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

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

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 3

4. N EW G RANT A RCHITECTURE : O BJECTIVES 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 4

5. SIMILARITIES : OLD & NEW ARCHITECTURE 5 DUAL TRACK FINANCING  Recommendation that countries propose at least one government and at least one non-government PR remains PERFORMANCE BASED FUNDING  Maintains key mechanisms of PBF of grants e.g. PU/DR; LFA assessment; financial evaluation and reporting; site visits  Periodic Performance Reviews maintain core aspects of Phase 2 reviews CORE ASPECTS OF CURRENT PROPOSAL SUBMISSION PROCESS  Calls for proposals  Clear guidelines and proposal forms  CCM coordination of proposal development  Consolidated grants  Streamlined proposal application system  Increased applicant- GF collaboration Intention is to give everyone (CCMs, PRs, TRP, the Secretariat) an holistic picture of GF-financed part of the national program and further streamline systems

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. 6

7. KEY FEATURE 1: S INGLE S TREAM F UNDING 7 Example: Government of Tanzania MOFEA (PR)- Global Fund Grant Agreements Before Consolidation (7 Separate Grant Agreements) After Consolidation (3 Single Stream Fund Grant Agreements) Round 6 TB Grant Agreement Single Stream Funding Agreement for TB Round 9 TB Grant Agreement Round 7 Malaria Grant Agreement Single Stream Funding Agreement for Malaria Round 8 Malaria Grant Agreement Round 9 Malaria Grant Agreement Round 8 HIV Grant Agreement Single Stream Funding Agreement for HIV Round 9 HIV Grant Agreement

8. KEY FEATURE 2: P ERIODIC R EVIEWS Long-term 3-Year Model for the Periodic Review 8 Review of 36 months of performanceReview of 24 months of performance

9. Grant Closure C OMPLEXITY UNDER THE OLD ARCHITECTURE : S ENEGAL HIV AND AIDS GRANTS Round 9 Round 6 CNLS Phase 2 Phase 1 Grant Closure Phase 2 DLSI Round 9 Round 6 Phase 2 Grant Closure Phase 1 Grant Closure ANCS Phase 1 Phase 2 Grant Closure Round 9 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 2010201120122013201420152016 Progress Update / Disbursement Phase 2 Review Phase 2 9

10. A FTER SINGLE STREAM FUNDING ….. CNLS SSF 1 st implementation period DLSI SSF 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% 2010201120122013201420152016 1 st implementation period 2 nd implementation period Progress Update / Disbursement Periodic Review ANCS SSF 1 st implementation period 2 nd implementation period 10

11. KEY FEATURE 3: A CCESS TO F UNDING (CONSOLIDATED DISEASE PROPOSALS) Phase 1Phase 2 Phase 1Phase 2 Phase 1Phase 2 R6 R7 R8 Consolidated Application Program Expansion 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 11

12. EXPECTED BENEFITS OF NEW ARCHITECTURE Improved alignment and harmonization Better fit with in-country planning cycles, Three Ones and IHP through new grant start & periodic review dates SSF promotes program-based approach & better harmonization of donors Country CCMs choose timing of funding commitment and review cycles Increased funding predictability More predictable cycle replaces unpredictable proposal Rounds Simplified and streamlined application process linked to Reviews Up to 3-year implementation periods More time between review and start of next funding cycle Strengthened performance-based funding model; and increased impact More program-based periodic reviews - simultaneous review of all PRs Longer review periods allow more rigorous review of outcome and impact information Larger, focused funds can achieve results faster and with more confidence 12

13. EXPECTED BENEFITS OF NEW ARCHITECTURE (2) Enhanced role of CCM & sector bodies (CSOs, national health system) More meaningful engagement of CCMs and national partners during proposal submission, gap analysis, periodic reviews – enhances CCM governance role Decreased transaction costs for implementers and Secretariat Reduced No. of grants  less disbursement and reporting needs Reduced No. & frequency of reviews & need for extensions or bridge funding Eliminates RCC-related processes and administration Increased national ownership Can strengthen reliance on national plans & involvement of national systems and varied stakeholders: shifts from projects to resemble the national programme more 13

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 14

15. SESSION III: R ECAP – 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. 15

16. GRANT CONSOLIDATION QUICK 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 16

17. TRANSITION TO SSF QUICK 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 17

18. GRANT CONSOLIDATION SCENARIOS 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. 18

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? 19

20. F LEXIBILITIES D URING GC T RANSITION P ERIOD 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 20

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. 21

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 22

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.orgARCinbox@theglobalfund.org 23

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