PROGRESS UPDATE ON THE FUNDING MODEL: JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2015

Transcription

1 PROGRESS UPDATE ON THE FUNDING MODEL: JANUARY-FEBRUARY /18

2 INTRODUCTION This update provides an overview of major developments and contains the Secretariat s comments on the following topics: Funding model 2014 year in review Our funding model Register of Unfunded Quality Demand Analysis of compliance with Country Coordinating Mechanism eligibility requirements Reporting progress on the implementation of the Global Fund Strategy The report also contains updated information about the access to funding flow: Access to funding timelines Country dialogue Program split Estimated review schedule for the Technical Review Panel Estimated schedule for Board approval of final grants FUNDING MODEL 2014 YEAR IN REVIEW The Global Fund Board, the Secretariat, partners and external stakeholders all made significant effort to successfully implement the funding model in This year in review provides an overview of some of the Secretariat s operational achievements related to the funding model that occurred in 2014 in addition to day-to-day business. Increasing understanding of the funding model Before and during the rollout of the funding model, trainings, courses and presentations were provided to applicants, the Secretariat, the Board, the Technical Review Panel and other stakeholders to increase understanding of the funding model. Secretariat staff, across all departments, attended seven trainings and 10 clinics on core topics related to the funding model. Since January 2014, country teams have invested 846 days in training on core tools of the funding model and grant-making (calculated by multiplying the number of daylong trainings by the total number of attendees). The Secretariat presented the funding model at over 58 external meetings in all regions where the Global Fund works. Fourteen e-learning courses that explain the funding model were created and are available in English, French, Spanish and Russian on the Global Fund website. 1 A video, cartoon and resource book were also developed to provide an overview of how the funding process works. To ensure clarity of the funding model, the Global Fund s Operational Policy Manuel was updated with 18 new or revised operational policy notes and guidelines. Over 160 public health and monitoring and evaluation Local Fund Agents received a two-day training on the funding model s approach, tools and guidance. In addition, Global Fund legal experts developed and rolled out a new grant agreement structure, and provided explanations for Country Coordinating Mechanisms and Principal Recipients in four languages. Legal experts also held 12 briefing sessions for all country teams introducing the grant agreement structure, including the framework agreement, new grant regulations and grant confirmations. 1 Find a library of e-learning courses on funding model topics online. 2/18

3 Implementing the funding model Global Fund staff from all departments provided support to applicants. This involved realtime and ongoing support to 70 country teams and Country Coordinating Mechanisms throughout concept note development and submission, including: Developing and communicating 113 country allocations with 302 components on time and in four languages; Supporting country dialogue and concept note development; Reviewing over 5,600 applicant documents to screen for Country Coordinating Mechanism eligibility requirements 1 and 2. 2 In 2014, 111 concept notes and 11 iterations were submitted, screened for eligibility and reviewed by the Technical Review Panel and Grant Approvals Committee. To review and approve these funding requests, Secretariat staff managed 15 Grant Approvals Committee meetings and four Technical Review Panel meetings. The Technical Review Panel meetings, all hosted within a six-month period, were equivalent to one month of intense on-site meeting support by Secretariat staff. Funding requests in 2014 represented about 58 percent of the allocation funding for this period, totaling approximately US$8.58 billion. An additional US$525 million in incentive funding was awarded in windows 1-4. Eighty-five percent of concept notes reviewed by the Technical Review Panel in 2014 are now in the grant-making or grant signing stage. The Board approved 33 grant agreements in 2014 from 21 concept notes. Fifteen grants were signed in 2014, nine of which received disbursements totaling US$243.5 million. Additionally, 106 grant extensions were reviewed and approved over 2014, with US$356 million in additional incremental funding. Under the funding model, the time from concept note submission to communicating concept note review results to applicants was reduced from 3.75 months during rounds 9 and 10 in the previous funding model to approximately 2.6 months in windows 1-4. US$2.88 billion was disbursed in 1,400 transactions in Rights and gender Consultations were held with human rights experts, resulting in new human rights standards being included in the grant agreement. A human rights complaint procedure was also established in In-depth support was provided by Global Fund Community, Rights and Gender specialists to 70 countries and regional applicants throughout country dialogue and the concept note development processes. The Key Populations Action Plan and Gender Equality Strategy Action Plan were developed by the Secretariat to help guide a gender and human rights analysis of the first concept notes submitted under the funding model. Furthermore, gender and rights experts supported country teams through in-person weekly clinics, technical briefings and presence in situation rooms (regular meetings with key partners to share information and address issues). 3 Also provided to applicants were resources such as information notes; technical briefs; country profiles; and a community, rights and gender checklist of critical considerations to include in programming. From the US$15 million for the Special Initiative for Technical Assistance on Community, Rights and Gender, approximately US$4 million was disbursed by the end of There are 31 short-term technical support requests underway or fulfilled. For short-term technical support, thus far approximately US$1.1 million has been disbursed. Forty percent of community, rights and gender technical support has been deployed to Africa. 2 Refer to the complete list of CCM eligibility requirements online. 3 Refer to the Key Populations Action Plan. Also refer to the Gender Equality Strategy Action Plan. 3/18

4 Technical cooperation and partnerships The Secretariat hosted monitoring, evaluation and country analysis clinics twice a week for staff, and it hosted technical assistance and partnerships clinics once a week. Three disease teams were also available to provide support to applicants, as was a health systems strengthening and reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health team. Secretariat specialists in technical cooperation participated in over 30 regional meetings and events. The Secretariat facilitated TB, HIV and malaria weekly situation room meetings in collaboration with technical partners and bilateral partners to coordinate technical cooperation across the funding cycle. Impact profiles and program reviews were also done. The rollout of District Health Information Software was completed. Assistance was provided in the development of size estimations of key population groups in 28 countries for a total of 135 activities and interventions. Technical partnership agreements were finalized with the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). WHO reported 236 requests for technical collaboration from 73 countries during the development of concept notes. UNAIDS assisted over 40 countries with 83 technical support requests. Memorandums of understanding were facilitated with the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and United Nations Children s Fund (UNICEF). Partners delivered several capacity-building workshops jointly. External partnerships were leveraged to support Global Fund initiatives on expenditure tracking and sustainability. This included a memorandum of understanding with WHO on national health accounts in 29 priority countries. Technical support on counterpart financing was provided across the Global Fund portfolio for country engagement, and the Secretariat reviewed the counterpart financing of 116 programs in windows 1-4. Improving processes and systems Grant management Under the funding model, the disbursement process was significantly streamlined with the release of a simplified ADMF form. New automated systems have been designed that allow first disbursements to be automated and make staggered cash transfers possible. In addition, pooled procurement disbursements have been integrated. Most of the new systems are hosted on the new Grant Management Platform. The platform now has over 800 active users, of which half are external. The capacity assessment tool was created, allowing the capacity of Principal Recipients to be assessed through an online tool. The number of stuck grants (which occurs when there is at least a six-month delay since the latest disbursement period ended) has decreased from 51 in 2012 to 7 as of December Reducing risk The Secretariat introduced implementation arrangement mapping as a mandatory requirement for all Principal Recipients in Developed as part of operational risk management, this mapping tool gives greater visibility to complex systems. This allows better targeted investments, greater sustainability, increased value for money and strengthened assurance. Weaknesses in health systems can also be pinpointed, making it easier to mitigate risk. 4/18

5 Finance Under the funding model, the finance process was streamlined through the Finance Step-Up project. Migration of all financial information was completed, covering 1,800 purchasing transactions and over 1,000 grants closed and active, approved and not yet approved into the new Enterprise Resource Planning tool. Additionally, in-country cash balances, which are a key component of cash management at the Global Fund, are now being tracked. Financial data for both current financial data and forecasts are now in a single integrated data platform that has enhanced capability for robust financial analysis and timely reporting. A new treasury tool was implemented, expediting the safe transfer of funds as well as improving cash management efficiency. An online financial dashboard also simplifies processes. Resultsbased financing grant pilots were initiated in two countries and through one regional initiative. OUR FUNDING MODEL 2014 was an important year in the history of the Global Fund. Applicants, the Secretariat, the Board, partners and others made tremendous strides fully implementing the new funding model. It has been neither easy nor without challenge. But there has been significant progress and we are on a promising path, Executive Director Mark Dybul wrote in the Report of the Executive Director for the Thirty-Second Board meeting. In this new year, our new funding model is fully operational and no longer new. So, going forward, the Global Fund will gradually transition to using the term funding model when referring to the current funding principles and overall approach. In the other instances where new funding model was once used, more precise, descriptive terms may be more appropriate replacements than funding model. If referencing the concept note application and review process, for example, the access to funding process may be a more suitable description. When describing the full process of country dialogue to concept note submission to grant implementation, the funding cycle may be a more fitting term. To lead the way for this change, the Global Fund has updated its website and the Resource Book for Applicants. Reports, presentations and what we say aloud will take time to change. Meanwhile, the good work of all stakeholders continues, advancing our funding model. REGISTER OF UNFUNDED QUALITY DEMAND The Register of Unfunded Quality Demand is an innovative tool that provides a list of unmet funding requests that have been assessed as strategically focused and technically sound. The register essentially contains requests to fund programs that should be, but cannot yet be, fully funded. It provides a new opportunity for private donors to engage with the Global Fund in an innovative and unprecedented way. All applicants are encouraged to demonstrate ambitious vision in a funding request. Any requests that are considered strategically focused and technically sound by the Technical Review Panel, but for which there are not enough resources currently available, will be placed on the Register of Unfunded Quality Demand for possible future financing over a three-year period. 5/18

6 Financing may come from the following sources: Global Fund resources, comprising: o Any additional Global Fund resources that the Global Fund Board s Finance and Operational Performance Committee approves as available for the register based on an annual assessment; or o Any resources channeled through the Global Fund from eligible donors to specific country disease components. These donors can include private donors (such as corporations, foundations and individuals) and approved public mechanisms (i.e. UNITAID and Debt2Health). Co-investment: o Donors may also wish to use the register to select quality demand, but make and manage co-investments outside of Global Fund systems and structures to fund items on the register through independent processes and engagement with beneficiaries of such co-investments. All countries are eligible to receive funding for unfunded quality demand that is recorded on the register. Regional and multicountry applications may also receive funding through the register, but only from private donor contributions. A reminder: the register facilitates possible financing but it does not guarantee it. The unfunded quality demand registered over 2014 has now been compiled and is on the Global Fund website. 4 This register can be searched and analyzed by region, country, component and intervention in order to help potential donors more easily identify areas of need. The register will be published quarterly, if there are new entries. Interested donors can contact the Global Fund s Private Sector team to engage in more detailed discussions. ANALYSIS OF COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTRY COORDINATING MECHANISM ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS In order for their concept notes to be considered eligible for funding, Country Coordinating Mechanisms (CCMs) must comply with a set of six requirements. These requirements are designed to ensure good governance practices are followed in country. To better understand the challenges CCMs face when working toward compliance and to share best practices with future applicants, the Access to Funding Department analyzed the concept notes submitted in This analysis specifically focused on the documentation provided in the concept notes to show compliance with the first and second eligibility requirements. They require CCMs to: 1a. Clearly document efforts to engage key population groups in the development of a concept note. 1b. Coordinate the development of concept notes through transparent and documented processes that engage a broad range of stakeholders including CCM members and nonmembers in the solicitation and the review of activities to be included in the application. 2. Nominate one or more Principal Recipients at the time of submission of their concept note; document a transparent process for the nomination of all new and continuing 4 See the Register of Unfunded Quality Demand page. 6/18

7 Principal Recipients based on clearly defined and objective criteria; and document the management of any potential conflicts of interest that may affect the Principal Recipient nomination process. The analysis showed (see Figure 1): Of the 111 new concept notes submitted in 2014, 59 percent complied with requirement 1a. However, 35 percent were deemed compliant with challenges. This means some criteria were not fully met, but there was evidence of a credible intention to comply. The follow up required and the feedback provided to CCMs in these situations is determined on a case-by-case basis by an internal review panel. Forty-three percent were compliant with requirement 1b, while 52 percent were compliant with challenges. For requirement 2, 42 percent were compliant while 32 percent were compliant with challenges. One percent (one concept note), however, was deemed noncompliant. This means significant challenges were identified and most of the standard criteria were not met, resulting in the concept note being returned to the applicant for later resubmission. The rate of compliance for requirements 1a and 1b has increased from window to window. This increase could be because CCMs are submitting concept notes, learning from the compliance review process and then applying those lessons when developing subsequent concept notes. Figure 1: CCM eligibility requirement compliance for concept notes submitted in 2014 % of total concept notes of % 60% 40% 20% 0% 59% 52% 43% 35% 42% 32% 0% 0% 1% Requirement 1a Requirement 1b Requirement 2 Total Compliant Compliant with challenges Noncompliant Note: Percentages do not total 100 percent because certain eligibility requirements do not apply to certain applicants. 5 5 These exceptions are explained in the Non-CCM section of the CCM eligibility requirements page on the Global Fund website. 7/18

8 Best practices To help future CCMs successfully develop concept notes and select Principal Recipients, Access to Funding also noted best practices from applicants. The department has shared these tips with CCMs that could be, based on past assessments, at risk of noncompliance. Requirement 1a: Engagement with key populations A number of concept notes showed limited efforts to engage key populations at the level of the CCM and on other levels. Past applicants have fostered robust engagement in these ways: A key population sub-committee was created at the CCM level to develop a key population engagement plan. Focus group discussions were organized with specific key populations groups using participatory methodology and other tools such as e-surveys and interviews. A forum was organized specifically with civil society organizations to capture the concerns and suggestions of most-at-risk populations. Significant efforts were made to engage key populations in a challenging country context or despite the criminalization and active prosecution of same-sex relations. For example, CCMs conducted consultations outside the country with criminalized key populations. Requirement 1b: Inclusive concept note development and review Some concept notes showed limited engagement of a variety of stakeholders during the development of the application. Access to Funding noted these best practices, which may apply to future applicants: Timelines or roadmaps for concept note development were broadly shared in advance with different stakeholders via , meetings or public announcements. Key stakeholders not part of the CCM were invited to CCM or concept note development meetings. An open call to receive concept note proposals was published on a website, and clear criteria were established for the assessment of proposals. Budget drafts developed during technical working groups were published online. Requirement 2: Principal Recipient nomination Some concept notes showed a lack of transparency in the Principal Recipient nomination process. The Secretariat identified these best practices: The CCM published a call for Principal Recipient applications using different communication channels, including radio, websites, s and newspapers and with an application deadline of at least 14 days. The CCM formed a selection committee to review Principal Recipient applications based on clear criteria and presented a shortlist to the CCM. The CCM voted by secret ballot when choosing the members of the selection committee. The CCM carefully followed its own governance rules (on quorum and the voting process) and its conflict of interest policy. More information on the eligibility requirements is online. 6 Questions about the first and second requirements can be directed to the Access to Funding Department: AccessToFunding@theglobalfund.org. 6 See the CCM eligibility requirements page on the Global Fund website. 8/18

9 REPORTING PROGRESS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GLOBAL FUND STRATEGY In 2014, the Secretariat reported extensively on the rollout of the funding model and the progression of applicants through the access to funding process. This New Funding Model Progress Update, for example, was one regular report that showed advances made from month to month. The Secretariat has recently reassessed its reporting and will evolve the focus and quantity of information provided to the Board, Board committees, partners, applicants and other stakeholders. The goal is to give a more holistic view by providing updates on the implementation of the wider Global Fund Strategy. For that reason, this will be the final progress update published. Going forward, information contained in this report will be included in other reports. In addition, standard information from this report will be posted to and regularly updated on the Global Fund website. Country team missions, for example, are now regularly updated on a dedicated Web page, 7 providing a rough indication of country dialogue, concept note development or grant development occurring in country. Concept notes submitted or registered for each window has been available online for some time and will continue to be. 8 That page has been enhanced with charts showing the value of concept notes by component and by band in each window. Finally, copies of concept notes and grant agreements will also now be published online once the Board has approved the related grant agreements and once they have been signed, respectively. The Secretariat looks forward to continuing to identify and deliver the most useful information for the Board, Board committees and stakeholders. 7 See the country missions page. 8 See the concept note registration page. 9/18

10 ACCESS TO FUNDING TIMELINES This section shows the progression of disease components through the access to funding cycle over time. At present, there are 17 concept notes requested for further iteration that have not yet been resubmitted. Forty-nine country concept notes are currently undergoing screening, which will be followed by technical reviews. Sixty-nine are in the grant-making phase of the funding cycle. Figure 2: Cumulative work in progress by access to funding stage Note: This chart does not include regional concept notes. COUNTRY DIALOGUE Table 1 reflects the status of country missions planned by the Global Fund to countries. It is intended to help partners engage effectively in discussions. Not all country missions are related to the development of a concept note and some are intended for routine grant management activities. Country dialogue discussions may also take place outside country visits by the Global Fund. For example, they could be during civil society caucuses. Interested partners are encouraged to reach out to the appropriate Fund Portfolio Manager or the CCM Secretariat to confirm the dates and topics before planning travel, as mission plans change frequently. 10/18

11 Table 1: Global Fund country missions by month (days of the month in parenthesis) planned as of late January Eastern Africa and Africa and Europe Month Middle East: Latin America Middle East: Asia and Nonfrancophone and Caribbean Francophone Central Asia Jan. Burkina Faso (26-30) Burundi (12-16) Congo (Democratic (26-31) Madagascar (19-23) Mauritania (19-23) Niger (18-22) Togo (19-23) Feb. Algeria (16-20) Burkina Faso (1-5) Cameroon (16-18) Comoros (16-20) Côte d Ivoire (23-27) Mauritius (23-27) Mozambique (16-2) Senegal (3-5) Ethiopia (18-21) Gambia (26-30) Kenya (17-23) Lebanon (12-16) Malawi (11-17) Multicountry Africa (SADC) (26-30) Swaziland (11-15) Tanzania (19-24) Yemen (17-22) Zambia (6-11) Zimbabwe (17-24) Angola (23-27) Egypt (2-6) -Bissau (23-28) Jordan (16-17) Lebanon (18-20) Liberia (8-13) MENAHRA (22-25) Namibia (16-20) Rwanda (5-6) Sao Tome and Principe (9-14) Somalia (8-13) South Sudan (9-13) Sudan (8-12) Swaziland (16-20) Yemen (14-20) Iran (Islamic (23-30) Lao (People s Democratic (17-24, 26-30) Nepal (23-26) (6-19) Solomon Islands (9-15) Armenia (27-31) Belarus (28-31) Uzbekistan (28-04) Kazakhstan (9-14) Colombia (26-31) Haiti (26-30) Costa Rica (16-20) El Salvador (16-18) Guatemala (11-13) Guyana and Multicountry Caribbean (OECS) (23-27) Paraguay (23-27) REDCA+ (18-20) March Burkina Faso (9-23) Togo (23-31) Algeria (30-31) Cape Verde (9-14) Egypt (16-20) Eritrea (1-7) Gambia (23-28) Lesotho (9-13) Palestine (2-6) Senegal (2-14) Somalia (22-27) South Sudan (16-21) Cambodia (16-20) Iraq (21-26) Lao (People s Democratic (23-27) Mongolia (9-13) Nepal (2-6) (20-27) Honduras (20) Haiti (23-28) Guyana and Brazil (23-31) Nicaragua (2-6) Ecuador (9-13) PROGRAM SPLIT Before or at the time of concept note submission, CCMs must determine the share of the country allocation across eligible disease components and health systems strengthening. As of 11/18

12 early February, the Secretariat has received 71 program splits for review and has agreed 65 (see Table 2). This represents 67 percent of the 97 applicants that will undergo this process over the replenishment period. Countries that are only eligible for one disease are not included in this table. To date, five countries have decided, based on additional savings, to reevaluate and adjust their agreed program split with the Secretariat. These revised program splits have been approved. Table 2: Approved program split per region as of early February Middle Western Southern Eastern East and and and Europe and Asia North Central Eastern Central Africa Africa Africa Asia Previously approved Approved since last progress update (December 2014) Chad Congo (Democrati c Djibouti Eritrea Ethiopia Rwanda Somalia South Sudan Sudan Uganda Yemen Burkina Faso Cameroon Cape Verde Côte d Ivoire Gambia Ghana Niger Nigeria Sao Tome and Principe Senegal Togo Burundi Comoros Mozambique Swaziland Tanzania Zambia Zanzibar Zimbabwe Botswana Kenya Malawi Afghanistan Bangladesh Bhutan Cambodia Indonesia Korea (Democrati c People s Lao (People s Democratic Mongolia Multicountry Western Pacific Pakistan Philippines Solomon Islands Sri Lanka Thailand Timor-Leste Viet Nam Armenia Moldova ( Ukraine Uzbekistan Azerbaijan Latin America and Caribbean Guatemala Guyana Haiti Honduras Nicaragua Panama Paraguay Suriname Belize Dominican Republic ESTIMATED REVIEW SCHEDULE FOR THE TECHNICAL REVIEW PANEL This section indicates the value of disease components that will be reviewed in each submission window by disease and by band. It also lists which CCMs have registered to submit a concept note in each window (see Table 3). Around 260 new concept notes are expected during this allocation period. Of these, approximately 111 new concept notes (or 43 percent) were reviewed by the Technical Review Panel in Forty-nine concept notes in window 5 are currently undergoing screening. 12/18

13 These window 1-5 concept notes represent approximately 70 percent of the total allocation value. Figure 3: Value of concept notes by component by window as of early February *Figures in future windows reflect current concept note registrations, which are subject to rescheduling. Note: The graph includes neither regional applications nor iterations. The estimated funds for health systems strengthening are based on existing grants. As CCMs submit their program split decisions, the Secretariat expects to see the share of funding for stand-alone health systems strengthening grants to increase. Values shown reflect new concept notes submitted, although not all components move to grant-making. Figure 4: Value of concept notes by band by window as of early February *Figures in future windows reflect current concept note registrations, which are subject to rescheduling. Note: The graph includes neither regional applications nor iterations. Values shown reflect new concept notes submitted, although not all components move to grant-making. 13/18

14 Table 3: Overview of submitted and expected concept note submissions by window as of early February Window HIV TB/HIV TB Malaria HSS Window 1 Submission: 15 May 2014 TRP review: June 2014 Concept notes reviewed: 10 Approximate value: US$0.91 billion Window 2 Submission: 15 June 2014 TRP review: 27 July-1 August 2014 Concept notes reviewed: 23 Approximate value: US$1.78 billion Window 3 Submission: 15 August 2014 TRP review 28 September-3 October 2014 Concept notes reviewed: 39 Approximate value: US$3.15 billion Note: Sudan components counted as one integrated Moldova ( Cuba Guyana Mongolia Paraguay Uzbekistan Gambia REDCA+ Russian Federation SADC Senegal Somalia Haiti Thailand Ukraine Zambia Chad Congo (Democratic India Nigeria Panama Rwanda Sudan Viet Nam Zambia* Bangladesh Cambodia Zimbabwe Afghanistan Armenia Bhutan Comoros Moldova ( Multicountry Western Pacific Pakistan Congo (Democratic Indonesia Philippines Timor-Leste Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe Bangladesh Cameroon Ethiopia Korea (Democratic People s Nigeria Pakistan * Rwanda Senegal Somalia Swaziland Chad Ghana * Honduras India Multicountry Western Pacific Pakistan* Solomon Islands South Sudan Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Yemen Zambia* Afghanistan Sudan concept note. *Applicant resubmitted a concept note for another iteration. Note: The information above is based on inputs from CCMs and other external sources and is subject to change. Total approximate values by future windows shown reflect new concept notes and do not reflect iterations, regional concept notes and other special cases. 14/18

15 Window HIV TB/HIV TB Malaria HSS Window 4 Submission: 15 October 2014 TRP review: November 2014 Concept notes reviewed: 50 Approximate value: US$2.73 billion Note: Sudan components counted as one integrated concept note. Window 5 Submission: 30 January 2015 TRP review: March 2015 Concept notes undergoing screening: 49 Approximate value of country concept notes: US$1.74 billion Bangladesh Bhutan Costa Rica Iran (Islamic Mauritius Nicaragua Niger Paraguay* * Philippines South Sudan Cambodia Dominican Republic Jamaica Kosovo Lao (People s Democratic Madagascar Multicountry Western Pacific Tajikistan Tunisia Yemen Burkina Faso Cameroon Ethiopia Ghana Haiti* Mozambique Sudan* Swaziland Tanzania (United Togo Uganda Zanzibar Albania Belize Botswana Burundi Cape Verde Djibouti Kenya Kyrgyzstan Malawi Suriname Bulgaria Fiji Korea (Democratic People s Lao (People s Democratic Pakistan* Romania Sao Tome and Principe Solomon Islands South Sudan Sri Lanka Azerbaijan Gambia Tajikistan Uzbekistan Bhutan Burkina Faso Cambodia Cape Verde Comoros Côte d Ivoire Djibouti Eritrea Lao (People s Democratic Mozambique Somalia* Sudan* Zanzibar Afghanistan Botswana Burundi Kenya Madagascar Malawi Tajikistan Burkina Faso Ethiopia Senegal South Sudan Sudan* Uganda Cambodia Lao (People s Democratic Note: 16 regional concept notes are undergoing screening. 15/18

16 Window HIV TB/HIV TB Malaria HSS Window 6 Submission: 20 April 2015 TRP review: June 2015 Concept notes registered: 65 Approximate value: US$1.85 billion Window 7 Submission: 15 July 2015 TRP review: 31 August-6 September 2015 Concept notes registered: 10 Approximate value: US$0.79 billion Window 8 Submission: 15 September 2015 TRP review: 2-8 November 2015 Concept notes registered: 14 Approximate value: US$2.16 billion Afghanistan Algeria Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Benin Bolivia (Plurinationa l State) Comoros Georgia -Bissau Mauritania Nepal Pakistan Palestine Sri Lanka Syrian Arab Republic Guatemala Honduras Liberia Ecuador El Salvador Peru Angola Congo Indonesia Lesotho Mali South Africa Central African Republic Sierra Leone Belarus Benin Bolivia (Plurinational State) Côte d'ivoire Dominican Republic Egypt El Salvador Gabon Guatemala -Bissau Guyana Kosovo Madagascar Mauritania Nepal Nicaragua Niger Palestine Paraguay Peru Senegal Syrian Arab Republic Timor-Leste Turkmenistan Georgia Liberia Somalia Honduras Mongolia Yemen Angola Benin Gambia -Bissau Guyana Haiti Mali Mauritania Nepal Nicaragua Niger Paraguay Sao Tome and Principe Tanzania (United Togo Uzbekistan Viet Nam Central African Republic Liberia Sierra Leone El Salvador Angola Indonesia Pakistan Central African Republic Mongolia Morocco Sierra Leone Applicants that resubmit concept notes for another iteration send in their documentation only a few weeks before Technical Review Panel review. Consequently, they will only appear on the list for review after the concept notes are received. 16/18

17 The Secretariat is working with country teams and CCMs to record an estimated submission date for all components. ESTIMATED SCHEDULE FOR BOARD APPROVAL OF FINAL GRANTS After the Technical Review Panel and Grant Approvals Committee reviews, grants recommended for funding undergo grant-making to transform technically sound concept notes into disbursement-ready grants. The grants then go through a second review by the Grant Approvals Committee. Table 4 shows a tentative schedule of those reviews. Having negotiations take place before Board approval should significantly reduce the time it takes for implementers to receive funds once their grant documents are completed. Table 4: Projected second Grant Approvals Committee reviews of concept notes as of early February HIV TB/HIV TB Malaria HSS GAC meeting: 26 Jan. Anticipated Board report: Feb. GAC meeting: 27 Feb. Anticipated Board report: March Guyana Iran (Islamic Paraguay SADC Sudan Afghanistan Moldova ( Romania Sudan Ghana Honduras Korea (Democratic People s Pakistan Solomon Islands South Sudan Sudan Suriname Note: The information shown reflects projections and are subject to change based on country readiness. Afghanistan Sudan After approval from the Grant Approvals Committee following its second review, the Grant Approvals Committee Secretariat shares the recommendations with the Board. After the Board approves a grant (see Table 5), the grant agreement is signed with the Principal Recipient and the purchase order created by the country team before the second Grant Approvals Committee review is approved by the chief financial officer. After that, the Global Fund will make the first disbursement. 17/18

18 Table 5: Board-approved grants as of early February HIV TB/HIV TB Malaria HSS Previously approved Approved since last progress update (December Cuba Moldova ( Mongolia Zimbabwe* Thailand Ukraine Zambia 2014) *Early applicant that was awarded incentive funding during window 2. **Early applicant that received additional funding when allocations were announced. ***Early applicant for which the Global Fund awaited outcomes of TB policy reforms. Grant has now been signed. This report was shared with the Global Fund Board. Cambodia Kazakhstan*** Myanmar** Zimbabwe Bangladesh Philippines* Congo (Democratic Indonesia Philippines Senegal Swaziland Timor-Leste Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe Bangladesh Cameroon Nigeria Rwanda 18/18