dr joseph stephen mambo - Apr 04, 2006

so long as the preliminary consignment was utilized in an appropriate way, continued funding to cover the remainder of the proposal period will depend on availability of funds that is ideal.But the problem in most of the GF funds are not utilized in the proper way.Do they reach the targeted grassroot levels? I would suggest the system to proceed for only those whom successfully meets the GF criterias, else GF is asked to look those unforeseen issues regarding health, management capacities, stakeholder participation also political climate, corruption vs maldisbursement.

sisa njikelana - Apr 04, 2006

One of the expectations of initiatives such as the Global Fund is to have an impact pushing back the frontiers of poverty. An assessment process where funds were employed is imperative. Furthermore a hybrid approach, that is of combining grants with capital injection will be very vital! Providing grants to economically challenged communities, in a perpetual manner has its well-known risks. I am of the view the various suggestions contained in other inputs on capital could work well as long as they are integrated with grants specifically for the indigent.
_________________
Sisa Njikelana

LPPrayas - Apr 04, 2006

Dear Sir,
Incase of the approval of the Phase 2 funding, The Global fund should consider the basic criteria of any kind of project. The basic criterion is “Employment Generation” in the society, because only this factor can change the total picture of the society. This will eventually ensure environmental sustainability for the target group, In fact, LPPrayas is following United Nation's Millennium Development Goals (1 to virtually to make poverty a historical word through Sustainable Micro Enterprise Cluster Development Programme (SMECDP). We have a definite project plan for SMECDP in West Bengal as well as all over the country for sustainable livelihood. Which is true to the spirit of “Make Poverty History” slogan of the UN.
Thanking you,
Yours truly,
Pinaki Mukherjee
Secretary
LPPrayas

chandap -  Apr 04, 2006

Grants which come to the end of phase II would appear to have very valuable lessons in how planned proposals were implemented. The way to go would be to critically review the processes and outcomes of such issues as raised, assess the validity of such concerns and then use such information to feed into how future grants will be managed.

There are lots of unforseen issues regarding health systems, management capacities, stakeholder participation, political climate, corruption etc which can have a negative impact on the execution of a very good country proposal. Such issues can turn a very good programme initially into a failure and so when evaluating the milestones covered by fund applicants such considerations will help to better understand caveats in implementing GFATM funded programmes.

Learning from other experiences helps to reduce repetition of certain unwanted barriers in the implementation process. Hence all isues raised have to be contextualised to the pertaining action environment.

basilb - Apr 04, 2006

As I undersatnd it - the NGOs on the ground are doing the delivery. They need funding to carry out their tasks. The problem on the ground is that for NGOs to develop local capacity and skills they need ongoing funding especially to ensure their management structures and capacity can be developed on a sustainable basis. The STOP START present approach when the funding comes to an end just destroys their capacity and ability to sustain delivery as their developed management skills move on.

I propose a different model that we are developing here in Africa as an African solution to address this problem.

Funding should be made as a capital injection. The capital injection for a project should be made for a 5 year period after which the capital can be returned to the Global Fund or renewed for a further 5 years. What the local NGO receives is the interest on the capital amount.

The effect of such a locally developed model would have 2 major advantages for helping the emerging economies develop sustainable solutions. The first is that with a budgeted income over a 5 year period management skills and capacity in the NGO can be better developed for a more effective sustainable delivery. Secondly, leaving capital in an emerging enviroment, local financial skills and institutions can be developed where the capital is invested in local enterprises that wil help develop the local economy.

Indra - Apr 03, 2006

It is important that a good review is carried out on the work that has been completed until phase two funding. Milestones should have been achieved. If the progress report is good and mile stones have been achieved funding should continue otherwise it should be stopped. Unless very good reasons have been given for the failure which was beyond the control of the person carrying out the work.
Public funds should always be accountable and it should be spent for that project and nothing else. This will also serve as a lesson for others in the future.
_________________
Indra Vythilingam
Institute for Medical Research
Kuala Lumpur

Caroline - Apr 03, 2006

The Fund should assess the total outcome of the grant/program if significant progress made, and objectives obtained, the CCM should be invited to propose again, only with a view to further develop progress made. If all funds were not disbursed the country certainly should have the opportunity to present a proposal to acquire the outstanding funds to further their programme(s).
Or, the Fund should use these countries coming to a natural end of their Phase 2 grant(s) as case studies for future grant mechanisms. These countries could provide input and "assistance" to new countries seeking funding.

Apr 03, 2006

What should the Global Fund do to address the issues raised by grants coming to the natural end of their Phase 2 funding?

Please click on the 'Post Reply' button to submit your message.

BACKGROUND:

The Global Fund was established to be a financing mechanism that would fit with existing country systems and impose minimal transaction costs (defined as requirements on administrative systems, implementation processes and personnel in working with the Global Fund) on the countries it funds. Furthermore, it was designed to be an additional source of funding, complementing the efforts of existing donors. However, after four years of implementation, it has become clear that some areas of the Global Fund’s financing model (including the rounds system and the Comprehensive Funding Policy) and architecture (including CCMs, PRs, LFAs and the TRP) could be improved.

A few Issues Raised regarding phase 2 funding so far:

- Finding and securing funding to continue programs started via the expiring Global Fund grant (either through a subsequent round of the Global Fund or other sources), if the program desires to continue
- Directing funds which were earlier used for infrastructure development, into reaching more people.
- Ensuring that a gap in services does not occur from when the Global Fund grant term ends to when new funding becomes available.
- Developing ways to smoothly transition out of programs reaching the end of their funding periods (e.g. closing clinics and prevention centers, helping workers to find other jobs, etc.)

Definition of Phase 2 funding: As noted by various participants during our previous discussions the Global Fund currently approves grant proposals covering a period of up to five years. Funds are initially committed for the first two years of the proposal period. Continued funding to cover the remainder of the proposal period depends on satisfactory program performance and the availability of resources. The extension of the grant to cover the remaining years of the original proposal is referred to as Phase 2 funding. Continuing with this month’s overall theme of working more harmoniously with local and global partners to reduce transaction costs and ensure the lasting impact of the programmes it funds:

What should the Global Fund do to address the issues raised by grants coming to the natural end of their Phase 2 funding?