This article summarises the guidance provided by the Global Fund for early applicants under the new funding model (NFM), the process that these applicants will follow, and the information these applicants are required to submit.
Guidance provided by the Global Fund
In conjunction with the introduction of the new funding model (NFM), the Global Fund is introducing a new, modular approach for describing the programmes for which applicants are requesting funding.
What the Global Fund calls the “taxonomy” of the modular approach is explained in the following diagram taken from a near-final draft of the Concept Note Instructions for Early Applicants.
As the Global Fund describes it, the “country dialogue” is not something that the Fund created. The Fund says that the term describes a dialogue that already occurs, or at least should be occurring, among the country coordinating mechanism (CCM), implementers, technical partners, donors, governments, civil society and key affected populations.
The Global Fund will institute annual assessments of the performance of individual CCMs. During the assessments, the Global Fund will evaluate compliance against four of the six minimum CCM requirements and against what the Fund refers to as “the four associated minimum standards.”
Early CCM applicants under the new funding model will undergo these assessments during the country dialogue process.
In some countries, PEPFAR and the Global Fund provide 90% of total funding for responses to HIV, yet the planning and implementation processes of the two donors are not always aligned. This is one of the findings of an evaluation of the US President’s Emergency Program for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) conducted by the US Institute of Medicine.
The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found much to admire in its diagnostic review of a Round 9 HIV grant to the Caribbean Community Secretariat (CARICOM). The OIG said that it had observed many good management and programme practices in the implementation of the grant, and that the grant was a good model of how a regional grant should work in small island states.
The Global Fund has “missed the point” by jumping directly into the politically very sensitive issue of an allocation model (i.e. how to divide the money). This is the view of Anders Nordström, Ambassador for Global Health at the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, as expressed on a new online forum.
There are several good practices in the implementation of Global Fund grants in Gambia, but there are also weaknesses in financial management, procurement and supplies management, and oversight, according to a diagnostic review carried out by the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
Diagnostic Review Finds that Eritrea Has Used Grant Funds Constructively to Strengthen Health Systems
Eritrea has used Global Fund resources from a number of grants constructively to strengthen its national health systems, a diagnostic review of the country’s grants released by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) has found. The review identified other good practices. But it also revealed weaknesses in programme management and in financial and procurement systems.
According to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), in the short to medium term the Ministry of Health (MOH) in Mozambique may not be able to meet the strict requirements of the Global Fund due to limitations in capacity. The MOH is principal recipient (PR) for three active grants, one for each disease.