARCH/300704/9
The Global Fund grant process
ARCH/300704/2
•China
•Mongolia
Countries with grants from multiple rounds are assigned the round in which they received their first grant.
Countries with Global Fund grants
With Round 5, the Global Fund has approved• Over 350 components • in over 125 countries • 2-year budget: US$ 3.5 billion• 5-year budget: US$ 8.8 billion
B&P/300704/14
Americas ($256 M),
9%
Eastern Med ($135 M),
4%
Western Pacific
($232 M), 8%
Europe($220 M),
8%
Southeast Asia ($340 M),
11%
Africa ($1885 M),
60%
Distribution of Global Fund commitments Two year budgets
Malaria ($881 M)
29%
HIV/AIDS ($1666 M)
54%
TB ($397 M)
13%
Integrated ($22 M)
1%
HIV/TB ($94 M)
3%
Expenditure by disease
Expenditure by region
PRS/300704/3
Grant portfolio details
Drugs & Commodities
(49%)
Human Resources &
Training (20%)
Infrastructure (13%)
M&E (6%)
Administration (7%)
Other (6%)
Academic and Educational institutions
5%
Government51%
NGOs25%
Private sector5%
Faith-based organizations
5%
Other5%
People living with
HIV/TB/malaria4%
Components by sector of recipientsRound 2-4 only. Data not available for Round 1.
Components by expenditure category Round 1-4
PRS/300704/5
Building the measurement framework
Operational performance
Grant performance
System effects
Impact
Sample Measurementse.g. declining mortality from HIV, TB and malaria
e.g. additionality, sustainability and partnerships
e.g. coverage, people reached by services
e.g. actual against target disbursements
Indicators and measurement tools have been developed with relevant partners for all levels
Proposal Management & Grant Negotiation
Proposal ManagementProposal Success Rates
Building the measurement framework
Operational performance
Grant performance
System effects
Impact
Secretariat Cost Base
Key Highlights Core IndicatorsResource Mobilisation
Resources vs. Need
0
50
100
150
200
250
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3
US
$ M
illio
ns
Submitted Eligible Approved by Board
16
16
16
16
22
19
14
19
11
10
10
10
5
4
4
3
n=
n=
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Q1 03 Q2 03 Q3 03 Q4 03
Op
era
tin
g E
xp
en
ses (
US
$ m
illio
ns)
P rojected Expenditure Actual Expenditure
n=
Disbursement & Grant Support
n=n=
n=
n=n=
n=
$500
$2,000
$1,200
$3,000
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
Cumulative Contributions Cumulative GrantCommitments
US
$ (
mill
ion
s)
Money already Disbursed Cumulative Contributions since 2002
Cumulative Grants Signed Cumulative Grants Approved by Board
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage of TotalDisbursement
Amount Requestedto Date
Percentage of 2Year Grant Period
Elapsed
Percentage
Initial focus on operational performance:the Executive Dashboard
Proposal Manageme
nt
Performance-Based Funding
& Grant Support
Business Services
Grant Negotiation
Resource Mobilisation
Building the measurement framework
Operational performance
Grant performance
System effects
Impact
A suite of tools has been developed to support grant performance management and track grant progress
GSC
Month: 0 12 16 18 20
Grant Performance Report
Implementing the grant performance systemPerformance data in real time
Grant Proposal
Form
CCM Request for continued
funding
Annual
Review
Grant Scorecard
Grant Agreement
Attachment 1
Annex A
Grant Performance Report
Disbursement Request/ Progress Update
Performance rating system
Decision category Grant Performance rating
Contextual considerations
“Go”Phase 2 grant committed for the remaining proposal period (years 3-5)
Aexpected or exceeding
expectations
andNo or minor
contextual issues
“Conditional go”Phase 2 grant committed conditional upon time-bound actions to be taken by the PR/CCM (maximum 1 year)
B1Adequate
and/or
Major contextual issues that can be addressed by the
PR/CCM
“Revised go”CCM/PR reprogramming (targets and Budget substantially revised for Phase 2) subject to Global Fund approval
B2inadequate but
potential demonstrated
and/or
Major recent improvements in
program supporting environment
“No go”*Phase 2 grant not committed *requires Board Decision C
unacceptableor
Critical contextual risks beyond PR
and/or CCM control
M&E/300704/9
Performance based funding works
• Grants are split into four categories based on performance. Grants that under-perform have only received 45 percent of the scheduled disbursements.
Share for the Global Fund
Using conservative approaches, estimates suggest:
• For malaria, the Global Fund contributed 45% of all international funding in 2004. This will greatly increase in 2005
• For tuberculosis, the Global Fund provides 66% of all international funding in 2005
• For HIV/AIDS, the Global Fund contributes 20% of all international funding in 2004
Conclusion
• A great experiment• Passed its first tests• A tool for national efforts to fight disease• A flexible instrument for change• Ownership: stakeholders has the freedom
and responsibility to develop the Global Fund so it remains useful
• A Public-private partnership opportunity