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
8/14/2019 Replenishment Report Technical Notes - Mid-Term
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/replenishment-report-technical-notes-mid-term 2/17
8/14/2019 Replenishment Report Technical Notes - Mid-Term
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/replenishment-report-technical-notes-mid-term 3/17
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
8/14/2019 Replenishment Report Technical Notes - Mid-Term
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/replenishment-report-technical-notes-mid-term 4/17
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.
8/14/2019 Replenishment Report Technical Notes - Mid-Term
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/replenishment-report-technical-notes-mid-term 5/17
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
8/14/2019 Replenishment Report Technical Notes - Mid-Term
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/replenishment-report-technical-notes-mid-term 6/17
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.
8/14/2019 Replenishment Report Technical Notes - Mid-Term
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/replenishment-report-technical-notes-mid-term 7/17
8/14/2019 Replenishment Report Technical Notes - Mid-Term
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/replenishment-report-technical-notes-mid-term 8/17
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
8/14/2019 Replenishment Report Technical Notes - Mid-Term
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/replenishment-report-technical-notes-mid-term 9/17
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
Recommendations and deliverables Planned outcome Institution Progress reported by institution
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
8/14/2019 Replenishment Report Technical Notes - Mid-Term
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/replenishment-report-technical-notes-mid-term 10/17
Recommendations and deliverables Planned outcome Institution Progress reported by institution
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
Recommendations and deliverables Planned outcome Institution Progress reported by institution
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
8/14/2019 Replenishment Report Technical Notes - Mid-Term
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/replenishment-report-technical-notes-mid-term 11/17
Recommendations and deliverables Planned outcome Institution Progress reported by institution
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
Recommendations and deliverables Planned outcome Institution Progress reported by institution
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
8/14/2019 Replenishment Report Technical Notes - Mid-Term
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/replenishment-report-technical-notes-mid-term 12/17
Recommendations and deliverables Planned outcome Institution Progress reported by institution
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
8/14/2019 Replenishment Report Technical Notes - Mid-Term
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/replenishment-report-technical-notes-mid-term 13/17
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
8/14/2019 Replenishment Report Technical Notes - Mid-Term
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/replenishment-report-technical-notes-mid-term 14/17
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.
8/14/2019 Replenishment Report Technical Notes - Mid-Term
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/replenishment-report-technical-notes-mid-term 15/17
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
8/14/2019 Replenishment Report Technical Notes - Mid-Term
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/replenishment-report-technical-notes-mid-term 16/17
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
8/14/2019 Replenishment Report Technical Notes - Mid-Term
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/replenishment-report-technical-notes-mid-term 17/17
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
ISBN 92-9224-043-9