Allocation and Catalytic Investment Access to
Description: Allocation and Catalytic Investment Access to Funding 1 Contents 1 Allocation Methodology Catalytic Investments 1 2 Overview 2 Global Fund has adopted a refined allocation methodology to Deliver the aims of 2017-2022 Strategy: Investing to
Related Topics
Download Presentation
"Allocation and Catalytic Investment Access to" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this website for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Presentation Transcript
slide1. Allocation and Catalytic Investment Access to Funding<br>
slide2. 1 Contents 1 Allocation Methodology
Catalytic Investments 1 2<br>
slide3. Overview 2 Global Fund has adopted a refined allocation methodology to
Deliver the aims of 2017-2022 Strategy: Investing to End Epidemics
Increase impact of programs to prevent, treat and care for people affected by HIV, TB and malaria, and build resilient and sustainable systems for health The refined methodology does this by
Driving increased proportion of funding to higher burden, lower income countries
Specifically accounting for epidemics among key and vulnerable populations, the threat of MDR-TB, and for malaria elimination efforts
Providing sustainable and paced reductions where funding is decreasing<br>
slide4. Refinements guided by Key Lessons Learned from 2014-2016 3 Adopting allocation-based funding model enabled Global Fund to actively shape portfolio and align funding to achieve impact in line with Global Partner plans
Lessons learned indicated scope for refinement to improve impact: Limited ability to scale-up in higher burden, lower income countries
Country Bands limited flexibility to address critical funding shortfalls
Needs of key & vulnerable populations, threat of MDR-TB and malaria elimination insufficiently addressed
Incentive funding used to fill gaps rather than catalyze toward strategic aims
Multiple multi-country approaches, not always focused on key global regional barriers to ending epidemics<br>
slide5. Calculation of Country Allocations 4 Disease Burden Country Economic Capacity x Formula-derived Allocation Allocation Formula Maximizes impact in line with disease burden & country economic capacity All but $800m for robust & predictable allocations
Scale-up for high burden, below-formula components
Movement of limited funds & flexibility to balance paced-reductions
Increased emphasis on MDR in TB allocations, as recommended by Technical Partners Initial Calculated Amount $800m moved for scale-up, impact, paced reductions Max/ min shares, external financing adjustments<br>
slide6. Transparent and accountable process, carried out under Strategy Committee oversight Qualitative adjustment process 2017-2019 Aims
Refine allocations for epidemiological contexts not addressed through formula
Account for country-specific contextual considerations to maximize the impact of Global Fund resources in line with the 2017-2022 Strategy Two-stage Process (does not change global disease split) Stage 1:
Refining for epidemiological contexts Stage 2: Single, holistic adjustment
Potential for impact & potential absorption Populations disproportionally affected by HIV
Low Endemicity Malaria Supported by contextual considerations
incl. coverage gaps, risk, domestic/ external financing trends, program efficiencies, buying power, cost of continuing essential programming TB adjustment to be pursued for next allocation period<br>
slide7. Outcomes of Allocation Methodology 2017-2019 6 16% 2,000 1,000 0 14% 2% 0% 13,000 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 12,000 11,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 GNIpc (2015) Composite disease burden U-LMI UMI LI L-LMI Global Fund Board approved $11.1bn for allocation 2017-2019:
$10.3bn for country allocations & $800m for catalytic investments Size of the bubble represents relative size of 2017-2019 allocation Refined methodology drives increased funding to higher burden, lower income countries<br>
slide8. 7 Balancing increases and paced reductions through portfolio Refined methodology balances scale up and paced reductions
Increases in many countries with higher burden, lower economic capacity on average 15% higher than current and projected spend levels (1-114% across portfolio)
Balanced with sustainable paced reductions to many countries with lower burden, higher economic capacity, on average 86% of current and projected spend (50-99% across portfolio, where allocations > $10m)
Global Fund’s new Sustainability, Transition and Co-financing and Challenging Operating Environment support program sustainability, transition and flexibilities in crises<br>
slide9. 8 Increased funding to extreme and severe disease burden countries Distribution of 2017-2019 Allocations – Disease Burden HIV TB Malaria $800 $800 $800<br>
slide10. Distribution of 2017-2019 Allocations – Income & Regions 9 Income (2015) Region $800 $800 Increased funding to low income countries, and sub-Saharan Africa, among others<br>
slide11. 10 10 Applicable malaria catalytic investments are Elimination in Southern Africa, the Greater Mekong Sub-region, Catalyzing Market Entry of new LLINs and Piloting the Introduction of the RTS,S Vaccine (GF/B36/DP06).
NB. Uses 2017 eligibility so does not reflect funding for countries previously eligible in 2011-2016 + $54 million Adolescent Girls and Young Women SSA Priority Countries MDR-TB Priority Countries Top 15 Malaria Burden Countries +$41 million + $89 million $55m $190m $189m Catalytic Investments AGYW catalytic investments TB catalytic investments Applicable malaria catalytic investments +$621 million + $879 million + $375 million Increases to priority countries aligned with Strategy aims<br>
slide12. 62% -80% Impact of Refined 2017-2019 Allocation Methodology Together with domestic resources & other external financers, with allocation methodology positioned to achieve aims of 2017-2022 Strategy & Global Partner Plans Global Partner Plan Impact Targets 86% -100% Lives saved Incidence reduction Increased funding above current spend in:
Sub-Saharan Africa
Highest burden/lower income countries;
AGYW epidemics, MDR-TB and top 15 high burden malaria countries;
Balances scale-up with sustainable paced reductions
Accounts for epidemics among key & vulnerable populations, threat of MRD-TB, and malaria elimination efforts<br>
slide13. 12 Contents 12 Allocation Methodology
Catalytic Investments 1 2<br>
slide14. Aims of Catalytic Investments 13 In order to achieve the aims of the GF Strategy 2017-2022 Global Fund Board recommended that USD 800m be retained for catalytic investments to:
Incentivize use of country allocations for strategic priorities in line with the Global Fund and partner disease strategies, including for key and vulnerable populations, gender-based programs and contributing to resilient and sustainable systems for health:”
Matching funds – to incentivize programming of country allocations for strategic priorities
Multi-country approaches
Strategic initiatives<br>
slide15. What are the objectives of modalities for catalytic investments? 14 Purposes
of catalytic investments<br>
slide16. Overview of Board-approved Catalytic Investments 2017-2019 ~ 80% directly to country programs $200m HIV
TB
Malaria
RSSH
Broader Strategic $190m $202m $166m $42m<br>
slide17. 1. Matching Funds (1/2) Approach to catalyse delivery against priority
Information to applicants
Funding request 16 Matching funds to reward programming of country allocations in line with catalytic priority
Catalytic priorities and associated costs to be pre-defined by Strategy Committee, to ensure countries know upfront whether catalytic funding is applicable to them
Secretariat to map specific disease programs and identify applicable countries based on epi contexts
Funds for catalytic priority will be divided between applicable country components in proportion to their underlying allocation amounts
Provides an amount notionally available to each applicable country component Funds requested through prioritized and costed above allocation request with programmatic elements covering more than the amount available for matching funds
Requirement that country allocation also be programmed towards catalytic priority Eligibility for pre-determined investments communicated as part of allocation letters
Secretariat to ensure:
Timely dissemination of information on catalytic priorities, principles and purpose
Interventions likely to be considered catalytic known by applicant prior to application
Application process is clearly and consistently communicated to all country stakeholders
Relevant preconditions for leveraging funding commitments from countries are highlighted<br>
slide18. 17 Requirement for country to demonstrate sustained domestic financing and political commitments, as appropriate
TRP to develop process and methodology for reviewing and prioritizing above allocation requests including catalytic priorities
GAC to further articulate conditions around matching funds for different countries, taking into account allocation amounts, strategic portfolio considerations as relevant, country contexts, absorptive capacity and performance, among others Review and approval
Additional considerations for award of funds 1. Matching Funds (2/2) TRP reviews request for technical soundness, strategic focus and potential for impact
TRP to evaluate whether the allocation amount has been appropriately programmed towards the catalytic priority before recommending funding for a country component
Funds awarded by the GAC, conditional upon assessment of whether approach is considered catalytic, impactful, and whether can instead be funded through efficiencies in grant making
Where funds remain unawarded by country, reassigned to other countries within catalytic priority * Actual priorities determined by Strategy Committee in consultation with Technical Partners, Communities and Civil Society.
1 GF/B36/DPxx<br>
slide19. Process steps to operationalize catalytic investments - matching funds 18 Step 2:
GAC Review & Decision Step 1:
Consultation Step 3:
Communication Determine applicable countries for each matching funds catalytic priorities
Principles and rationale for the proposed countries
Check-in with partners for feedback on proposed countries
High level matching requirements
GAC deliberations and steer on priority countries for catalytic matching funds, and matching requirements Allocate funds for matching to each applicable countries
Principles and approach to allocating matching funds
Matching requirements and additional considerations, if any
GAC final recommendations on Matching Funds, and Matching Requirements Communication to applicants, Allocation letters to include:
Matching funds catalytic priority(ies) for which the applicant is eligible
Matching requirements to be met by the country; and approach to accessing matching funds Step 4:
Application & Review Application and Review - for Matching Funds:
Submit application through prioritized above allocation request
TRP and GAC Review: Evidence that country allocation has also been programmed towards catalytic priority<br>
slide20. Any other considerations put forth by Functional Teams, Regional Managers / Department Heads and the GAC Adjustments based on catalytic / strategic burden, minimum/maximum grant size, etc. Based on initial amounts proportionate to allocation Allocation + Range of factors and data points considered identifying applicable countries (epi context) and allocating matching funds Focus on Impact, Think Big, Think Bold Feasibility Absorptive capacity (a) Feasibility of utilizing funds additional to country allocations; (b) If catalytic priority can be achieved with efficiencies; (c) country capacity. Potential for impact of investing in catalytic priority based on incentivizing use and what can be achieved through country allocations Potential for Impact<br>
slide21. What is matching? Current discussion with GAC 20 Overall purpose
To incentivize the programming and use of country allocations and drive impact in strategic priorities critical to achieving the Global Fund Strategy
To meet the conditions for matching funds, an applicant must show:
An increase in the 2017-2019 allocation amount designated to the relevant catalytic investment priority, compared to the budget levels in Global Fund grants from the 2014-2016 allocation period.
This amount should at minimum be a 1:1 match for the amount of available matching funds
A corresponding increase in programmatic targets and coverage anticipated through both the increased use of country allocations and use of matching funds towards the relevant catalytic investment priority Flexibilities and exceptions are applied as appropriate based on TRP and GAC review on a case by case basis (e.g. for heavily commoditized grants)<br>
slide22. What is matching? – Example scenarios 21 Example 1
Situation:
A country is eligible for 2,000,000 in key populations (KP) matching funds.
In the last funding cycle they invested 500,000 in KP programming.
Conditions for matching funds:
Increase investment from 500,000 to a minimum of 2,000,000 of their 2017-2019 allocation in KP programming; and
Corresponding increase in their programmatic targets in line with the total 4,000,000 in available funding (total = allocation investment + matching funds). Example 2
Situation:
A country is eligible for 2,000,000 in KP matching funds.
The grants are heavily commoditized and there is no fiscal space in the allocation to increase funding to KP, but the country has good existing KP programming that is funded by domestic or other sources.
If countries are not able to increase funding within allocation:
Flexibility will be applied to reduce the risk of displacing funding away from essential programs.
The TRP will review country’s proposal indicating how the matching funds would catalyze appropriate ambitious plans and interventions even if not directly funded by GF grants. Example 3
Situation:
A country is eligible for 2,000,000 in KP matching funds.
In the last funding cycle they did not invest in key KP.
Conditions for matching funds:
Invest 2,000,000 of their 2017-2019 allocation in KP programming
If countries do not prioritize the designated area of investment/ are not able to meet the condition:
The designated amount goes back into the matching funds ‘pot’ for reinvestment in the portfolio of pre-selected countries for that priority area.<br>
slide23. Budget analysis to understand current spending levels in catalytic priorities, proportionate allocation investments in commodities, etc.
Apply flexibilities and exceptions in implementation of matching funds as appropriate
Monitor outcomes of Program Split to mitigate inappropriate reallocation to matching priorities
Simplify application process for accessing matching funds Moving funding from essential programs to meet matching requirements, e.g. for highly commoditized grants with fiscal constraints
Drawing funds away from other disease programs during program split discussions to meet matching requirements
Using matching funds to backfill gaps, e.g. in programs with paced reductions
Applicable countries do not apply for catalytic matching funds due to complexity of processes 22 Risk Analysis Risks that may potentially undermine matching objectives Potential Risks Mitigation Measures<br>
slide24. For components eligible for catalytic priority areas
Amount awarded may be less than funds requested/available Sources of funding for Prioritized Above Allocation Request (PAAR) 23 National Strategic Plan Global Fund sources: External sources: UQD All applicants are encouraged to submit an ambitious, evidence-based, costed PAAR<br>
slide25. Catalytic Request (5.2) – within prioritized above allocation request 24 Prioritized above allocation request (PAAR): All applicants are encouraged to submit an ambitious PAAR for maximum impact. (5.1)
Applicable countries for matching funds: Submit a Catalytic Request (5.2)
TRP review: Technically sound interventions will be registered as UQD.
2017-2019 period: Opportunities to update PAAR and register UQD during grant-making and grant implementation
Framework for prioritization of items for portfolio optimization will be discussed and approved by the Strategy Committee in Q1 2017 Catalytic Request/ PAAR
Country components (under program continuation) can submit their catalytic request for TRP review during grant-making or implementation.
PROS
Allows flexibilities for countries to submit Catalytic Requests when ready to maximize impact
Fits with streamlined approach to program continuation (20 March submission for Window 1 TRP)
Does not disadvantage components under program continuation and allows time to align with programming of allocation during grant-making or implementation
Enables more rapid operationalization of Board DP on Catalytic Investments, while not delaying accessing allocation for all components
Limitations
Entails a 2-stage process with funding request and catalytic request/ PAAR submitted for TRP review in 2 different stages
May cause delays to realizing investments in catalytic priorities if countries do not access in time As per GAC discussion<br>
slide26. 2. Multi-country approaches (1/3) 25 Multi-country priorities to be pre-shaped or RFP to meet catalytic priorities:
HIV - Key populations sustainability and continuity – US$ 50 M
TB - multi-country responses – US$ 65 M
Malaria: Southern Africa, Mesoamerica, Greater Mekong – US$ 145 M
RSSH - PSM Strengthening: developing local resources for countries – US$ 12 M Approach to catalyse delivery against priority
3 operational categories Pre-shaped existing programs within the scope of a catalytic investment priority that should be continued or refocused.
Pre-shaped new multi-country programs within the scope of a catalytic investment priority and where no existing program can be continued.
Limited Call for Proposals within the scope of a catalytic priority, where requirements do not sufficiently position approach to be proactively shaped.<br>
slide27. . 2. Multi-country approaches (2/3) 26 Way forward: existing programs Secretariat to define criteria to inform the process of determining which existing multi-country programs are continued, refocused or discontinued; as well as which new multi-country grants are identified for pre-shaping
Criteria will build on TERG recommendations and TRP lessons from the review of existing regional programs during the 2014-2016 allocation period, in consultation with GMD, CRG and other relevant Departments, TRP and Partners.
Secretariat to conduct a rapid assessment of existing multi-country portfolio based on defined criteria and present a recommendation for EGMC/GAC approval
Communication to all existing multi-country programs, on outcome of the review and selection process
Responsible transition for existing multi-country approaches not to be continued Way forward: new grants Secretariat to develop guidance for new pre-shaped multi-country proposals and Limited Call for Proposals that will include: application process, regional dialogue, grant making, implementation and grant closure.<br>
slide28. 3. Strategic initiatives 27 Operational considerations
Approach to award
Rationale for optimal approach Secretariat to conduct robust process to determine the final recipients of strategic initiative funding, consulting with partners where appropriate
Where relevant, Secretariat to ensure strong coordination of specific activities with those being undertaken by other partners and donors to ensure they are complementary and build on each other
Each strategic initiative managed by team within the Secretariat, while work may be undertaken either by the Secretariat or selected partner organizations
Where relevant, oversight undertaken within advisory or other external governance structures Funds centrally managed by secretariat, subcontracting to other providers, as appropriate
Award of funds overseen by Secretariat’s Executive Grant Management Committee
Prospective evaluations to be planned for each initiative, for evaluation of impact and to inform future approaches Contracts need to be centrally managed for purposes of efficiency, practicality and to ensure oversight, given their cross-cutting or off-allocation cycle nature
Overall management approach worked as envisioned for allocation 2014-2016 * Actual priorities determined by Strategy Committee in consultation with Technical Partners, Communities and Civil Society.<br>
slide29. 28<br>
slide2. 1 Contents 1 Allocation Methodology
Catalytic Investments 1 2<br>
slide3. Overview 2 Global Fund has adopted a refined allocation methodology to
Deliver the aims of 2017-2022 Strategy: Investing to End Epidemics
Increase impact of programs to prevent, treat and care for people affected by HIV, TB and malaria, and build resilient and sustainable systems for health The refined methodology does this by
Driving increased proportion of funding to higher burden, lower income countries
Specifically accounting for epidemics among key and vulnerable populations, the threat of MDR-TB, and for malaria elimination efforts
Providing sustainable and paced reductions where funding is decreasing<br>
slide4. Refinements guided by Key Lessons Learned from 2014-2016 3 Adopting allocation-based funding model enabled Global Fund to actively shape portfolio and align funding to achieve impact in line with Global Partner plans
Lessons learned indicated scope for refinement to improve impact: Limited ability to scale-up in higher burden, lower income countries
Country Bands limited flexibility to address critical funding shortfalls
Needs of key & vulnerable populations, threat of MDR-TB and malaria elimination insufficiently addressed
Incentive funding used to fill gaps rather than catalyze toward strategic aims
Multiple multi-country approaches, not always focused on key global regional barriers to ending epidemics<br>
slide5. Calculation of Country Allocations 4 Disease Burden Country Economic Capacity x Formula-derived Allocation Allocation Formula Maximizes impact in line with disease burden & country economic capacity All but $800m for robust & predictable allocations
Scale-up for high burden, below-formula components
Movement of limited funds & flexibility to balance paced-reductions
Increased emphasis on MDR in TB allocations, as recommended by Technical Partners Initial Calculated Amount $800m moved for scale-up, impact, paced reductions Max/ min shares, external financing adjustments<br>
slide6. Transparent and accountable process, carried out under Strategy Committee oversight Qualitative adjustment process 2017-2019 Aims
Refine allocations for epidemiological contexts not addressed through formula
Account for country-specific contextual considerations to maximize the impact of Global Fund resources in line with the 2017-2022 Strategy Two-stage Process (does not change global disease split) Stage 1:
Refining for epidemiological contexts Stage 2: Single, holistic adjustment
Potential for impact & potential absorption Populations disproportionally affected by HIV
Low Endemicity Malaria Supported by contextual considerations
incl. coverage gaps, risk, domestic/ external financing trends, program efficiencies, buying power, cost of continuing essential programming TB adjustment to be pursued for next allocation period<br>
slide7. Outcomes of Allocation Methodology 2017-2019 6 16% 2,000 1,000 0 14% 2% 0% 13,000 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 12,000 11,000 10,000 9,000 8,000 GNIpc (2015) Composite disease burden U-LMI UMI LI L-LMI Global Fund Board approved $11.1bn for allocation 2017-2019:
$10.3bn for country allocations & $800m for catalytic investments Size of the bubble represents relative size of 2017-2019 allocation Refined methodology drives increased funding to higher burden, lower income countries<br>
slide8. 7 Balancing increases and paced reductions through portfolio Refined methodology balances scale up and paced reductions
Increases in many countries with higher burden, lower economic capacity on average 15% higher than current and projected spend levels (1-114% across portfolio)
Balanced with sustainable paced reductions to many countries with lower burden, higher economic capacity, on average 86% of current and projected spend (50-99% across portfolio, where allocations > $10m)
Global Fund’s new Sustainability, Transition and Co-financing and Challenging Operating Environment support program sustainability, transition and flexibilities in crises<br>
slide9. 8 Increased funding to extreme and severe disease burden countries Distribution of 2017-2019 Allocations – Disease Burden HIV TB Malaria $800 $800 $800<br>
slide10. Distribution of 2017-2019 Allocations – Income & Regions 9 Income (2015) Region $800 $800 Increased funding to low income countries, and sub-Saharan Africa, among others<br>
slide11. 10 10 Applicable malaria catalytic investments are Elimination in Southern Africa, the Greater Mekong Sub-region, Catalyzing Market Entry of new LLINs and Piloting the Introduction of the RTS,S Vaccine (GF/B36/DP06).
NB. Uses 2017 eligibility so does not reflect funding for countries previously eligible in 2011-2016 + $54 million Adolescent Girls and Young Women SSA Priority Countries MDR-TB Priority Countries Top 15 Malaria Burden Countries +$41 million + $89 million $55m $190m $189m Catalytic Investments AGYW catalytic investments TB catalytic investments Applicable malaria catalytic investments +$621 million + $879 million + $375 million Increases to priority countries aligned with Strategy aims<br>
slide12. 62% -80% Impact of Refined 2017-2019 Allocation Methodology Together with domestic resources & other external financers, with allocation methodology positioned to achieve aims of 2017-2022 Strategy & Global Partner Plans Global Partner Plan Impact Targets 86% -100% Lives saved Incidence reduction Increased funding above current spend in:
Sub-Saharan Africa
Highest burden/lower income countries;
AGYW epidemics, MDR-TB and top 15 high burden malaria countries;
Balances scale-up with sustainable paced reductions
Accounts for epidemics among key & vulnerable populations, threat of MRD-TB, and malaria elimination efforts<br>
slide13. 12 Contents 12 Allocation Methodology
Catalytic Investments 1 2<br>
slide14. Aims of Catalytic Investments 13 In order to achieve the aims of the GF Strategy 2017-2022 Global Fund Board recommended that USD 800m be retained for catalytic investments to:
Incentivize use of country allocations for strategic priorities in line with the Global Fund and partner disease strategies, including for key and vulnerable populations, gender-based programs and contributing to resilient and sustainable systems for health:”
Matching funds – to incentivize programming of country allocations for strategic priorities
Multi-country approaches
Strategic initiatives<br>
slide15. What are the objectives of modalities for catalytic investments? 14 Purposes
of catalytic investments<br>
slide16. Overview of Board-approved Catalytic Investments 2017-2019 ~ 80% directly to country programs $200m HIV
TB
Malaria
RSSH
Broader Strategic $190m $202m $166m $42m<br>
slide17. 1. Matching Funds (1/2) Approach to catalyse delivery against priority
Information to applicants
Funding request 16 Matching funds to reward programming of country allocations in line with catalytic priority
Catalytic priorities and associated costs to be pre-defined by Strategy Committee, to ensure countries know upfront whether catalytic funding is applicable to them
Secretariat to map specific disease programs and identify applicable countries based on epi contexts
Funds for catalytic priority will be divided between applicable country components in proportion to their underlying allocation amounts
Provides an amount notionally available to each applicable country component Funds requested through prioritized and costed above allocation request with programmatic elements covering more than the amount available for matching funds
Requirement that country allocation also be programmed towards catalytic priority Eligibility for pre-determined investments communicated as part of allocation letters
Secretariat to ensure:
Timely dissemination of information on catalytic priorities, principles and purpose
Interventions likely to be considered catalytic known by applicant prior to application
Application process is clearly and consistently communicated to all country stakeholders
Relevant preconditions for leveraging funding commitments from countries are highlighted<br>
slide18. 17 Requirement for country to demonstrate sustained domestic financing and political commitments, as appropriate
TRP to develop process and methodology for reviewing and prioritizing above allocation requests including catalytic priorities
GAC to further articulate conditions around matching funds for different countries, taking into account allocation amounts, strategic portfolio considerations as relevant, country contexts, absorptive capacity and performance, among others Review and approval
Additional considerations for award of funds 1. Matching Funds (2/2) TRP reviews request for technical soundness, strategic focus and potential for impact
TRP to evaluate whether the allocation amount has been appropriately programmed towards the catalytic priority before recommending funding for a country component
Funds awarded by the GAC, conditional upon assessment of whether approach is considered catalytic, impactful, and whether can instead be funded through efficiencies in grant making
Where funds remain unawarded by country, reassigned to other countries within catalytic priority * Actual priorities determined by Strategy Committee in consultation with Technical Partners, Communities and Civil Society.
1 GF/B36/DPxx<br>
slide19. Process steps to operationalize catalytic investments - matching funds 18 Step 2:
GAC Review & Decision Step 1:
Consultation Step 3:
Communication Determine applicable countries for each matching funds catalytic priorities
Principles and rationale for the proposed countries
Check-in with partners for feedback on proposed countries
High level matching requirements
GAC deliberations and steer on priority countries for catalytic matching funds, and matching requirements Allocate funds for matching to each applicable countries
Principles and approach to allocating matching funds
Matching requirements and additional considerations, if any
GAC final recommendations on Matching Funds, and Matching Requirements Communication to applicants, Allocation letters to include:
Matching funds catalytic priority(ies) for which the applicant is eligible
Matching requirements to be met by the country; and approach to accessing matching funds Step 4:
Application & Review Application and Review - for Matching Funds:
Submit application through prioritized above allocation request
TRP and GAC Review: Evidence that country allocation has also been programmed towards catalytic priority<br>
slide20. Any other considerations put forth by Functional Teams, Regional Managers / Department Heads and the GAC Adjustments based on catalytic / strategic burden, minimum/maximum grant size, etc. Based on initial amounts proportionate to allocation Allocation + Range of factors and data points considered identifying applicable countries (epi context) and allocating matching funds Focus on Impact, Think Big, Think Bold Feasibility Absorptive capacity (a) Feasibility of utilizing funds additional to country allocations; (b) If catalytic priority can be achieved with efficiencies; (c) country capacity. Potential for impact of investing in catalytic priority based on incentivizing use and what can be achieved through country allocations Potential for Impact<br>
slide21. What is matching? Current discussion with GAC 20 Overall purpose
To incentivize the programming and use of country allocations and drive impact in strategic priorities critical to achieving the Global Fund Strategy
To meet the conditions for matching funds, an applicant must show:
An increase in the 2017-2019 allocation amount designated to the relevant catalytic investment priority, compared to the budget levels in Global Fund grants from the 2014-2016 allocation period.
This amount should at minimum be a 1:1 match for the amount of available matching funds
A corresponding increase in programmatic targets and coverage anticipated through both the increased use of country allocations and use of matching funds towards the relevant catalytic investment priority Flexibilities and exceptions are applied as appropriate based on TRP and GAC review on a case by case basis (e.g. for heavily commoditized grants)<br>
slide22. What is matching? – Example scenarios 21 Example 1
Situation:
A country is eligible for 2,000,000 in key populations (KP) matching funds.
In the last funding cycle they invested 500,000 in KP programming.
Conditions for matching funds:
Increase investment from 500,000 to a minimum of 2,000,000 of their 2017-2019 allocation in KP programming; and
Corresponding increase in their programmatic targets in line with the total 4,000,000 in available funding (total = allocation investment + matching funds). Example 2
Situation:
A country is eligible for 2,000,000 in KP matching funds.
The grants are heavily commoditized and there is no fiscal space in the allocation to increase funding to KP, but the country has good existing KP programming that is funded by domestic or other sources.
If countries are not able to increase funding within allocation:
Flexibility will be applied to reduce the risk of displacing funding away from essential programs.
The TRP will review country’s proposal indicating how the matching funds would catalyze appropriate ambitious plans and interventions even if not directly funded by GF grants. Example 3
Situation:
A country is eligible for 2,000,000 in KP matching funds.
In the last funding cycle they did not invest in key KP.
Conditions for matching funds:
Invest 2,000,000 of their 2017-2019 allocation in KP programming
If countries do not prioritize the designated area of investment/ are not able to meet the condition:
The designated amount goes back into the matching funds ‘pot’ for reinvestment in the portfolio of pre-selected countries for that priority area.<br>
slide23. Budget analysis to understand current spending levels in catalytic priorities, proportionate allocation investments in commodities, etc.
Apply flexibilities and exceptions in implementation of matching funds as appropriate
Monitor outcomes of Program Split to mitigate inappropriate reallocation to matching priorities
Simplify application process for accessing matching funds Moving funding from essential programs to meet matching requirements, e.g. for highly commoditized grants with fiscal constraints
Drawing funds away from other disease programs during program split discussions to meet matching requirements
Using matching funds to backfill gaps, e.g. in programs with paced reductions
Applicable countries do not apply for catalytic matching funds due to complexity of processes 22 Risk Analysis Risks that may potentially undermine matching objectives Potential Risks Mitigation Measures<br>
slide24. For components eligible for catalytic priority areas
Amount awarded may be less than funds requested/available Sources of funding for Prioritized Above Allocation Request (PAAR) 23 National Strategic Plan Global Fund sources: External sources: UQD All applicants are encouraged to submit an ambitious, evidence-based, costed PAAR<br>
slide25. Catalytic Request (5.2) – within prioritized above allocation request 24 Prioritized above allocation request (PAAR): All applicants are encouraged to submit an ambitious PAAR for maximum impact. (5.1)
Applicable countries for matching funds: Submit a Catalytic Request (5.2)
TRP review: Technically sound interventions will be registered as UQD.
2017-2019 period: Opportunities to update PAAR and register UQD during grant-making and grant implementation
Framework for prioritization of items for portfolio optimization will be discussed and approved by the Strategy Committee in Q1 2017 Catalytic Request/ PAAR
Country components (under program continuation) can submit their catalytic request for TRP review during grant-making or implementation.
PROS
Allows flexibilities for countries to submit Catalytic Requests when ready to maximize impact
Fits with streamlined approach to program continuation (20 March submission for Window 1 TRP)
Does not disadvantage components under program continuation and allows time to align with programming of allocation during grant-making or implementation
Enables more rapid operationalization of Board DP on Catalytic Investments, while not delaying accessing allocation for all components
Limitations
Entails a 2-stage process with funding request and catalytic request/ PAAR submitted for TRP review in 2 different stages
May cause delays to realizing investments in catalytic priorities if countries do not access in time As per GAC discussion<br>
slide26. 2. Multi-country approaches (1/3) 25 Multi-country priorities to be pre-shaped or RFP to meet catalytic priorities:
HIV - Key populations sustainability and continuity – US$ 50 M
TB - multi-country responses – US$ 65 M
Malaria: Southern Africa, Mesoamerica, Greater Mekong – US$ 145 M
RSSH - PSM Strengthening: developing local resources for countries – US$ 12 M Approach to catalyse delivery against priority
3 operational categories Pre-shaped existing programs within the scope of a catalytic investment priority that should be continued or refocused.
Pre-shaped new multi-country programs within the scope of a catalytic investment priority and where no existing program can be continued.
Limited Call for Proposals within the scope of a catalytic priority, where requirements do not sufficiently position approach to be proactively shaped.<br>
slide27. . 2. Multi-country approaches (2/3) 26 Way forward: existing programs Secretariat to define criteria to inform the process of determining which existing multi-country programs are continued, refocused or discontinued; as well as which new multi-country grants are identified for pre-shaping
Criteria will build on TERG recommendations and TRP lessons from the review of existing regional programs during the 2014-2016 allocation period, in consultation with GMD, CRG and other relevant Departments, TRP and Partners.
Secretariat to conduct a rapid assessment of existing multi-country portfolio based on defined criteria and present a recommendation for EGMC/GAC approval
Communication to all existing multi-country programs, on outcome of the review and selection process
Responsible transition for existing multi-country approaches not to be continued Way forward: new grants Secretariat to develop guidance for new pre-shaped multi-country proposals and Limited Call for Proposals that will include: application process, regional dialogue, grant making, implementation and grant closure.<br>
slide28. 3. Strategic initiatives 27 Operational considerations
Approach to award
Rationale for optimal approach Secretariat to conduct robust process to determine the final recipients of strategic initiative funding, consulting with partners where appropriate
Where relevant, Secretariat to ensure strong coordination of specific activities with those being undertaken by other partners and donors to ensure they are complementary and build on each other
Each strategic initiative managed by team within the Secretariat, while work may be undertaken either by the Secretariat or selected partner organizations
Where relevant, oversight undertaken within advisory or other external governance structures Funds centrally managed by secretariat, subcontracting to other providers, as appropriate
Award of funds overseen by Secretariat’s Executive Grant Management Committee
Prospective evaluations to be planned for each initiative, for evaluation of impact and to inform future approaches Contracts need to be centrally managed for purposes of efficiency, practicality and to ensure oversight, given their cross-cutting or off-allocation cycle nature
Overall management approach worked as envisioned for allocation 2014-2016 * Actual priorities determined by Strategy Committee in consultation with Technical Partners, Communities and Civil Society.<br>
slide29. 28<br>