replenishment report technical notes - mid-term

8/14/2019 Replenishment Report Technical Notes - Mid-Term

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/replenishment-report-technical-notes-mid-term 1/17

TECHNICAL NOTES FOR THE

MID-TERM REPLENISHMENTREVIEW

REPLENISHMENTR E

P L E N

I S H M

E N T



This paper provides a number of technical notes

in response to specific requests from donors

as expressed in The Chair’s Report: The Global

Fund’s First Replenishment 2006-2007, London,

September 2005.

PREFACE

5



7

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR REPLENISHMENT:BASELINE ASSESSMENT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. To support the replenishment of the Global

Fund and as a consequence of discussions held at

the second replenishment conference in Rome in

June 2005, indicators to measure the performance

of the Global Fund were developed in July 2005.

2. The Global Fund was tasked by the Replenish-

ment to prepare a report for the mid-term meeting

that sets out progress against the selected indica-

tors and proposes baseline data and targets forthe remainder of the 2006-2007 replenishment

period and beyond.

3. This report sets out the framework for the

future, outlining progress against the perform-

ance indicators for replenishment and describing

baseline estimates where available. It also

identifies which measures will require partner

support to monitor and suggests improvements

to the measurement effort as applicable.

INTRODUCTION

1. In July 2005, the Global Fund Secretariat con-

vened a working group to define a subset of

indicators that could help in assessing the perfor-

mance of the Global Fund during 2006-2007 and

beyond. The working group included representa-

tives from Belgium, France, Norway, the UK, the

U.S., nongovernmental organizations, the Joint

United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS),

the World Health Organization (WHO), the Global

Fund Technical Evaluation Reference Group (TERG)and the Global Fund Secretariat and was held in

response to a request from participants at the re-

plenishment meeting held in Rome in June 2005.

2. The resulting document, titled the “Outcomes of

the Working Group: Soft Performance Measures” 1

presents the framework for broad-based

measurement of Global Fund performance and

was presented at the subsequent replenishment

conference in London in September 2005. Five

key areas were considered important to monitor

progress:

u promoting multi-sectoral involvement;

u promoting local ownership and sustainability;

u rapid investment of resources;

u ensuring performance-based management; and

u portfolio balance by disease.

3. At the Eleventh Board Meeting held in

September 2005, the indicators and preliminarytarget were presented by the TERG and endorsed.

1 Available on the Global Fund website at: http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/files/about/replenishment/performance_measures_3rdreplenishment.pdf

Update to indicators developed by the Soft Performance Measures working group

CONTEXTUAL CONSIDERATIONS

4. The original working group agreed to work

within the existing system, using tools prepared

by the Global Fund’s Strategic Information and

Evaluation Unit (SIE) under the oversight of the

TERG and the Monitoring, Evaluation, Finance and

Audit Committee (MEFA). The Global Fund has in-

troduced a performance measurement system and

it was agreed that they would use elements of this

system to assess the performance of the Global

Fund, avoiding parallel or duplicative systems andmeasures.

5. The TERG noted that collection of certain perfor-

mance indicators is not within the mandate of the

Global Fund. Partners should be encouraged to in-

clude these measures in their existing systems. At

the Eleventh Board Meeting, the TERG recommend-

ed that where indicator data exists within the Sec-

retariat, it should be provided to the Board. Where

indicator data was not available, the TERG recom-

mended that a plan should be presented which

describes what efforts are underway to collect the

data. The Secretariat provides the existing data in

the attached table and steps are being undertaken

to request the required dat from partners in 2006.

6. The Global Fund strives to align its operations

with internationally-agreed harmonization and aid

effectiveness initiatives. The Global Fund works

within the principles of the Paris Declaration and

is participating in the OECD/DAC measurement of the Paris Indicators for Aid Effectiveness (OECD/

DAC, February 2005) 12), 7-8 July 2005). As a

result, many additional indicators will be captured

through the monitoring effort undertaken to

support the Paris Declaration.



RINCIPLE INDICATOR DRAFT TARGET 2006-2007 BASELINE VALUE DATE PROGRESS AND FOLLOW UP

romotingulti-sectoralvolvement

Increase in total dollars raised f rom private sector Increase in private sc tor shareby 1% per year to 10%

US$ 12,995,000 (1%) 2005 Annually.

Percentage of CCMs that meet the requirements set byGlobal Fund Board

100% 2%1 met all five Board requirements based on providingstrict documented evidence of compliance.1. CCMs reported and documented that its membershipincluded people living or affected by the diseases (71%)2. CCMs with a transparent, documented process for nominatingthe PR and overseeing program implementation (46%)3. CCMs demonstrated a transparent and documented processfor (a) soliciting and reviewing submissions for possibleintegration into the overall proposal to the Global Fund (58%)and (b) ensuring the input of a broad range of stakeholders,including CCM members and nonmembers, in the proposaldevelopment and grant oversight process (31%)

4. Nongovernmental sector constituencies represented onCCMs demonstrated a transparent, documented process toselect or elect their sector representative (52%).5. CCMs with a potential conflict of interest with a writtten planto mitigate against conflict of interest (23%)

Annually. In 2006: CCM eligibilityrequirements are now requiredfor all new grant signings(Rounds 5 and 6 and Phase 2).Results of this will be reported atthe Fourteenth Board Meeting inNovember 2006. In 2007, for allgrants, Global Fund developinga “licensing system” to ensurecompliance of all CCMs to Boardrequirements.This is to bereported on in 2007.

romoting localwnership andustainability

Percentage of grants identified as under-performing by EARS Descriptive Baseline to be available end 2006 Every six months

Percentage of grants addressed successfully out of thoseidentified by EARS prior to Phase 2 evaluation2

70% Baseline to be available end 2006 Every six months

Percentage of under-performing grants at Phase 2 evaluationidentified previously by EARS

85% Baseline to be available end 2006 Every six months

Percentage of grants with complete progress & financial datapublished in grant performance report at time of disbursement (within two weeks)

90% 70% completed internally, 30% published and available externally Jan-Jun2006

Every six months

Percentage of Global Fund-supported countries which haverelevant national strategies/plans that specifically mentionGlobal Fund funding3

UNAIDS/WHO:baseline 2006

Annually

Percentage of countries receiving Global Fund public sectorgrants which report Global Fund funding in the budget4

UNAIDS/WHO:baseline 2006

Annually

Number and change in trained and employed healthpersonnel5

WHO Annually

apidvestment

f resources

Average time between grant approval and first disbursement6 <six months 11.2 months For Round4, 2005

For Round 5 in 2006.Recommendation for target tobe changed to eight months7

Actual disbursements as compared to target disbursement8 90% 95% 2005 Annually

Principal Recipient expenditure rate of funds disbursed 75% 82% (including 14% in contractual commitments) 2005 Annually.Will be available at end of 2006

nsuringerformance-asedanagement

Global Fund Top Three Indicators 85% of targets ARVs 110%; DOTS 143%; ITNs 154% 2005 Annually.Will be available at end of 2006

Percentage of agreed Top Ten coverage targets reached byall grants in Phase 1

85% of targets 74% 2005 Every six months.Mid 2006 progress: 87.8%

alanced bysease

Percentage of grant funds for AIDS/malaria/TB Descriptive AIDS 56%; malaria 26%; TB 17% 2005 Every six months.

NOTES1. This assessment was made prior to the issuance of the revised CCM guidelines in May 2005.2. Underperforming (B2/C rated) grants would be “successfully addressed” when they pass the Phase 2 performance review.3. No target will be set for this indicator. While it is not the Global Fund’s direct responsibility to improve this target, it is important for its

proceedings. Furthermore the Global Fund will rely on its partners (UNAIDS, Stop TB and Roll Back Malaria) for the tracking of this indicator.4. As above, partners will track this indicator. There is a lag in the inclusion of grants in the budget, and evaluation at month 18 is recommended.5. WHO will provide information for this indicator. This is to be considered as a “proxy” indicator as it is limited to health workers and does not

include social and community workers that may be included in the future.

PERFORMANCE INDICATORSFOR REPLENISHMENT

6. This is a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) for the Executive Director.7. The Secretariat proposes this adjustment after analysis of data. It became clear that the six-month target was unrealistic. The average time

between grant approval and first disbursement for Round 4 grants was 11.2 months. However, 30 percent of this time period is occupied by theTechnical Review Panel (TRP) clarification process and is outside the control of the Secretariat. For 2006, eight months was proposed as suitablyambitious, taking into account aspects of the process outside the Secretariat’s control. This represents an improvement of three months onSecretariat-controlled processes.

8. This is also a KPI for the Executive Director. US$ 1.05 billion was disbursed against the target of US$ 1.1 billion for 2005. 9



RESOURCE FORECAST 2006-2007

Based on pledges confirmed at 20 June 2006THE GLOBAL FUND

US$ millions

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Note FUNDING

Contributed (for) 957 937 1,528 1,395 253

1 Pledged, not yet contributed 110 1,659 1,464

Total Contributions 957 937 1,528 1,505 1,912 1,464

Funds available from prior year 341 (20) 198 110

Investment income, minus operating expenses (3) (5) (9) (3) (8) 1

A) Funding Available for Grants 954 1,274 1,498 1,700 2,014 1,465

GRANT APPROVAL NEEDS, BEFORE NEW ROUNDS

2 Phase 1

Rounds 1-4 613 1,294 1,180 (30)

Round 5 720 60

Phase 1 613 1,294 1,180 690 60

Phase 2 Renewals (and continuity of services)

3 Maximum Phase 2 amount anticipated (85%) 120 900 1,843 1,294

4 Allowance for postponements to following year (133) 86

5 Provision for continuity of services 15 43

Phase 2 120 900 1,725 1,423

B) Grant Approval Needs, before new rounds 613 1,294 1,300 1,590 1,785 1,423

Carried over to following year 341 (20) 198 110

A&B) Available for New Rounds, from current year pledges 229 42

6 Adjustment pursuant to Comprehensive Funding Policy 42 (42)

Available for New Rounds 271 –

Round 6 Round 7

7 New Rounds - projected demand 1,100 1,300Additional Pledges Needed (829) (1,300)

US$2,129m

FUNDING GAP 2006-2007: US$ 2.1bn

0

SUMMARY US$ billions

2006 2007 2006 & 2007

Round 6 Round 7

Funds available after covering Phase 2 renewals 0.3 0.3

New Rounds - projected demand 1.1 1.3 2.4

Funding Gap (0.8) (1.3) (2.1)

RESOURCE FORECAST

11

NOTES

1. Includes only confirmed pledges; further pledges are expected in 2006 and 2007. Includes a U.S. government pledge of US$ 300 million for 2007

which may be increased and which is subject to any applicable provisions of U.S. law.

2. “Phase 1” is the initial two-year period of an approved grant proposal.

3. “Phase 2” is the remainder of the approved grant proposal after Phase 1, typically years three to five. Renewal of grants for Phase 2 is contingent on

grant performance, availability of funds and approval by the Global Fund. Assumed that 85% (by monetary value) of grants are renewed.

4. Assumes that 25% of grants eligible for renewal in the final quarter of the year will be postponed for approval to the following year (because of late

submission and delays arising from clarifications and Board referrals).

5. Provision for continuation of services for those grants that are not renewed at the end of Phase 1.

6. The portion of 2007 pledges expected to have been contributed prior to signing (in 2007) of grants approved in 2006, after first providing for Phase

2 renewals in 2007. (Note: There is no similar adjustment in 2007 for a portion of 2008 pledges, because the amount currently pledged for 2008 is

fully absorbed by Phase 2 renewals in 2008.)

7. Assumes that: (a) the value of totally new programs recommended by the TRP remains at the 2002-2005 average of US$ 1 billion per year, and (b)

that upon completing Phase 2, 90% (by monetary value) of grants successfully apply for continuation as a new grant, amounting to US$ 0.1 billion in

2006 and US$ 0.3 billion in 2007.



4 15

large extent, determines the timing of program

start dates and the Phase 2 cycle of the Global

Fund. These issues are the subject of discus-

sions in the strategy development process cur-

rently taking place within the Global Fund.

u Grant consolidation (several grants for the

same disease component in one country) and a

broader shift from project to program financ-

ing are also being considered prominently

in the context of the Global Fund’s strategydevelopment process.

u The rationalization of Country Coordinating

Mechanisms (CCMs) and national AIDS coor-

dinating authorities remains a challenge in

many countries, especially in countries where

national AIDS authorities are responsible for

program implementation separately from the

responsibilities of the Ministry of Health (which

naturally cover malaria and TB programs and

sometimes specific aspects of the HIV program

such as treatment). There are, however, ex-

amples where committed country leadership

has effectively led to a consolidation of mecha-

nisms (e.g., Tanzania).

u The Global Fund has participated in or provid-

ed substantive input to joint program reviews

with the World Bank and other partners in the

Caribbean as well as a number of countries, in-

cluding Eritrea, Ukraine, Rwanda, Mozambique,and Guinea-Bissau.

u In a several countries the Global Fund and the

World Bank are working with national partners

to consolidate management units and man-

agement structures. In Rwanda this is already

occurring with the consolidation of the project

implementation units. Furthermore, agree-

ment in principle has been reached with the

World Bank and PEPFAR on the need for joint

procurement planning and implementation,

a working group has been formed, and an

initial set of countries where such coordination

To build common monitoring & evaluation

(M&E) systems to coordinate funding and

strengthening measures:

u The Global Fund is leading collective ap-

proaches to monitoring and reporting, includ-

ing agreeing standard indicators among nine

international partners for the three diseases,

and coordinating investment in M&E systems.

u In addition, a series of stakeholder M&Estrengthening tools have been developed

with Health Metrics Network, PEPFAR, MEA-

SURE evaluation, and WHO. These are applied

through stakeholder country workshops to

coordinated investments in M&E among part-

ners according to national priorities and gaps,

in line with the “Three Ones” principles.

B. Concrete follow-up within

the workplan of the GTT:

3. Since 2005, the Global Fund has been working

with a range of multilateral and bilateral partners

to move forward in implementing the recommen-

dations of the GTT. While substantial progress has

been made, challenges remain.

4. The table below summarizes the current

progress made on the GTT recommendations and

it was prepared in a collaborative effort between

the United Nations Joint Program on HIV/AIDS (UN-

AIDS), the United Nat ions Director-General’s Office(UNDGO), the United Nations Development Pro-

gram (UNDP), the United Nations Children’s Fund

(UNICEF), the Global Fund and the World Bank.

5. The following is a brief description of the prog-

ress and challenges associated with the recommen-

dations specifically attributed to the Global Fund.

u Most grants now disburse on schedules consis-

tent with national fiscal cycles. However, align-

ing with national planning cycles and annual

action plans remains a challenge due to the

round-based system of proposals, which, to a

would be beneficial has been identified. The

Global Fund, together with the World Bank and

PEPFAR, has begun to coordinate with these

countries to establish workplans and coordina-

tion structures.

u The Global Fund is an active partner in the

Global Implementation and Support Team

(GIST), which was established in July 2005 and

has worked already with a range of countries

to assist in the identification of implementationchallenges and the mobilization of appropriate

support to resolve these challenges. Examples

include assistance to resolve issues in:

n procurement and supply planning and

management in Bolivia, Lesotho, Niger and

Guinea-Bissau;

n monitoring and evaluation in Lesotho

and Nigeria;

n ensuring emergency supplies to prevent

stock-outs of antiretroviral drugs in Niger;

n accelerating the approval of the treatment

guidelines in Guinea-Bissau;

n governance and management related to

CCM and Principal Recipient functioning in

Guinea Bissau, Nigeria, Bolivia, and Niger.

u An independent paper has been produced on

the comparative advantages and areas of over-

lap of the Global Fund and the World Bank.2

The conclusions and recommendations of this

paper have been shared widely and (among

others) are being considered as part of the

World Bank’s Health Sector Strategy and the

Global Fund’s strategy development process.

2 Global Fund - World Bank HIV/AIDS Programs: Comparative Advantage Study , Alex Shakow, 19 January 2006. Available on the Global Fund website

at: http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/files/links_resources/library/studies/GFWBReportFinalVersion.pdf



1. EMPOWERING INCLUSIVE NATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND OWNERSHIP

Recommendations and deliverables Planned outcome Institution Progress reported by institution

1.1. Countries develop annual priority AIDS action plans that drive implementation, improve oversight,

emphasize results and provide a solid basis for the alignment of multilateral institutions’ and international

partners’ support; within related efforts to progressively strengthen national AIDS action frameworks and

root them in broader development plans and planning processes.

Develop “internationally recognized” standards and

criteria for the establishment of annual AIDS action

plans by December 2005

Analysis of existing action plans for best-practice

development and consensus of standards,

criteria and scorecard-style too

World Bank Analysis completed World Bank (2005), review of national HIV/AIDS strategies for countries

participating in the World Bank’s Africa Multi-Country AIDS Program (MAP). Workshop of ex-

perts held January 2006 to develop business plan for AIDS Strategy and action plan facility.

Provide support to the development of annual

priority AIDS action plans in five to ten countries

in highly- affected regions by December 2005

Establishment of ASAP (AIDS Strategy and Action Plan)

facility and support to development of second-

generation strategic AIDS frameworks

World Bank,UNDP

and UNAIDS

Secretariat

Development underway, but further progress pending additional funds.

1. 2. Countries ensure that their macroeconomic and public expenditure frameworks support and

appropriately prioritize the implementation of national AIDS action f rameworks and annual priority

AIDS action plans. The World Bank commits to working with the International Monetary Fund, UNDP

and UNAIDS Secretariat to support these actions.

Provide support on the integration of AIDS into PRSPs

to four countries initially and then to all who are

updating PRSPs

Mainstreaming tools and training workshop

modules/guidelines; training workshops at

regional and national level; support to

preparation of “second generation” PRSPs

UNDP A joint UNDP, World Bank and UNAIDS init iative has been rol led out in seven Afr ican

countries. A review of mainstreaming guides and tools was undertaken, training materials

developed, regional capacity building and country assessment missions and studies

conducted. Initiative is providing technical and financial resources for implementation of

country follow-up activities, and is being expanded to ten additional countries in 2006.

Gather evidence on economic consequences of AIDS to

shape policies, reviews and country assistance. Report

progress on a regular basis

Internal review; preparation of tools and

training

World Bank Pending progress update

2. ALIGNMENT AND HARMONIZATION


2.1. Multilateral institutions and international partners commit to working with national AIDS coordinating

authorities to align their support to national strategies, policies, systems, cycles and annual priority

AIDS action plans

The Global Fund and World Bank will identify approaches

to improve alignment of financing with country cycles

and AIDS action plans

Analysis, assessment and action Global Fund Work Ongoing: alignment with fiscal cycles largely in place; increased emphasis on reference

to and alignment with country plans included in GF Round 6 proposal form. Strengthening of

national credible and costed strategies and action plans, including through Global Task Team

follow-up under ASAP will be critical to strengthen linkages in proposal development and

implementation.

The Global Fund and the World Bank will participate in

joint annual reviews and their primary evaluation

Identify countries and develop nationally-owned

annual reviews for GF/World Bank purposes in

hree countries

World Bank Next steps and country (15) actions defined in Washington consultation meeting between the

World Bank, Global Fund and US ( PEPFAR) (10-11 January 2006). Work Ongoing: Identification

of potential countries for Joint Annual Reviews ongoing - use of same PR not considered

essential as long as program-wide review is undertaken. Joint reviews undertaken or planned

in the Caribbean, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Rwanda and Mozambique to date.

Clarify the relationship between the National

AIDS Coordinating Authority and the Country

Coordinating Mechanism

Analysis and action with report to PCB Global Fund Global Fund in discussions with a number of countries on rationalizing coordinating struc-

tures to fit “Three Ones” and Global Fund CCM requirements. No explicit request rec eived

from countries to date.

6

PROGRESS ON THE GLOBAL TASK TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS, MAY 2006 UPDATE

17




2.2. In line with the OECD/DAC Paris Declaration, Global Fund, World Bank, other multilateral institutions,

and international partners; (a) progressively shift from project to program financing, based on costed,

prioritized, evidence-based, and multisectoral national AIDS action frameworks that are linked to broader

development processes such as Poverty Reduction Strategies; and (b) further commit to harmonizing and

better coordinating their programming, financing, and reporting.

Shift from project to program financing Strategies developed Global Fund As part of the strategy development process for the Global Fund, the Policy and Strategy

Committee (PSC) is discussing options which will be presented for Board approval in Novem-

ber 2006.

Pilot joint financial management and procurement

assessments, and program and financial reporting

Analysis of joint action and feasibility for use

of joint management unit; consensus on

Terms of Reference (TORs) for audits and

performance monitoring

World Bank and

Global Fund

Assessments for Round 5 ongoing with Local Fund Agents strongly encouraged to use

existing assessments. No countries identified that are in both World Bank appraisal and

Global Fund assessment to allow simultaneous, coordinated assessment. Assessments for

Round 5 ongoing with LFAs strongly encouraged to use existing assessments. In countries

where World Bank does an appraisal, Global Fund will not do a separate assessment.

Institute steps to assess status of and challenges to

joint implementation processes and approaches

Improved communication with information

sharing mechanisms

World Bank and

Global Fund

Global Fund accepting joint reporting in SWAp in Mozambique (Finance and Program) and

Malawi (Program for HIV, for Malaria), and emerging in Mali. Other cases in the process of

being documented.

Global Fund and World Bank staff adopting policy of notifying each other of country missions.

GF/WB/US consultation meeting held on all three diseases in Washington, January 2006.

Joint processes being used in varying degrees in Guyana, Mali, Malawi and Mozambique.

Further analytical work to be done on obstacles and challenges, including on the role of LFAs

in SWAp and common fund situations (initiated).

Progress on procurement and supply management

bottlenecks

Identify ten countries with delays, hold

regional workshops, develop action plans,

build consensus policies and procedures

UNICEF and

Global Fund

Planning 7 December 2005; support has been initiated in four GIST countries requiring Procure-

ment and supply management assistance; 2005 training activities ongoing. Training plan for

2006 has been drafted and finalized. WHO/WB/GF/UNICEF-coordinated PSM workshops and

technical support ongoing. Exploration of joint procurement planning in a number of countries

underway. Joint World Bank/PEPFAR/GF Procurement Working Group established March 2006.

3. REFORM FOR A MORE EFFECTIVE MULTILATERAL RESPONSE


3.1 The UN Secretary-General instructed the UN Resident Coordinator to establish, in collaboration with the UN

Country Team, a joint UN team on AIDS—facilitated by the UNAIDS Country Coordinator – that will develop

a unified UN country support program on AI DS within the national planning framework.

The Secretary-General to communicate to UN Resident

Coordinators on establishment of UN-team groups on

AIDS; and UN Development Group to ensure joint teams

with unified programs are established

Letter from UN Secretary-General sent; best-practice

plans, guidelines and TORs for joint UN Teams

developed; unified program in ten countries

UNDGO Letter sent to all UN Resident Coordinators 12/12/2005. Best-practice analysis of UN Theme

Groups undertaken. UN Implementation Support Plans reviewed and benchmarks developed.

TORs of joint teams developed. Comprehensive report on all aspects of joint planning being

finalized. In 19 countries joint UN Teams have been established.

3.2 The multilateral system established a joint UN system/Global Fund problem solving team to support

efforts to address implementation bottlenecks at country level.

National task-specific teams for problem solving and

action on monitoring and evaluation, procurement and

supply management

National task-specific teams for problem solving

established; best-practices documented

UNAIDS

Secretariat

Establishment of how GIST-like functions can effectively be undertaken at country level

is ongoing. GIST guided by UN Country Team.

Establish the Joint UN system-Global Fund

problem solving Team

GIST established with concept paper and

TORs; meetings held monthly

UNAIDS

Secretariat

GIST was established in early July 2005 and has since held regular meetings. Monthly

meetings and consideration of countries facing c hallenges ongoing. Joint GIST missions

made to Guinea-Bissau, Caribbean, Niger and Nigeria. Several other countries with

ongoing GIST support.

8 19




Good practices and lessons learnt disseminated to sup-

port country efforts

“Best practices and lessons learnt” report

disseminated

UNAIDS

Secretariat

Work in progress. Analysis of lessons learnt and communication strategy under

development.

3.3. UNAIDS Cosponsors and the Global Fund establish a more functional and clearer division of labor,

based on their comparative advantages and complementarities, in order to more effectively support countries.

UNAIDS to agree on UN system division of labor Division of labor document developed,

negotiated and disseminated; implemented via

GIST and UN-country teams/theme groups

UNAIDS

Secretariat

To be endorsed at 18th PCB. Agreed by co-sponsor organizations and being used by

co-sponsors to reorient country support.

CCO to consider recommendations from the independent

review at October 2005 meeting

Consider review and any recommended

changes to governance structure; implement

any agreed changes in governance structure.

UNAIDS

Secretariat

The Boston Consulting Group’s (BCG) independent review of the CCO functioning was

discussed at the 26th CCO meeting and the relevant resolution was approved. The 27th

CCO meeting in Madrid, in April 2006, reviewed progress on the implementation of the

resolution. Updates and outcomes will be presented to the 18th meeting of the UNAIDS

Program Coordinating Board (PCB) in June 2006.

Global Fund and World Bank to lead a rapid process to

evaluate and clarify areas of overlap and comparative

advantages between the two

Consensus on independent report on overlap

and actions needed

Global Fund and

World Bank

Consultant report (by Alex Shakow) prepared and presented in January 2006 to Global

Fund and World Bank and relevant governance structures for consideration. Action plan

to be developed to address relevant recommendations.

3.4 Financing for technical support be considerably increased, including expanding and refocusing UNAID S

Program Acceleration Funds (PAF) so they enable the UN system and others to scale up the provision

and facilitation of technical support, based on requests by countries.

Agree on broadening of Program Acceleration Funds Agreement reached on new arrangements for

Program Acceleration Funds; PAF

implemented

UNAIDS

Secretariat

A paper for general agreement on new arrangements of PAF has been developed and

implementation begun.

Determine most effective way to finance expansion of

the Program Acceleration Funds

Agreement reached on financing the Technical

Support Acceleration Funds

UNAIDS

Secretariat

A concept paper on Technical Support Acceleration Funds has been developed. No

agreement reached on financing.

Intensify efforts to evaluate progress on building na-

tional capacity on procurement and supply chain man-

agement

Course materials reviewed and supply chain

management/rational drug use added; nine

regional courses and 30 national courses h eld

World Bank and

WHO

UNICEF, lead agency in this area according to technical support division of labor—for

progress, see 2.2. of this Annex.

4. ACCOUNTABILITY AND OVERSIGHT


4.1 Within existing participatory reviews of national AIDS programs, UNAIDS assist national AIDS coordinat-

ing authorities to lead participatory reviews of the performance of multilateral institutions, international

partners and national stakeholders that build upon existing OECD/DAC standards and criteria for align-

ment and harmonization.

UNAIDS Secretariat lead on development of a

scorecard style accountability tool for partner

participation and alignment

Scorecard-style accountability tool developed,

tested and distributed

UNAIDS

Secretariat and

World Bank

The Country Harmonization Assessment Tool (CHAT) is currently being developed;

Country consultations on preliminary draft started in April 2006. Five countries will be

engaged in review/field testing. CHAT will build on existing data collection and

harmonization assessment tools.

UNAIDS to organize global level review of partner

alignment and support and disseminate the results of

national performance reviews

At least ten countries reporting on

implementation of scorecard with global

review to be held

UNAIDS

Secretariat

Awaiting finalization of CHAT. Once completed, a dissemination strategy will focus on

orientation for use of the tool and to identify countries for application. In early 2007,

findings from the assessment will be analyzed and used for reporting and possible

refinement of CHAT.

0 21




4.2 Multilateral institutions and international partners assist national AI DS coordinating authorities in the

strengthening of their monitoring and evaluation mechanisms and structures that faci litate oversight of

and problem solving for national AIDS programs.

Operationalize a joint monitoring and

evaluation facility

Monitoring and Evaluation Technical Assistance and

Training facility (METAT) functions expanded; review

of monitoring and evaluation harmonization status

in the Reference Group (MERG); Revise Global Fund

Monitoring and Evaluation Toolkit and improve

harmonization of training efforts

UNAIDS

Secretariat and

World Bank

Initial e-workspace facility has been established. This facilitates country requests for

relevant documentation, training, and technical assistance in monitoring and evaluation.

MERG was convened 15–16 November 2005 in Geneva with two sub-working groups

formed to review harmonization of monitoring and evaluation guidance and to foster

coordinated evaluation studies at country level. Global Fund toolkit revised and

disseminated.

Facilitate the establishment of the Monitoring

and Evaluation Country Support Teams

Joint monitoring and evaluation program

launched; initiate second wave of countries

UNAIDS

Secretariat and

World Bank

Monitoring and evaluation country support teams to include UN and other international

partners at country level. Set of principles for harmonizing and aligning work programs

developed and being reconciled with TORs for Country Teams.

Upon country request, place existing and planned

UN-system country monitoring and evaluation advisers

in offices of the national AIDS authority

UN (HIV and AIDS) monitoring and

evaluation staff placed in or close to national

offices; logistical support organized; evaluate

efforts to strengthen national M&E capacity

UNAIDS

Secretariat and

World Bank

Survey to be conducted by the Country and Regional Support Department with

discussion of policy and resource support to follow. Work to be completed in 2006.

Increased role of civil society and academic institutions

as implementers of monitoring and evaluation, including

the collection of information from marginalized commu-

nities and the critical analysis of national data

Capacity-building and involvement of civil

society in-country in the AIDS-response

including M&E activities; identify opportunities

for greater use of civil society as data providers

and analysers

UNAIDS

Secretariat and

World Bank

Following the establishment of the Civil Society Steering Committee in March 2005, the

group provided input to new UNGASS Reporting. Core guidelines provided recommendations

for civil society involvement, including data collection, vetting, and use of qualitative analysis

of indicator results. Global Fund and Secretary-General Reports inc lude CSO input.

2 23



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Momentum continues to build around the

mobilization of private sector resources in sup-

port of the Global Fund and its work, both at the

global and at the country level. Tangible results

have been achieved in each of the three key areas

of private sector contributions, reflecting the suc-

cessful implementation of the resource mobiliza-

tion strategy, and reinforcing the significant future

potential of fully engaging the private sector:

a. Cash contributions: a new cause-related mar-

keting campaign to benefit the Global Fund,

(Product)RED, was launched in January 2006 and

has contributed over US$ 10 million to date;

additional campaigns are being developed for

launch later this year and in 2007.

b. Pro bono services: services contributed to the

Secretariat grew to a value of US$ 12 million

in 2005, a 50 percent increase over 2004; pro

bono and discounted service offers to Global

Fund recipients are now also being mobilized,

as evidenced by the partnership developed

with Standard Chartered Bank to provide a

range of financial services and expertise to

Global Fund recipients and CCMs.

c. In-country co-investments and operational

contributions: the scope and scale of in-coun-

try co-investments continues to grow, with a

wide range of successful models for private

sector contributions to grant implementation

now being documented and explored for ex-pansion.

2. Each of the areas of private sector contributions

promises to yield substantial value for the Global

Fund in the long term. While contributions to the

current replenishment cycle will likely be limited,

continued focus and increased investment could

result in up to ten percent of the Global Fund’s

annual resource needs being met by the private

sector in the next five to ten years.

4

MOBILIZING ADDITIONAL RESOURCESFROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR

PROGRESS TO DATE

CASH CONTRIBUTIONS

1. Given the limited resources of the Global Fund

and its partners dedicated to mobilizing private

cash contributions, all efforts have been focused

on consumer marketing campaigns, leading to

the launch of two new initiatives in 2006:

(Product)RED and the “Hope Spreads Faster than

AIDS” campaign - and two other major initiatives

now being market-tested for launch in 2007.

2. (Product)RED – which brings together leading

global consumer brands to market products which

raise awareness of and funds for the Global Fund

– was launched in early 2006. This cause-related

marketing campaign, whose initial partners in-

clude American Express, Converse (Nike), Gap,

Giorgio Armani and Motorola, has already raised

over US$ 10 million and is proving the tremendous

potential of its unique business model which:

a. Builds on core partner skills and resources, thus

enabling each partner to leverage what they do best;

b. Is viewed as a “win-win” business venture by

partners, thus ensuring its sustainability;

c. Is driven by corporate partners, each making

substantial investments to ensure the success

of the initiative, thus limiting the resources

required from the Global Fund.

3. While (Product)RED focuses on the marketing of

aspirational products, the “Hope Spreads Faster

than AIDS” campaign focuses on the ubiquitousspread of its positive message. This campaign will

be unveiled at the Toronto International AIDS Con-

ference with the launch of a series of AIDS fund-

raising stamps and metered mail to raise monies

for the Global Fund. It is being modeled after the

breast cancer stamp in the U.S. (which has raised

over US$ 40 million to date).

4. Two additional initiatives – a media partner-

led fundraising campaign being developed by the

Secretariat and a grass-roots fundraising campaign

being developed by the U.N. Foundation with sup-

port from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

– are expected to be launched in 2007.

5. In addition to the value of consumer campaigns

as a significant source of revenue, they present

the dual benefit of increased awareness of and

support for Global Fund among millions of voters/consumers in key donor markets, which in turn

creates a more supportive environment for donor

government contributions.

6. Progress in other areas has been limited, due to

either the reliance on external commitments which

have not yet materialized (employee giving, major

philanthropic gifts from corporations), or the lack

of external partners to take the lead in pursuing

the opportunity (major philanthropic gifts from

wealthy individuals and private foundations).

7. Realizing the full potential value of private

cash contributions could generate US$ 200 to

US$ 300 million in additional annual revenue for

the Global Fund over the next five to ten years.

However, achieving this full potential will require

substantially-increased Secretariat resources,

further specificity in enabling “targeted” contribu-

tions to Global Fund grants, and sustained,

long-term commitments from external partners.

25



PRO BONO SERVICES

AND PRODUCT CONTRIBUTIONS

8. Pro bono services continue to support a wide

range of Global Fund activities, freeing up resourc-

es and improving the effectiveness of the Secre-

tariat (see Figure 1). These contributions, currently

only tracked at the Secretariat level, have grown

to a value of US$ 12 million in 2005, a 50 percent

increase over 2004.

Figure 1. Pro bono services to theSecretariat in 2005

COMPANY TYPE OF

CONTRIBUTION

Booz Al len Hamilton Bus iness development

services

DLA P iper Rudn ic k Lega l and manag ement

services

PricewaterhouseCoopers Accounting and

consulting services

Publicis Group and

media partners

Advertising and

marketing services

UN Foundation Fundraising and

administrative services

VH1 (Viacom) Advertising and

marketing services

9. Pro bono and discounted services for Global

Fund recipients (PRs) and CCMs are also now being

explored in the form of global partnerships with

multinationals. One such recently-developed part-

nership with Standard Chartered Bank utilizes the

bank’s core areas of financial management exper-

tise to offer support to Global Fund Principal Re-

cipients, sub-recipients and CCMs. In addition, the

bank is offering Global Fund recipients discounted

banking services on a country-by-country basis.

These offers of expertise and services have already

proven successful in several markets in Asia and

Africa (e.g. Gambia, Zambia, India, Philippines)

and best practices from those markets are now be-

ing codified to facilitate the broader roll-out of the

bank’s support for Global Fund recipients.

10. Product contributions, which have been identi-

fied by the private sector as a significant potential

source of additional resources, are not being con-

sidered at present due to the Global Fund’s lack of

a policy pertaining to such contributions.

11. A joint Board committee, consisting of mem-

bers of the Finance and Audit Committee (FAC)

and the Policy and Strategy Committee (PSC), will

be formed to address this lack of a clear policy on

pro bono contributions of services and products.

This joint committee will be guiding multi-stake-

holder consultations, research on current and po-

tential future contributions, and the development

of potential options for consideration by the Board

in early 2007.

IN-COUNTRY CO-INVESTMENTS

AND OPERATIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS

12. In-country co-investments represent a signifi-

cant source of additional resources which can be

leveraged to increase the effectiveness and scope

of Global Fund financing. While information on

in-country co-investments has not been system-

atically tracked, these types of partnerships have

already become an operational reality and aremaking substantial contributions to Global Fund-

financed grant implementation and country pro-

cesses.

13. Most of the co-investment partnerships that

have been identified to date have not been estab-

lished through the Global Fund proposal process,

but rather directly negotiated between grant recip-

ients and companies. Consequently, the additional

resources mobilized and the impact on grant

implementation resulting from these partnerships

have not been captured or recognized within the

Global Fund reporting system.

6

14. The Secretariat has recently started a mapping

exercise in order to document and characterize

existing models of co-investment partnerships

and several de facto partnerships have already

been identified in Ghana (Anglo Gold Ashanti),

Ivory Coast (ANADER), Kenya (Unilever Tea), Niger

(Areva), Nigeria (oil companies) and Tanzania (Uni-

lever Tea). These case studies will allow companies

interested in co-investment to identify possible

areas of collaboration with other partners (public

sector, civil society) depending on their specifici-ties (core-business, size, location, sector, etc.).

15. The mapping exercise will need to be followed

by systematizing the tracking of co-investment

partnerships through the monitoring and evalu-

ation (M&E) process, thus enabling the capture

and evaluation of these additional in-country

contributions in both quantitative and qualita-

tive terms. This will require capturing the value

of both infrastructure (e.g., a company making its

in-house medical facility available to the surround-

ing community) and staff (e.g., the time spent by

a company’s medical staff treating patients from

the community), as well as the resulting effect on

grant implementation efficiency and disbursement

rates.

16. Tracking and valuing such contributions will

enable the Global Fund to better understand the

magnitude and scope of contributions being made

in country, and thus to better facilitate the expan-sion of successful co-investment models, thereby

leveraging significant additional resources to be

invested in support of Global Fund financing.

CONCLUSION

17. The results achieved to date in each of the

three key areas of private sector contributions

point to the significant potential of fully engaging

the private sector and the substantial value to be

realized in the long term.

27

18. While contributions to the current replenish-

ment cycle will likely be limited, up to ten percent

of the Global Fund’s annual resource needs could

be met by the private sector in the next five to ten

years.

19. Realizing this full potential will require sub-

stantially increased investment of resources by the

Secretariat, modifications to Global Fund policy

and architecture and sustained commitments from

all of the Global Fund’s partners.



PURPOSE OF THE NOTE

1. This note sets out preliminary thoughts on the

Second Replenishment for the Global Fund for

discussion at the Mid-Term Review in Durban on

4 and 5 July 2006. Its purpose is to obtain advice

from donors on how best to carry out the Second

Replenishment, which would take place in 2007

and cover the period of 2008 to 2009 or 2010.

THE GLOBAL FUND

REPLENISHMENT PROCESS2. The replenishment process is new for the Global

Fund. It was established by the Board of the Global

Fund in 2004 and the first replenishment was

done in 2005, covering the two-year period 2006

and 2007. The first meeting took place in March

2005, followed by a second meeting in June 2005

and a third and final meeting in September 2005.

3. The replenishment process has been tailor-

made for the Global Fund. It is intended to be

lighter than replenishment processes for other

international institutions. Other replenishments

typically involve at least four meetings over one

year, compared to three meetings over six months

for the first Global Fund replenishment. The final

report of the first Global Fund replenishment (the

Chair’s Report and the Communiqué, about ten

pages) is significantly lighter than the final reports

of other replenishments.

THE FIRST REPLENISHMENT

LESSONS AND FOLLOW-UP

4. During the First Replenishment it became clear

that future replenishments would benefit greatly

if the Global Fund would develop a long-term strat-

egy and estimate the associated resource require-

ments. This would enable donors during the replen-

ishment to respond to clearly-articulated proposals

and advise the Global Fund on their feasibility from

a financing perspective. The Global Fund has made

great progress in these areas since the completion

of the First Replenishment in September 2005 and

donors will at the start of the Second Replenish-

ment be able to review the Global Fund’s strategy

and estimated resource requirements. The mid-

term review provides updates on the preparation

of these.

OBJECTIVES FOR THE

SECOND REPLENISHMENT

5. The principal objective for the Second

Replenishment is to ensure that the Global Fund

receives sufficient resources in the coming two or

three years to respond to growing demands and

rising expectations.

6. During the meetings in 2007 for the Second

Replenishment, donors will also receive and discuss

updates on the Global Fund’s performance and

results as well as on its progress in harmonization

with other agencies.

GLOBAL FUND RESOURCE NEEDS

7. A separate paper – Resource Needs for the

Global Fund, 2006-2007 and 2008-2010 – pres-

ents a number of scenarios for the Global Fund’s

resource requirements in the coming years. Early

guidance from donors on the 2008-2010 scenarios

would be very helpful for the Second Replenish-

ment.

LENGTH OF THE REPLENISHMENT

PERIOD: TWO OR THREE YEARS?

8. Participants in the replenishment must decide

on the period to be covered by the Second

Replenishment – two years (2008-2009) or three

8

REPLENISHMENT PROCESS

years (2008-2010)? The First Replenishment

covered two years (2006-2007) while

replenishments for most other similar institutions

(such as the soft windows of the multilateral

development banks) cover three years.

9. The first replenishment period covered only two

years because the Global Fund was perceived to

be a young organization without a fully-articulated

long-term vision and strategy and with only a

short track record of performance.

10. Some donors also preferred to provide pledges

on an annual basis, arguing for a shorter replen-

ishment period. Several of these donors are now

attempting to move to multi-year pledges.

11. However, donors might want to consider that

there is more experience now with the Global

Fund as an established organization in develop-

ment financing, enabling a longer-term perspec-

tive. The Global Fund strategy currently developed

by the Board will cover the period through 2010.

The next replenishment period might want to

align itself with this process.

12. A three-year period might also be more effi-

cient at reducing transaction costs for the replen-

ishment. Finally, long-term predictability is one of

the key objectives of the Global Fund resource

mobilization strategy and of the replenishment

as an important part of this effort. Firm commit-ments of significant resources from donors cover-

ing a three-year period would provide the Global

Fund and its recipients with greater security for

their long-term planning, as they will make impor-

tant strategic decisions depending on the availabil-

ity of sufficient and sustainable financing.

13. Are donors prepared to make significant three-

year funding commitments to the Global Fund tak-

ing these arguments into consideration? Or would

donors prefer to remain with a two-year period for

the Second Replenishment?

NUMBER, TIMING

AND LOCATION OF MEETINGS

14. As noted above, three meetings were held during

the First Replenishment and the objective would be

also to carry out the Second Replenishment in three

meetings. Other replenishments typically require at

least four meetings and involve very active discus-

sion by donors of policy, institutional performance,

resource requirements and other subjects.

15. Do donors agree that the objective should beto carry out the Second Replenishment in three

meetings? Or would they like to hold additional

meetings in order to deepen further their

understanding of the Global Fund and, if so, is this

likely to help them contribute additional resources?

When and where should the meetings be held?

Would it be appropriate to follow a schedule similar

to the one followed during the First Replenishment,

with meetings in, say, February/March, June and

September/October?

DOCUMENTS

16. A significant number of papers were prepared

and discussed during the First Replenishment. This

was partly due to the start-up of the replenishment

process and partly because of the need for many

donors to review a number of issues and satisfy

themselves that these were being addressed. This

included the need to review the alignment of work

among the many agencies involved in the fight

against the three diseases.

17. The intention is to provide fewer, well-focused

documents for the Second Replenishment. The

Global Fund’s strategy, performance and resource

requirements would be the principal subjects

covered.Do donors agree with this approach?

OTHER MATTERS

18. Are there other matters that donors wish to

discuss in preparation for the Second Replenish-

ment? Do donors have other proposals for how to

improve the effectiveness of the Global Fund

replenishment process?

Preparing for the Second Replenishment– 2008 and beyond

29



This report was written by Prerna Banati, Barry Greene, Bernhard Schwärtlander , Rajesh Anandan and

Duncan Earle, with input from Christoph Benn.

Design and layout by Art Gecko, [email protected]

© 2006 The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria



The Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria

Chemin de Blandonnet 8

1214 Vernier

Geneva, Switzerland

+41 22 791 1700 (phone)

+41 22 791 1701 (fax)

www.theglobalfund.org

[email protected]

ISBN 92-9224-043-9

replenishment report technical notes - mid-term

Documents