Docstoc

Report_R11_workshop_10.docx - rcrcglobalfundworkinggroup

Document Sample
Report_R11_workshop_10.docx - rcrcglobalfundworkinggroup Powered By Docstoc
					IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                  3 – 7 October 2011




IFRC – Round 11 orientation workshop:
supporting National Societies to engage
effectively with the Global Fund
3-7 October 2011
Crowne Plaza Hotel, Geneva, Switzerland




DRAFT




                                     Page 1 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                    3 – 7 October 2011



Executive summary
Since its creation in 2002, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM) has
become a major, international financier of programmes to fight the three diseases. To date, it has
provided approved funding of US$ 21.7 billion for more than 600 programmes in 150 countries, and
the programmes supported have saved 6.5 million lives by providing AIDS treatment for 3 million
people, anti-tuberculosis (TB) treatment for 7.7 million people and 160 million insecticide-treated
nets for the prevention of malaria.

The Global Fund operates as an international financing institution and not as an implementing entity.
There is a Global Fund Secretariat based in Geneva, but no regional or country presence. The Fund,
therefore, relies on partnerships with other development and technical partners, civil society and the
private sector to support countries to deliver effective programmes and services.

The partnership approach is reflected in the Fund’s governance structures. The Board at global level
and the Country Coordinating Mechanisms (CCMs) at country level include representatives from four
main constituencies: the public sector (including donors); civil society (including communities living
with and affected by the three diseases); the private sector; and technical agencies and partnerships.
For Global Fund purposes, National Societies and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red
Crescent Societies (IFRC) are considered as members of the civil society constituency.

The Global Fund enters into contracts with state and non-state actors that act as Principal Recipients
(PRs) of the grant money at country level. PRs are responsible for programme implementation either
directly or through sub-granting to Sub-Recipients (SRs). A Local Fund Agent (LFA) is appointed to
verify the capacities and performance of the PR and the CCM provides grant oversight.

The rationale for closer engagement
Global Fund supported programmes are designed to reduce child and overall mortality and morbidity
due to the three diseases, and closer engagement will therefore provide opportunities to contribute to
meeting the goals set out in the Federation’s Strategy 2020 as well as to the attainment of the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). As a non-state Global Fund PR, the IFRC or a National
Society would be strongly positioned to provide leadership and coordination in the fight against HIV,
TB and malaria and to focus country and global level agendas on humanitarian values and the needs
of the most vulnerable in society. In addition, as either a PR or an SR, there would be opportunities to
strengthen internal structures and systems with the aim of improving programme implementation and
sustainability.

In the past year, the Global Fund has faced difficulties due to the financial crisis and to a number of
widely-publicised reports of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) which identified grants where
some funds had been mismanaged. This has led to the introduction of a comprehensive programme of
reform and to the postponement of the Round 11 applications deadline. The Fund is therefore entering
a phase when stable, established, implementing partners with a wide reach at the country, regional and
global levels – such as National Societies and the IFRC – will be especially welcome.

During 2011, the IFRC has, therefore, engaged in high-level discussions with the Global Fund in
Geneva to explore how the two institutions can work more closely and effectively together.

Workshop objectives, participants and format
With the launch of Global Fund Round 11 in August 2011, the IFRC identified an opportunity to
support further engagement between National Societies and the Global Fund at the country level, and
organized a Round 11 orientation workshop for National Society participants.
A postponement of the Round 11 applications deadline was announced just ahead of the workshop.
However, the decision was made to go ahead with the meeting as the delay would mean additional


                                              Page 2 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                                   3 – 7 October 2011


preparation time for National Societies1 and because much of the content of the workshop would also
be relevant to proposal development for other donors and therefore of general use to participants.
The workshop was held from 3 – 7 October 2011 in Geneva, and had the following objectives:
(1) To build the capacity of National Societies to participate in Round 11 Global Fund proposal
    development and to access Global Fund money; and
(2) To document and analyse lessons learnt in this process.
The invitation for the workshop was issued via the IFRC Regional Offices in Africa. Nine National
Societies (from Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Lao, Liberia, Malawi, Namibia, Togo and Zambia)
were represented at the meeting along with IFRC participants from Africa and Southeast Asia.
Presenters from the Global Fund, the World Health Organization (WHO), the Roll Back Malaria
(RBM) Partnership and the IFRC informed participants about Global Fund structures and processes
and provided technical updates in relation to the three diseases and a number of cross cutting issues.
The meeting provided a forum for National Societies to share their experiences of the Global Fund
and to identify their strengths and areas in need of strengthening as Global Fund partners. Participants
then worked on proposal development, incorporating learning from the workshop sessions, and took
part in an expert and peer review of their draft proposals.
The participation of IFRC senior management during the workshop emphasized the institutional
interest from the programmatic, humanitarian values and diplomacy, and resource mobilization
perspectives to explore how the IFRC and National Societies can increase their engagement with the
Global Fund and other multilateral donors as a potentially important resource stream. Each
department underlined the IFRC’s willingness to provide technical and other resources to support
National Societies to engage more effectively.

Global Fund structures and processes
Sessions on the first day of the workshop aimed to improve participants’ overall understanding of
Global Fund structures and processes, and included a review of the Fund’s guiding principles, the
roles of the CCM, PR, SR, LFA and Technical Review Panel (TRP), and the Global Fund process
from proposal development to implementation.
A number of significant changes that had been introduced in Round 11 were introduced, including: a
new eligibility, counterpart financing and prioritization policy; the new grant architecture and
transition to single stream of funding (SSF); and improvements to the Round 11 country-level
application materials.
In plenary discussion, participants highlighted the importance of networking – in particular with CCM
members – in terms of positioning National Societies for inclusion in Global Fund processes and
proposals. It was noted that Secretary Generals (SG) need to take a lead on this as they were able to
approach CCM members as peers and may already have formal and/or informal contacts with key
members.
The importance of National Societies being actively represented in national technical working groups
on the three diseases and cross-cutting issues such as health systems strengthening (HSS) and mother,
neonatal and child health (MNCH) in order to contribute to the development of national policies and
strategies and be fully informed on Global Fund and other donor opportunities was also emphasized.
The presentations underlined the Global Fund’s commitment to performance-based financing (PBF),
and focused participants on the need to review and strengthen National Society systems – in
particular, monitoring, evaluation, reporting and finance, and procurement – in the run up to a Global
Fund application.


1
  Round 11 was eventually cancelled following a decision by the Global Fund Board at its November 2011 meeting. A
transitional funding arrangement has been put in place with the aim of ensuring the continuation of key services currently
funded under Global Fund through until 2014 when it is expected that funds from the 2013 replenishment will become
available. The Global Fund will make announcements about the next round of applications in due course.

                                                      Page 3 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                   3 – 7 October 2011




Updates on the three diseases and cross-cutting issues
The Global Fund requires that proposals are evidence based and focused on key interventions and
most at risk populations. Technical presentations provided during the workshop, therefore, updated
participants on malaria, HIV, TB, community information systems, behaviour change communication
(BCC), gender, MNCH and human rights.

The malaria presentations and discussion highlighted the new WHO recommendations on prompt
parasitological confirmation by microscopy or rapid diagnostic test (RDT) in all patients suspected of
malaria before treatment is started. National Societies were encouraged to explore taking on a role in
community case management of malaria (CCMm) or in the integrated community case management
(iCCM) of childhood illnesses, which includes the diagnosis and treatment of pneumonia and
diarrhoeal diseases alongside malaria. The integration of HIV and TB services was a focus of the HIV
and TB presentations. The need to develop targeted messages to address specific aspects of behaviour
change in specific population groups was the key message of an interactive session on BCC as the
Global Fund becomes more insistent on evidence-based BCC strategies.

Community systems strengthening
One morning session of the workshop was devoted to understanding the concept of community
systems strengthening (CSS). CSS is an approach that aims to develop the role of key populations and
communities, and community organizations, networks and other non-State actors, in the design,
delivery, monitoring and evaluation of services and activities aimed at improving health and other
development outcomes. CSS activities are funded by the Global Fund – as part of a disease
component proposal or as part of an HSS proposal – with the aim of achieving improved outcomes for
HIV, TB and malaria.

A CSS Framework has been developed by the Global Fund in collaboration with technical partners,
civil society organizations and donors. Its core components are: an enabling environment and
advocacy; community networks, linkages, partnerships and coordination; human, financial and
material resources and capacity building; community activities and service delivery; organizational
and leadership; and planning, monitoring and evaluation (M&E). Participants discussed the core
components, how they could be strengthened, and how CSS interventions could be incorporated into
key sections of the Round 11 proposal form.

Global Fund supported CSS interventions must be planned with the whole community system in
mind. However, National Societies can potentially benefit from CSS funding to strengthen structures
and systems if a scale up of National Society activities would be an appropriate means to meet the
targets set in the country proposal. Advocacy efforts at both the country and global levels should
continue to highlight the perhaps unique ability of National Societies, IFRC and Partnering National
Societies (PNS) jointly to bring community-based approaches to scale.

National Societies and the Global Fund
Prior to the workshop, National Society participants were asked to find out about the Round 11
preparations in their countries and prepare a brief presentation to share with other participants. They
reported on their prior Global Fund experience, CCM contacts, national disease programme contacts,
intended Round 11 proposal submission(s), and the plans for country proposal development including
the nomination of PRs and SRs. A wide range of experience and preparedness was evident.

Namibia Red Cross (RC) and the French RC have been actively engaged with the Global Fund over
several rounds and presented on their experiences and lessons learnt. Both Societies have benefited
from significant funding for programme implementation. Namibia RC focused on how they have
strengthened their systems and built their human resource capacity through their engagement with
Global Fund. French RC highlighted some of the positives and negatives of the PR, SR and sub-SR
(SSR) roles and some of the challenges that National Societies will face (e.g. rigorous M&E and

                                             Page 4 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                     3 – 7 October 2011


reporting standards, slow funds disbursement, and the lack of any flexibility regarding the
modification of contractual tools, especially for budget lines and the means of verification of
expenditures) as they start to implement a Global Fund grant. Both drew attention to the financial and
reputational risks of taking on a PR role.

In Round 11, National Societies were encouraged to take a strategic view and aim for grants that will
not overstretch their absorption capacity but will allow them to evaluate the benefits and challenges of
grant implementation.


National Society strengths and areas in need of strengthening
Participants completed a two-part exercise, working as individual National Societies. In the first part
of the exercise, participants identified the main strengths of their Society (and potential comparative
advantages as a Global Fund partner). In the second part of the exercise, each National Society was
asked to identify three main areas that needed to be strengthened. They were asked to explain why
efforts to strengthen these areas were important in terms of Global Fund engagement and how they
would plan to work on these issues. The session addressed concerns that National Societies needed to
make a realistic assessment of their weaknesses and identify ways and means to start working on
these ahead of their Global Fund proposal submission.

Different National Societies identified different areas of strength and areas to strengthen. For some
National Societies, volunteers, coordination and partnership, finance and administration, M&E and
reporting, RC/RC support, staffing, management, governance, and capacity for emergency response
were strengths. For others, these same areas were identified as areas for strengthening.

The identification of priority areas to be strengthened highlighted an apparent difference in levels of
resourcing between the southern African National Societies (better resourced) and the West African
National Societies (less well resourced). This was demonstrated when Burkina Faso, Benin and Togo
RCs each selected staffing and M&E and finance systems as their priority areas for strengthening.

Global Fund proposal development
The final two days of the workshop aimed to provide participants with proposal development support.
The areas of capacity that National Societies might need to demonstrate in order to meet Global Fund
eligibility criteria were identified and the essential logic of putting together a technical proposal for
the Global Fund was outlined.
Participants then worked in National Society pairs to develop a log frame to be included in their
Round 11 proposal. The draft log frames were presented and discussed on the final day of the
workshop in a mock-TRP session. Expert feedback on the log frames was provided and, most
important, peer National Societies also reviewed and provided feedback on each others’ log frames.
The need for National Societies to ‘sell’ themselves in their proposals was emphasized. Proposals
should demonstrate how activities will add value to the country response and increase access to
services, how services will be scaled up, and why the National Society is the organization best placed
to implement the activities outlined.

Workshop outputs and recommendations
On the final morning of the workshop, participants were asked to identify the immediate areas of
support needed by their National Society in order to develop and submit a Round 11 SR application
and the likely timeframe for that support. In the closing session, participants provided a feedback to
the IFRC on some of the key lessons learnt and recommendations for action arising from the
workshop. Based on outputs from the workshop sessions, and on the discussions that took place
during the five days, the following immediate and medium-term lessons learnt and recommendations
for action were identified.



                                              Page 5 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                   3 – 7 October 2011



Immediate actions
1. Participants requested that the IFRC take urgent steps to brief and mobilize National Society SGs
   with regard to the need to position the National Society for inclusion in Round 11 Global Fund
   processes and proposals. In particular, there is a need to ensure that CCM members are informed
   that the National Society is interested to be a Round 11 partner and able to add value to the
   country bid.
2. IFRC was requested to provide technical assistance to National Societies for proposal writing.
3. Workshop participants would aim to become members of working groups set up to develop
   country proposals, where possible.
4. Participants would be interested to have a case study detailing the Kenya RC experience as a
   Global Fund SR and PR.
5. Other immediate actions for individual National Societies included the development of an M&E
   plan, putting in place an external financial audit process, and strengthening health department
   staffing.

It was noted that the postponement of the Round 11 proposal submission date (until at least 1 March
2012), announced just before the workshop, would allow valuable extra time for National Society
positioning and proposal development.

Medium- to longer-term actions
Capacity building to ensure quality programme delivery
Workshop presentations underlined the need to ensure quality implementation, monitoring and
reporting, and rigorous financial accountability, in order to meet the Fund’s PBF requirements, and
provoked serious discussion around the need to balance active networking and technical support to get
the National Society into the Global Fund and the need for capacity building to ensure that the
National Society has the capacity to deliver on agreed targets. There was a recognition that SGs need
to commit to ensuring that the National Society has the necessary, minimum capacity to succeed as a
grant recipient in place before grant signature.

It was recognized that relatively small investments in capacity building by the National Society itself
and by the IFRC and PNS may provide significant investment returns in terms of increased: (1)
funding; (2) access to additional capacity building support as part of the Global Fund process; (3) and
visibility and opportunities to focus national agendas on the most vulnerable and on humanitarian
values.

The National Societies represented at the workshop had different strengths and weaknesses. Peer
exchanges to share best practices and tools were identified as a valuable capacity building mechanism.
National Societies also benefit greatly from the capacity building support provided by the IFRC and
PNS. However, ways should be found to focus this support more effectively.

The support available to National Societies through the IFRC and PNS during implementation is also
a potential comparative advantage for the National Society, and ways to formalize and market this
comparative advantage need to be developed.

National Societies may need to consider putting in place a funding reserve to cover what seem to be
inevitable Global Fund disbursement delays. More information on this issue is needed in order to
guide National Societies, and possible cooperative mechanisms among National Societies or
involving PNS and/or the IFRC may need to be explored to support National Societies in resource
poor contexts.

Workshop lessons learnt, therefore, support the need – as identified in the draft Federation wide
resource mobilization strategy – to define models of RC/RC cooperation that are unique for this
funding stream (multi-laterals). Such models will need to be cross-cutting in terms of the IFRC
departments involved and of the relationships between National Societies, PNS and the IFRC.

                                             Page 6 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                                 3 – 7 October 2011




Capitalizing on all Global Fund opportunities at country level
Round 11 presents one opportunity for engagement but so do ongoing processes of grant re-
programming and consolidation, Phase 2 grant renewal processes, and the Fund’s determination to
replace poorly-performing PRs. IFRC and National Societies need to seek out and engage with these
opportunities on a country by country basis.

National Societies should develop guidance on how to ‘sell’ the auxiliary to government role in
development health settings as well as in emergency settings, particularly in countries where there is
an intention to review and revise national disease control strategies and develop a Global Fund
national strategy application. National Societies in some contexts may also wish to explore the
creation of a specific seat on the CCM on the basis of their auxiliary to government status.

National Societies can promote the inclusion of community systems strengthening (CSS) in Round 11
proposals. They need to lobby for interventions that would allow the National Society and other
community based organizations to scale up their work in communities and to build capacity to
manage activities at scale.

The recent openness of the Global Fund to funding HIV, tuberculosis and malaria control activities in
emergencies aligns with a Movement comparative advantage and offers an important opportunity for
engagement.

Developing a Global Fund tool box and community of practice
This report, together with workshop presentations and background papers, is available on a Round 11
Fednet site2 and could be expanded to form the basis of a Global Fund toolkit.

National Societies participating at this workshop, along with the Kenya RC, could be facilitated to
form a community of practice focused on strengthening Global Fund engagement. This community of
practice would also provide a forum for National Societies, IFRC and PNS to systematically address
organization development issues such as volunteering and volunteer management, including the need
to balance donor demands, volunteer expectations, community accountability and opportunities to
influence the agenda for health, and ensuring that donor partnerships overall support and do not
hinder the development of the National Society’s sustainable community resource base.
Recommendations from community of practice members could be used as an advocacy tool in efforts
to address the same issues with donors interested in task shifting to volunteers as a means to increase
access to basic services.

The experience of organizing this workshop suggests that IFRC Secretariat departments such as
planning, monitoring, evaluation and reporting (PMER), finance, and organizational development
could benefit from additional briefings on the Global Fund, the IFRC’s position with regard to
increased engagement, and their potential roles in building the capacity of National Societies to
engage more effectively.

Roll out of immediate support and of future workshops
IFRC will develop a support plan based on the requests for immediate actions made by workshop
participants and the timeframe of Round 11, and aim to mobilize resources for its implementation.

Participants suggested that this workshop would be useful for other National Societies and could be
repeated ahead of future Global Fund rounds, perhaps at regional level.

2
  Access the Round 11 Fednet page at: https://fednet.ifrc.org/en/resources-and-services/health-and-care/communicable-
diseases-and-epidemic-control/malaria/ifrc-global-fund-round-11-workshop/ or go to the public IFRC website and click on
the Fednt link at the top right of the homepage. When prompted for username: type in your Federation email address; when
prompted for password, use: dcqtx35210.


                                                     Page 7 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                                                                          3 – 7 October 2011



Contents
Executive summary ................................................................................................................................................ 2
1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 9
   1.1 Opening remarks ........................................................................................................................................... 9
   1.2 Workshop rationale and objectives ............................................................................................................... 9
   1.3 Round 11 delay ........................................................................................................................................... 10
   1.4 Report structure .......................................................................................................................................... 10
2.0 Participants ..................................................................................................................................................... 11
3.0 Global Fund structures and processes ............................................................................................................. 12
4.0 Community systems strengthening ................................................................................................................. 18
6.0 National Societies share experience ............................................................................................................... 25
7.0 National Society strengths and weaknesses .................................................................................................... 32
8.0 Proposal development ..................................................................................................................................... 39
9.0 Workshop follow up ....................................................................................................................................... 46
10.0 Workshop evaluation .................................................................................................................................... 49
Annex 1: Workshop agenda.................................................................................................................................. 49
Annex 2: CCM requirements revised for Round11 .............................................................................................. 53
Annex 3: Definition of focus criteria for Round 11 .............................................................................................. 54
Annex 4: Priority areas to be strengthened ........................................................................................................... 55
Annex 5: Immediate support needs for Round 11 ................................................................................................ 58
Annex 6: Acronyms and abbreviations ................................................................................................................. 60




                                                                           Page 8 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                    3 – 7 October 2011



1.0 Introduction
Since its creation in 2002, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM) has
become a major international financier of programmes to fight the three diseases. To date, it has
provided approved funding of US$ 21.7 billion for more than 600 programmes in 150 countries, and
the programmes supported have saved 6.5 million lives by providing AIDS treatment for 3 million
people, anti-tuberculosis (TB) treatment for 7.7 million people and 160 million insecticide-treated
nets for the prevention of malaria.
From early 2011, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) has
been actively engaged in high-level discussions with the Global Fund Secretariat in Geneva to explore
how the two institutions can work more closely and effectively together with the joint aim of
strengthening programme delivery. With the launch of the Round 11 funding applications process in
August 2011, the IFRC identified an opportunity to support further engagement between the Global
Fund and National Societies at the country level, and organized a Round 11 orientation workshop for
National Society participants.

1.1 Opening remarks
Matthias Schmale, IFRC Under-Secretary General, Programme Services Division, welcomed
participants. He highlighted the great potential for National Societies and the IFRC to build a natural
alliance with the Global Fund. In partnership, the IFRC and National Societies can claim a perhaps
unique ability to bring community-based approaches to scale due to their joint commitment to the
standardization of materials and training that underpins the Red Cross/Red Crescent’s (RC/RC)
effective work with volunteers and to the immense experience in logistics, procurement and supply
chain management – even under the most challenging of conditions – inherent in the partnership.
With the financial crisis and the ongoing Global Fund reform process, the Fund is entering a phase
when stable, established, implementing partners with a wide reach at the country, regional and global
levels such as National Societies and the IFRC could be especially welcome. This workshop,
therefore, provides an opportunity to brief National Societies on Global Fund structures and processes
and to increase the possibilities for Global Fund engagement at the country level.
However, while positioning the IFRC and National Societies as Global Fund partners, it is important
to recognize that competition among community-based organizations is increasing. Therefore, it is
essential to set realistic targets for proposed interventions, to ensure that quality work is done, that
programme and financial reporting is timely, accurate and transparent, and that the RC/RC remains
accountable to the communities served.
He noted that feedback from participants outlining the immediate and ongoing support that would be
needed for National Societies to partner effectively with the Global Fund would be welcome and
valuable, and that the IFRC stands ready to provide further support.

1.2 Workshop rationale and objectives
Siddharth Chatterjee, Head of International Relations and Chief Diplomatic Officer, IFRC
Humanitarian Values and Diplomacy Division, also emphasized that the ability of National Societies
and the IFRC to convene and to social mobilize represents a major comparative advantage that is
recognized by the Global Fund and other partners; especially by those who have experienced first-
hand the RC/RC’s practical, ‘let’s get the job done’ approach.
He recalled from his own experiences that Global Fund application processes are complicated and
demanding. In addition, major changes with regard to the Fund’s requirements and application
materials have been introduced for Round 11. Therefore, the IFRC had felt it was important to take
this initiative to organize a Round 11 orientation workshop in order to support National Societies
aiming to engage in the Round 11 process. He introduced the workshop objectives.
1. To build the capacity of National Societies to participate in Round 11 Global Fund proposal
   development and to access Global Fund money, by:
   - Increasing understanding of Global Fund structures, processes and priorities;

                                              Page 9 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                     3 – 7 October 2011


    -   Increasing understanding of community systems strengthening;
    -   Providing technical updates on disease-specific and cross-cutting issues;
    -   Identifying National Society comparative advantages;
    -   Enabling National Societies to share experiences and ideas;
    -   Enabling National Societies to review their plans and needs for effective Round 11
        engagement with colleagues and external facilitators.
2. To document and analyse lessons learnt in this process.
The workshop would aim to provide participants with a venue to discuss National Society experiences
and best practices, as well as to benefit from inputs from a range of key people from the Global Fund,
the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Roll Back Malaria (RBM) Partnership Secretariat.
The final workshop agenda is provided as Annex 1.
He encouraged participants to network themselves into the Global Fund process, to represent the
interests of the communities they serve in the country-proposal development process, and to keep
going though the inevitable challenges and late nights that they would face during the submission of
their Global Fund funding applications. Success would bring long-term and potentially substantial
funding for programme implementation. He noted that Kenya Red Cross Society (RCS) – who
unfortunately could not participate in the workshop due to their need to focus all resources on the
current Horn of Africa drought crisis – has also shown that it is possible for a National Society to
build on its experience as a Global Fund sub-recipient (SR) to become a principal recipient (PR) and
place themselves in a position to provide leadership and coordination and to focus the national agenda
on humanitarian values and on the most vulnerable in society.
From a Federation perspective, if the process of engaging more closely with the Global Fund can help
to reduce overall and child mortality and morbidity due to the three diseases, then this will be an
important contribution to meeting the goals set out in Strategy 2020, as well as to the attainment of the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

1.3 Round 11 delay
The Round 11 call for proposals was launched in mid-August 2011 and the deadline for submissions
was originally set for 15 December 2011. However, in an announcement the week before the
workshop, the Global Fund Board decided to postpone the Round 11 submission deadline until at
least 1 March 2012. This created a five-month window in which National Societies could further
strengthen their engagement with Global Fund structures and processes and their chances of Round 11
success.

1.4 Report structure
This report provides a summary of the workshop outcomes and highlights. It includes a number of
recommendations for further Round 11 support to National Societies and a number of broader lessons
learnt. The sections of the report correspond to the workshop objectives, and the write up aims to
focus on key areas in the workshop presentations that provoked discussion and lessons learnt. The
workshop presentations and background papers, as well as this report, are available on a dedicated
Round 11 Fednet site2.




                                              Page 10 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                   3 – 7 October 2011



2.0 Participants
Sixteen participants, representing nine National Societies (from countries expected to submit malaria,
HIV and tuberculosis proposals in Round 11) and IFRC Africa and Southeast Asia, attended the
workshop. The final list of participants is shown below.


Zambia Red Cross Society       Patricia Nambuka                Programmes Manager

Malawi Red Cross Society       Hellen Dzoole Mwale             Community-based Health and First Aid
                                                               (CBHFA) Coordinator

                               Patrick Phiri                   Malaria, HIV and AIDS Programme
                                                               Manager

Botswana Red Cross Society     Boitumelo Segwabanyane          Programmes Manager

                               Chebukani Nkobodo               Health and Care coordinator

Namibia Red Cross Society      Naemi Heita                     Programmes Coordinator

                               Rosemary Nalisa                 Resource Mobilization Coordinator

IFRC Southern Africa           Thandeka Finca                  Programme Assistant for HIV and Health
Regional Office
                               Michael Charles                 Malaria Delegate

IFRC Africa Zone               Adinoyi Adeiza                  Emergency Health Delegate

Croix-Rouge Burkinabe          Prosper Zombre                  Volunteer

                               Maxime Yameogo                  Health Coordinator

Croix-Rouge Togolaise          Kuami Battah                    Chef du Département Santé

Croix-Rouge du Benin           Finagnon Ghislaine Glitho       Health Coordinator
                               Alinsato

Liberia Red Cross Society      Judah Morris                    Director of Health

IFRC Southeast Asia            Somsri Tantipaibulvut           Regional HIV Programme Officer
Regional Delegation




                                               Page 11 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                   3 – 7 October 2011



3.0 Global Fund structures and processes
Sessions on the first day of the workshop aimed to provide participants with an overall understanding
of Global Fund structures and processes as a basis for their participation in the Round 11 application
process. Participants arrived at the workshop with a range of Global Fund experience; eleven
participants described their understanding of the Fund as low and five considered themselves to have
a medium level of understanding. Only two of the participating National Societies had previous
experience of Global Fund grant implementation.

3.1 An introduction to the Global Fund
Khaya Matsha-Carpentier from the Civil Society and Private Sector Partnerships Team at the Global
Fund described what the Global Fund is, what it has achieved together with countries, how it works,
and the Global Fund process from proposal development to implementation. She also touched on the
Global Fund reform agenda and the Round 11 delay.

The Global Fund is an international financing institution, mandated to: raise and disburse substantial
new funds; operate transparently and accountably; and achieve sustainable impact on HIV, TB and
malaria. It operates as a financial instrument and not as an implementing entity. There is a Global
Fund Secretariat based in Geneva, but no regional or country presence. The Fund, therefore, relies on
its partnerships with other development and technical partners, civil society and the private sector to
support countries in delivering effective programmes and services to communities in need.

3.1.1. Governance structures
The partnership approach is reflected in the institution’s governance structures – the Board and
Partnership Forum at global level and the country coordinating mechanisms (CCMs) established at
country level. Each must include representatives from four main constituencies: the public sector
(including donors); civil society (including communities living with and affected by the three
diseases); the private sector; and technical agencies and partnerships (for example, WHO). For the
purpose of Global Fund engagement, IFRC and National Societies fall under the civil society
constituency. Civil society representatives to the Board and the CCM must be elected by members of
the civil society constituency. Once elected, a CCM member is obliged to ensure that all interested
members of his/her constituency have access to all pertinent information about the Global Fund in
their country and have opportunities to influence Global Fund related decision making. The Global
Fund encourages all partners at country level to play their part in holding CCM members to these
obligations as this is essential if programmes are to reflect national ownership and operate with
transparency and accountability as per the Fund’s guiding principles (Box 1).

Box 1 The Global Fund’s guiding principles

   Operate as a financial instrument, and not as an implementing entity
   Make available and leverage additional financial resources
   Support programmes that reflect national ownership
   Operate in a balanced manner in terms of different regions, diseases and interventions
   Pursue an integrated and balanced approach to prevention and treatment
   Evaluate proposals through independent review processes
   Establish a simplified, rapid and innovative grant-making process and operate transparently, with
    accountability

Ahead of Round 11, the Global Fund has revised its CCM guidelines. Compliance with these
guidelines will be checked by the Global Fund Secretariat as a first step in the Round 11 proposal
assessment process. The six minimum CCM eligibility requirements are outlined in detail in Annex 2,
and are designed to ensure:


                                             Page 12 of 60
    IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                    3 – 7 October 2011


•   The input of a broad range of stakeholders, key population groups and most-at-risk populations in the
    CCM and in all Global Fund proposal development processes;
•   That documented and transparent processes have taken place to
    - Solicit and review submissions of proposals for possible integration into a consolidated national
       proposal
    - Nominate the PR(s)
•   That a Conflict of Interest plan is in place to ensure that CCM members declare their interests as
    ongoing or potential grant recipients and do not abuse their positions as constituency representatives.

    CCM members routinely delegate the task of setting country proposal goals and objectives to a
    proposal development and writing team that may or may not include an external consultant. However,
    final approval of country proposals at each stage of development and before the final submission
    remains with the CCM.

    3.1.2. The proposal development process
    To date, Global Fund has launched a call for proposals on an annual basis. Following the call, the
    CCM collaborates to prepare a country-level proposal or proposals depending on identified gaps in
    malaria, TB and HIV service provision.

    When submitting the proposal(s) to the Global Fund, the CCM selects and recommends the PR(s).
    Considering the size of many Global Fund grants and the specific expertise needed to manage
    programme delivery via the public, private and community systems, the Global Fund has
    recommended that countries nominate more than one PR. Where two or more PRs are in place for a
    given grant, the country is said to have dual-track financing (DTF). In recent rounds, CCMs that do
    not nominate a non-state PR must explain in the proposal why not.

    Once the proposal reaches Geneva, the Global Fund Secretariat screens it for eligibility (including
    CCM requirements). Eligible proposals are then passed to the Technical Review Panel (TRP) – which
    consists of both technical and cross-cutting experts appointed by the Board – and all eligible proposals
    are reviewed according to fixed criteria and placed into one of four categories: proposal
    recommended; proposal recommended with minor revisions; proposal recommended to be re-
    submitted following more extensive revisions; and proposal rejected. The Global Fund Board meets to
    review the TRP’s recommendations and makes the final decision on which proposals to approve.

    Once a proposal is approved, the Global Fund appoints a local fund agent (LFA) to be its eyes and
    ears on the ground. The LFA – often, for example, one of the global accountancy or management
    consultancy firms – assesses the capacity of the nominated PR(s). Five areas of competence are
    assessed: programme management capacity; SR management capacity; financial management and
    systems; pharmaceutical and health product management (if relevant); and monitoring and evaluation
    (M&E) capacity. The PR, in turn, assesses the capacity of any grant SRs according to the same areas
    of competence. If the PR passes the assessment, the Global Fund Secretariat proceeds to negotiate a
    grant agreement directly with the PR. The PR and the Global Fund then sign a two-year (Phase 1)
    grant agreement. Regular disbursements are made directly to the PR on the basis of satisfactory
    performance as assessed by the LFA. The PR will disburse directly to SRs.

    The CCM provides oversight throughout the process and applies for the continuation of funding to
    cover years three to five (Phase 2) of the grant.

    3.1.3 Types of proposal
    In Round 11, a number of types of proposal are being developed in different countries:
    • Disease-specific proposals;
    • National strategy applications (NSAs) which are an option in countries with strong national
        disease control strategies;



                                                 Page 13 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                                   3 – 7 October 2011


•   Separate, cross-cutting health systems strengthening (HSS)/community systems strengthening
    (CSS) proposals3 which may include a joint request for funding to the Global Fund and the Global
    Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (GAVI) as part of the recently-launched Health Systems
    Funding Platform (HSFP), a collaborative effort by the Global Fund, GAVI and the World Bank,
    facilitated by WHO. The opportunity to develop a cross-cutting HSS/CSS proposal is available to
    all Global Fund eligible countries in Round 11. All such proposals still need to demonstrate
    linkages with improved outcomes in HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria;
•   Some countries may also be involved in rolling continuation channel (RCC) grant negotiations.
    The RCC channel is available to high-performing countries and by invitation only.

3.1.4 Performance-based funding
Performance-based funding (PBF) lies at the heart of the Global Fund’s operating model. It ensures
that funding decisions are based on a transparent assessment of results against time-bound targets. In
practice, it means that a grant recipient must achieve the results specified in its proposal – and be able
to document these achievements and associated expenditures – or it will not receive any money from
the Global Fund. PBF is the reason why strong organizational structures and systems (financial
management, procurement, M&E and reporting, asset management etc) together with quality and
depth in terms of available human resources and a ‘SMART’ approach4 to proposal development are
often quoted as some of the keys to Global Fund success.

3.1.5 Global Fund reform and the Round 11 delay
In 2010, the Global Fund approached the international community to request a new round of funding
commitments and described an initial series of steps intended to ensure a more efficient and effective
Global Fund. In December 2010, this reform process was broadened when the Board established a
Comprehensive Reform Working Group. During 2010 and into 2011, the Global Fund has come
under pressure from donors to make further significant reforms following a series of reports from the
Office of the Inspector General (OIG) which revealed the misuse of Global Fund money in a number
of countries. A High Level Independent Review Panel on Fiduciary Controls and Oversight
Mechanisms (HLP) with a mandate to follow up on the OIG reports and to finalize an overall reform
plan was established and reported in September 2011.

Having launched Round 11 with a 15 December 2011 proposal submission date, the Global Fund
Board then decided to delay the closing date for all applications until at least 1 March 2012. The
decision was taken because the resource forecast was estimated at no more than $0.8bn and these
funds were not expected to be available until Q4 2013. At their November 2011 meeting, Global Fund
Board members will discuss: “modifications of the application, renewal and approval processes for
new and existing investments…” in the light of: “resource constraints, the recommendations of the
HLP and the Global Fund’s strategy and reform process”. The Board decision on this will be
communicated by 1 December 2011.

3.2 New requirements for Round 11
Phyllis Heydt from the Global Fund’s Country Proposals Team provided an overview of a number of
significant changes to the Global Fund’s ‘way of doing business’ that have been introduced in Round
11. These are complex issues. However, for National Societies taking part in CCM and proposal
development discussions, it will be useful to have a grasp of the changes. Only a brief summary is
possible within the scope of this report. More details are available in the full workshop presentation
and background papers5 and on the Global Fund website.



3
  Note that HSS/CSS interventions can also be included in disease-specific proposals and NSAs. In these cases, the proposed
interventions must relate directly to the disease-focus of the proposal.
4
  SMART = specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time bound.
5
  Aidspan has produced a very readable summary of the new requirements for Round 11. It is available on the Fednet Round
11 page and at: http://aidspan.org/documents/guides/aidspan-round-11-applying-guide-volume-1-en.pdf.

                                                     Page 14 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                     3 – 7 October 2011


3.2.1 The new eligibility, counterpart financing and prioritization policy
In 2011, the Global Fund Board approved a new eligibility, counterpart financing and prioritization
policy.

A ‘history of recent funding’ provision has been added to the existing country eligibility criteria
(income level and disease burden). If a country has an existing grant that is still in the pre-
implementation stage, then that country cannot submit a Round 11 proposal for the same disease
(unless a strong case has been made, and accepted by the Global Fund ahead of proposal submission,
that the new proposal will address an entirely new problem, intervention area, geographical location
or high risk group).

In addition, a ‘focus of the proposal’ provision has been added to the eligibility criteria and is linked
to the creation of two distinct pools of funding; ‘general’ and ‘targeted’. Each pool covers all three
diseases, but applicants cannot apply to both pools for the same disease component in the same round.

Low-income countries6 (LIC) do not have to meet any focus criteria when applying to the general
pool. However, low-middle-income countries (LMIC) must focus at least 50% - and upper-middle-
income countries (UMIC) eligible to apply because of their high disease burden must focus 100% - on
underserved and most-at risk populations and/or highest impact interventions (see Annex 3 for
definitions of these terms) when applying to the general pool.

The targeted pool follows the example of the ‘most at risk populations’ (MARPs) channel introduced
as an option for HIV applicants in Round 10. This pool is subject to budget ceilings (e.g. the
maximum request possible is US$5 million per individual Phase 1 grant and no more than 10% of the
total funding for the round will be allocated to this pool). All applicants to the targeted pool must
focus their proposal 100% on underserved and most-at risk populations and/or highest impact
interventions.

Applicants submitting a cross-cutting HSS/CSS proposal in the general pool must make sure that their
proposal focuses to the required level on cross-cutting HSS/CSS interventions addressing the needs of
underserved populations (see Annex 3).

The new requirement on counterpart financing sets a minimum level of contribution to the national
disease programme that must be made by the government. From Round 11, all countries – including
LICs where a 5% minimum contribution will be required – will need to make this minimum
contribution. If a LIC government cannot meet the minimum contribution at the start of the grant, it
must show in the proposal how it will work towards meeting the minimum commitment over time.
Governments will also be required to demonstrate that this contribution will increase during the
lifetime of the grant and to report annually on domestic financing for national disease programmes.

The policy on prioritization stipulates what will happen if there is not enough money to cover all of
the proposals recommended for funding in Round 11.

3.2.2 The new grant architecture
The existing Global Fund grant architecture (essentially based on the annual request for proposals)
was designed at the Global Fund’s inception and has been added to over time. While it has supported
the achievement of significant results, it has proved overly complex as the number of rounds has
increased. It has resulted in some countries having multiple, active grants each with different
reporting/disbursement timetables and has meant that it has become increasingly difficult for
countries and the Global Fund to track cumulative results and spending.

The new grant architecture will transition countries towards a single stream of funding (SSF) per PR
per disease or HSS programme and allow for periodic reviews to be established in which reporting

6
    These income classifications are set annually by the World Bank.

                                                        Page 15 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                        3 – 7 October 2011


and disbursements for all active grants are aligned with the country’s own fiscal calendar. The
transition is taking place at different times in different countries through a process of grant
consolidation involving existing active grants and grants still in the negotiation phase.

As an important step in this process, all Round 11 applicants must submit ‘consolidated’ proposals.
This means that the proposal narrative and budget must include a summary of all the interventions
currently being undertaken in all other active Global Fund grants in that country for that disease for
that PR. Applicants will have to show clearly how the interventions for which Round 11 funding is
requested fit in with ongoing interventions. A successful consolidated Round 11 proposal will be
another entry point for transitioning to SSF.

3.2.3 Revised application materials and new tools
The Round 11 country-level application materials have been simplified and improved and are
accompanied by more practical guidelines.

Of particular note, applicant disease profiles (ADPs) have been developed. These can be found on the
Global Fund website and provide an overview of a country’s existing Global Fund financial and
programmatic portfolio. Other partners have also added epidemiological reports to the website.

The workshop presentation includes an overview of the key sections in the new proposal form and the
focus of each section. In addition, it highlights the wealth of information available at the Round 11
microsite on the Global Fund website, including: the country proposal forms and guidelines,
information notes and guidelines covering key issues, Frequently Asked Questions, and the ‘proposals
inbox’ through which anyone can contact the Global Fund proposals team with a query and get an
answer within 48 hours.

3.3 Key discussion points
•      Discussion focused on the CCM and the importance of the National Society maintaining ongoing
       communication with CCM members. This was as vital in terms of advocating for National
       Society inclusion in Global Fund processes and proposals. Participants noted that this was a role
       best suited to the National Society Secretary General (SG) and governing board members since
       they could generally approach CCM members as peers and may already have both formal and
       informal contacts with key members.
•      CCM members are elected by their constituencies and have unparalleled access to, and influence
       on, Global Fund processes and decision making. If the National Society is determined to engage
       with the Global Fund and to capitalize on available funding opportunities, the SG might consider
       standing for CCM membership (assuming that the Society is an active partner known for its work
       on HIV and/or TB and/or malaria). In the longer-term, National Societies could also explore the
       creation of a specific seat on the CCM on the basis of their auxiliary to government status.
•      SGs should be briefed on the principles of inclusion and participation that lie at the heart of
       Global Fund processes. On the one hand, they need to understand the significant amount of staff
       time that Global Fund proposal development may take up; on the other hand it is important that
       SGs and other civil society leaders work to ensure that the participatory principle is implemented
       and respected by the CCM.
•      Participants noted the benefits of taking part in the country proposal development process e.g.
       ensuring that community-based interventions are well-planned and scaled up; gaining a good
       understanding of the country situation analysis, gaps and proposed goal and objectives and service
       delivery areas (SDAs)7 well ahead of a call for PR and SR proposals. They also realized that they
       may need to put themselves forward as potential team members rather than waiting to be asked.
       National Society programme staff should lay the ground work for their participation in the Global
       Fund proposal development process by becoming members of the inter-agency technical working
       groups on the three diseases that exist in most countries.

7
    A service delivery area (SDA) is a defined service that is provided to a recipient.

                                                           Page 16 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                    3 – 7 October 2011


•   It was noted that financial pressures and the introduction of SSF are both leading to a process of
    review and reprogramming of existing Global Fund grants. This potentially creates opportunities
    for National Societies to become involved in the implementation of existing grants. There is,
    therefore, an additional motivation for SGs and programme staff to strengthen links with the
    CCM and with national disease programmes.
•   Participants requested guidance on SR selection. Selection of SRs can take place ahead of
    proposal submission or at a later date. Inclusion of SR details in the proposal (at minimum the
    identification of SRs that will take on major roles) strengthens the prospects for proposal approval
    as the implementation plan and capacity to implement will be clearer for the TRP.
•   It was confirmed that in the move towards SSF, the Global Fund will maintain the principle of
    DTF and that it will be possible for additional PRs to be introduced as time goes by. Similarly,
    under the new architecture, PRs will still be assessed based on their performance and, should
    there be a need to change PRs, this can be done.
•   The Round 11 delay may mean that additional countries believe themselves to be eligible to apply
    (e.g. by getting an existing grant into implementation). However, the advice from the Global Fund
    is that countries should not assume that the eligibility list will be changed. On the other hand,
    countries will need to start to address possible funding gaps (e.g. through re-programming) that
    could be caused by the delay.
•   Participants wondered whether the requirements for minimum counterpart financing to be
    introduced in Round 11 were part of a long-term strategy to ‘wean’ countries off Global Fund
    support. In fact, this requirement forms part of a strategy to improve additionality and
    sustainability within Global Fund grants and to reinforce the idea that spending on health is a
    shared responsibility that applies to all countries. It is introduced in the context of, for example,
    the Abuja Declaration by African States to fund at least 15% of the health budget from domestic
    resources. Tracking counterpart funding will be a complex task, but will hopefully lead to
    improved measurement and accountability over time.

3.4 Lessons learnt and recommendations for action
1. Participants requested that IFRC take urgent steps to brief and mobilize National Society SGs and
   governing board members with regard to the need to position the National Society for inclusion in
   Round 11 Global Fund processes and proposals. In particular, there is a need to ensure that CCM
   members are informed that the National Society is interested to be a Round 11 partner and able to
   add value to the country bid.
2. Workshop participants would aim to become members of working groups set up to develop
   country proposals, where possible.
3. The Round 11 delay presents an opportunity but so do ongoing processes of grant re-
   programming and consolidation and the Fund’s determination to replace poorly-performing PRs.
   IFRC and National Societies need to seek out and engage with these opportunities on a country by
   country basis.
4. National Societies should develop guidance on how to ‘sell’ the auxiliary to government role in
   development health settings as well as in emergency settings, particularly in countries where there
   is an intention to review and revise national disease control strategies and develop a NSA.
5. The summary of Global Fund structures and processes contained in this report could be expanded
   as the basis for a RC/RC Global Fund toolkit.




                                             Page 17 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                    3 – 7 October 2011



4.0 Community systems strengthening
CSS is an approach that aims to develop the role of key populations and communities, and community
organizations, networks and other actors, in the design, delivery, monitoring and evaluation of
services and activities aimed at improving health and other development outcomes. CSS initiatives are
encouraged by the Global Fund with the aim of achieving improved outcomes for HIV, tuberculosis,
malaria and related health challenges.

CSS is a way to improve utilization of formal health services. However, it is also, crucially, aimed at
increasing access by enabling community engagement (meaningful and effective involvement as
implementers as well as recipients) in health and social care, advocacy, health promotion and health
literacy, health monitoring, home-based and community based care, community case management and
adherence monitoring, and in wider responses such as acting as ‘watchdogs’ and advocates to ensure
an enabling and supportive environment for such interventions.

Global Fund has recognized that in order for community organizations and actors to take on this range
of roles, scale up activities, and have a real impact on health outcomes, they must have access to
necessary resources and support.

The Fund has therefore prioritized CSS funding as a means to promote adequate and sustainable funds
for specific operational activities and services and, crucially, core funding to ensure organizational
stability as a platform for operations and for networking, partnership and coordination with others. It
is a means to address the need for capacity building, including of human, financial and material
resources, to enable community actors and organizations to play a full and effective role alongside
health and social welfare systems. It is a means to ensure that effective and sustainable systems are in
place to support community-based activities and services. CSS funding can be requested as part of a
disease proposal or as part of an HSS proposal.

4.1 The CSS Framework
In order to promote a common understanding of CSS and support the integration of CSS interventions
into Global Fund proposals, a CSS Framework has been developed by the Global Fund in
collaboration with technical partners, civil society organizations and donors. First published in May
2010, it has recently been revised and a new Framework document is currently in preparation.

4.1.1. Core components
The Framework identifies six core components of community systems. It explains why the
components are important in terms of delivering improved health outcomes and provides examples of
activities that can be put in place to strengthen them. SDAs have been included under each core
component to highlight the immediate benefits that will result from investments in CSS.
The core components and associated SDAs are as follows:
Enabling environment and advocacy
SDA1: Monitoring and documentation of community and government interventions.
SDA 2: Advocacy, communication and social mobilization e.g. the mobilization of key populations
and community networks to engage in campaigns and solidarity movements.
Community networks, linkages, partnerships and coordination
SDA 3: Building community linkages, collaboration and coordination.
Resources and capacity building
SDA 4: Human resources: skills building for service delivery, advocacy and leadership e.g. ensuring
human resources (staff members and volunteers) are available in sufficient numbers and with
appropriate skills (e.g. personal, technical and organizational capacities).
SDA 5: Financial resources e.g. ensuring adequate operational and core funding is secured with sound
financial management.


                                             Page 18 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                   3 – 7 October 2011


SDA 6: Material resources – infrastructure, information and essential commodities (including medical
and other products and technologies) e.g. including functional systems to forecast, quantify and
manage infrastructure, assets and commodities.
Community activities and service delivery
SDA 7: Community-based activities and services – delivery, use, quality e.g. mapping community
health and social support services and their accessibility to end users; developing the evidence base
and best practices.
Organizational and leadership strengthening
SDA 8: Management, accountability and leadership e.g. capacity building; increasing transparency
and accountability through meetings with stakeholders and community members; enabling
community actors to provide leadership in the development and operation of programmes.
M&E and planning
SDA 9: M&E and evidence-building e.g. ensuring that relevant and quality data are collected,
analyzed, used and shared, and inform strategic planning.
SDA 10: Strategic and operational planning.

4.1.2 Measuring results
The Framework includes a set of 29 CSS output indicators (Table 1) together with detailed
descriptions of what should be measured, how and when for each indicator.

Table 1 Examples of CSS indicators
SDA 1: Monitoring and                    Number/percentage of community based organizations
documentation of community and           (CBOs) that have been involved in joint programme reviews
government interventions                 or evaluations in the last 12 months
SDA 2: Advocacy, communication           Number/percentage of CBOs that implemented a costed
and social mobilization                  communication and advocacy plan in the last 12 months
SDA 3: Building community                Number/percentage of CBOs that are represented in national
linkages, collaboration and              or provincial level technical and policy bodies
coordination
SDA 4: Human resources: skills           Number/percentage of volunteers working for CBOs that are
building for service delivery,           provided with a stipend/allowance
advocacy and leadership
SDA 5: Financial resources               Number and percentage of CBOs that have core funding
                                         secured for at least two years

Measuring the long-term impact of CSS is, however, more challenging. One problem is that
community system interventions are often part of a continuum of care, for example when peer
outreach workers refer people living with HIV (PLHIV) to testing or care centers, health systems
deliver medical care, and then peer counselors deliver follow-up information and counseling. Another
problem is that CSS activities often have an essential but indirect impact on health outcomes (Table
2). In both cases, it is hard to quantify a clear, causal relationship between the CSS activity and the
desired health outcome.




                                             Page 19 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                           3 – 7 October 2011



Table 2 Measuring the long-term impact of CSS
CSS activity                               Long-term impact
Training for treatment                     Faster antiretroviral (ARV) uptake and improved adherence,
counselors                                 leading to decreased mortality
Training for peer outreach                 Increased coverage of outreach to injecting drug users (IDUs),
workers                                    increased referrals to harm reduction services, and reduced HIV
                                           transmission
Provide stable salaries for CBO            Stable and effective outreach and provision of services, data
staff and volunteers                       collection and monitoring of project outputs

4.2 Developing a CSS intervention
The CSS Framework outlines some of the steps that should be followed to develop a strong CSS
intervention. This process is also addressed in a number of helpful publications published by
partners8. The workshop presentation (summarized below) shows how a CSS intervention can be
incorporated into key sections of the Round 11 proposal form.

If CSS is a priority in the country and/or National Society proposal, it should be emphasized from the
outset of proposal development. Arrangements should be made to brief the CCM and proposal writing
team(s) on CSS, if needed. Thereafter, CSS should be introduced up-front in the country context
section of the proposal.

The role(s) to be played by the community system in the prevention, care and treatment activities to
be implemented at community level in order to achieve the proposal objectives/targets must be stated
clearly in the proposal along with the evidence-base for choosing community-based approaches.

A gap analysis (structured around the CSS Framework core components and SDAs) should
demonstrate the gap between existing community-system capacity and the capacity needed to
implement these roles/activities. The gap analysis should cover all relevant actors and community
organizations in a given geographical location and/or working with a given key population and/or on a
particular issue and cannot be specific to one organization. The proposal input should then focus on
the priority gaps/weaknesses to be addressed by the Round 11 proposal. Where the gaps are not clear,
a more detailed gap analysis may be included as a CSS activity in the proposal.

Once the gaps have been identified, specific CSS activities to address them can be proposed. Time
and effort should be put into ensuring that the TRP will clearly see how CSS interventions are
essential for the achievement of the overall objectives and SDAs of the country proposal.

The Round 11 form does not include one specific section for CSS. Therefore, the argument for CSS
has to be mainstreamed through each section of the proposal. It is vital, therefore, that CSS
SDAs/activities are coherently and consistently mentioned in all other relevant sections of the
proposal, including in the logical framework, technical assistance (TA) plan, M&E plan, procurement
and supply chain management (PSM) plan, and budget.

Finally, it is important to ensure that the CSS interventions and TA requested in one disease proposal
do not duplicate – but complement – the CSS interventions covered by an existing CSS grant or those
integrated into another Round 11 disease proposal or a cross cutting HSS/CSS application.




8
    See background papers at Round11 Fednet site.

                                                    Page 20 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                  3 – 7 October 2011



4.3 CSS in practice
In a workshop exercise to identify how National Societies could engage with the concept of CSS,
participants found it difficult to differentiate between what constituted a CSS SDA/activity and what
constituted a programmatic SDA/activity. Apparently, this is a common problem. CSS does not refer
to the daily programmatic activities that communities implement such as condom distribution, bed net
distribution or provision of directly observed treatment to TB patients. CSS is in addition to these
daily activities and is about strengthening the systems needed for communities to meaningfully
contribute to these programmatic activities.

In order to clarify further, Table 3 has been developed and added into the workshop report. It
describes potential CSS activities related to an issue common to all National Societies – volunteer
management. Such activities might be considered in the case that a country identified a need to scale
up delivery of specific health services using a strategy involving community volunteers.

Table 3 CSS to support a scale up of service delivery by community-based volunteers
Core component           SDA                         Sample CSS activities
Enabling environment     SDA 1: Monitoring and       Mapping volunteer locations, activities, and
and advocacy             documentation of            gaps that must be filled in line with the
                         community and               geographical areas that the proposal will be
                         government interventions    focusing on
                         SDA 2: Advocacy,            Supporting volunteers to brief opinion leaders
                         communication and social    regarding the role of volunteers in a malaria
                         mobilization                campaign or TB care
Community networks,      SDA 3: Building             Formation of a network of organizations
linkages, partnerships   community linkages,         working with volunteers in order to ensure the
and coordination         collaboration and           volunteers receive support, work in a
                         coordination                coordinated manner with standardized
                                                     principles of operation etc;
                                                     Development of a joint volunteer management
                                                     policy and guidance
Resources and            SDA 4: Human resources      Volunteers recruited and trained to allow scale
capacity building                                    up of community based interventions as per
                                                     country targets;
                                                     Volunteer Training & Support Officers
                                                     supported at key implementing SRs
                         SDA 5: Financial            Volunteer incentives included in Global Fund
                         resources                   budget;
                                                     Communities/private sector lobbied to provide
                                                     volunteer incentives to ensure sustainability of
                                                     volunteer programme in servicing community
                                                     needs
                         SDA 6: Material             IT hardware and training put in place to support
                         resources                   volunteer management systems
Community activities     SDA 7: Community-           Operational research into strategies for
and service delivery     based activities and        volunteer retention
                         services
Organizational and       SDA 8: Management,          Costs and training to enable grass roots
leadership               accountability and          volunteer representatives to take places on CSO
strengthening            leadership                  Boards

                                            Page 21 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                    3 – 7 October 2011



M&E and planning         SDA 9: M&E, evidence-         Development of M&E tools to facilitate data
                         building                      collection by volunteers e.g. SMS-based tools
                         SDA 10: Strategic and         Costs and training to enable grass roots
                         operational planning          volunteer representatives to take part in
                                                       organizational, network and country planning
                                                       exercises

4.4 Key discussion points
•   Some participants had the impression from in-country discussions that civil society grant
    applicants should propose only activities that can be achieved with existing resources (e.g. staff,
    transport, IT). However, during the presentation, it was confirmed that overhead cost coverage of
    civil society organizations participating in the grant, inclusive of financing their human resources,
    can be proposed (refer to the ‘Resources and Capacity Building’ component in the CSS
    Framework). Nevertheless, in the current financial climate, the rationale for additional staff costs
    etc will need to be extremely well-argued in terms of the intended scale up of priority
    interventions and potential returns on that investment.
•   Several participants mentioned the need to strengthen their National Society’s M&E system in
    order to comply with Global Fund PBF requirements. In the presentation, it was noted that one of
    the CSS core components is ‘M&E and Planning’. Community systems may therefore be targeted
    for strengthened systems of data collection, data analysis, dissemination of information, and case
    monitoring and documentation, among other M&E related system activities. Community systems
    may also be targeted for an improved harmonization with the national M&E system.
•   In many grants, the PR (or a lead SR) builds a budget for CSS activities aimed at strengthening
    grant SRs or sub-sub-recipients (SSRs) into the country proposal. An example from Cambodia
    was presented. Here a grant allowed the Khmer HIV/AIDS NGO Alliance to provide financial,
    technical and capacity-building support to nearly 70 local community organizations for providing
    home-based care to people living with HIV, orphans and other vulnerable children. National
    Societies may therefore consider working with other potential SRs and SSRs and the nominated
    PR to ensure that specific CSS interventions and a realistic budget are included.
•   It is possible for a stronger implementing organization, such as a National Society, to be funded
    through CSS to build its capacities/structures as a basis for scale up if it can be argued that this
    scale up would be the most appropriate means by which to meet the objectives/targets set in the
    country proposal in a short timeframe. The CSS component might aim to complement the rapid
    gains made through strengthening one or more already established organizations with longer-term
    investment in a number of emerging community-based organizations.
•   Income generating activities (IGA), as a CSS approach to secure financing for volunteers and
    National Society branch structures, were discussed. IGAs have been tried within Global Fund
    grants but mostly with little success. Identifying the right IGA in the right place to benefit the
    right people is challenging, and with the rigour of PBF they are an additional worry. Similar PBF
    issues have been identified during recent experiments with the ‘cash transfers’ approach.

4.4 Lessons learnt and recommendations for action
1. It is important that National Society representatives along with other civil society actors advocate
   strongly for the inclusion of CSS interventions in Round 11 proposals if a need for a scale up of
   community-based interventions has been identified.




                                             Page 22 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                3 – 7 October 2011



5.0 Technical updates
The Global Fund requires that proposals are evidence based and focused on key interventions and
most at risk populations. Technical presentations provided during the workshop aimed, therefore, to
update participants on:
• Malaria – Peter Olumese, WHO
• New opportunities in malaria – Stefan Hoyer, WHO
• HIV/AIDS – Mazuwa Banda, WHO
• Community information systems – Peter Olumese, WHO
• Behaviour change communication (BCC) – Michael Charles, IFRC
• Gender – Tonya Nyagiro, Global Fund
• Mother, newborn and child health (MNCH) – Valentina Mangiaterra, WHO
• Human rights – Mauro Guarinieri, Global Fund.

5.1 Key discussion points
•   The new WHO recommendations on prompt parasitological confirmation by microscopy or rapid
    diagnostic test (RDT) in all patients suspected of malaria before treatment is started, led to a
    discussion about the reliability of RDTs. WHO has a recommended list of RDTs that perform
    well when compared with microscopy in trials.
•   Participants were interested in the benefits of environmental management as a vector control
    strategy. WHO pointed out the amounts of standing water needed to enable mosquitoes to breed
    in sufficient numbers to maintain transmission is very small; even muddy hoof prints are enough.
    Therefore, while advising people to keep their compounds clean is a good idea for various
    reasons, it does not stand up as a malaria vector control method except under a few exceptional
    circumstances.
•   It was confirmed that WHO and in turn the Global Fund TRP do not support doubling up on long
    lasting insecticidal net (LLIN) use and indoor residual spraying (IRS) in most situations, even
    though this two-pronged approach is included in some national malaria control strategies.
•   National Societies were encouraged to explore taking on a role in community case management of
    malaria (CCMm) or in the integrated community case management (iCCM) of childhood
    illnesses, which includes the diagnosis and treatment of pneumonia and diarrhoeal diseases
    alongside malaria. The Kenya RC working with the support of the IFRC and the Canadian Red
    Cross Society has provided a successful case study in rolling out home management of malaria in
    two districts with very low access to health facilities in Kenya. This case study has provided a
    model for the roll out of CCMm in Kenya under the Round 10 malaria grant.
•   Integrated TB/HIV programming is a priority issue for Round 11. Both the Joint United Nations
    Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and StopTB provide guidance on how integrated
    programming can be incorporated into HIV/AIDS and TB proposals, respectively.
•   Real-time surveillance data is at a premium, and those working at the community level need to
    ensure that communities do collect information and know how to submit it for incorporation into
    the national data system. National Societies could potentially add value to Round 11 proposals
    through initiatives to strengthen community information systems.
•   BCC interventions form a significant part of many National Society programmes. The Global
    Fund made significant cuts to BCC funding in Round 10 due to the lack of direct evidence that
    specific BCC interventions affected specific disease control outcomes. It was further noted that
    efforts to link behaviour changes that have been taking place among young people directly with
    BCC interventions had failed to demonstrate the critical link. Youth behaviour change is a
    complex issue where broader shifts in levels of education, economic conditions and other factors
    have an influence.
•   Participants were interested in WHO guidance on the remuneration of volunteers. WHO has
    indicated that measures need to be in place to remunerate volunteers, but the level and type of
    incentive is left up to the country to define. Some countries have managed to come up with
    community-based methods of remuneration that work well and are the most sustainable option.
    Global Fund has provided funding for volunteer incentives. However, it is important not to
    introduce an ‘alien’ system of remuneration. RC/RC is also clear in its guidance that volunteers

                                           Page 23 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                     3 – 7 October 2011


    must be compensated for any extensive work they do as many are from vulnerable groups in the
    community. Care must be taken if introducing an incentive for a volunteer trained to work on a
    malaria programme as the National Society will also be trying to mobilize and retain volunteers
    trained on other issues such as HIV care and support or emergency response. (See more on
    volunteer issues in Section 7.0).
•   Participants were reminded that any interventions related to cross-cutting issues such as
    community information systems, gender, equity, MNCH and human rights must be focused on
    improving outcomes across the three diseases. However, any additional benefits from these
    interventions towards other health issues should be noted.
•   Participants were interested in how groups such as men who have sex with men (MSM) and sex
    workers can receive support through the Global Fund in countries with restrictive legal
    frameworks and what guidance the WHO would give when the government position differs from
    the civil society position with regard to most at risk populations e.g. on the distribution of
    condoms in prisons. From the WHO perspective, the public health consideration should override
    other issues. Global Fund recognizes that it has been difficult to align the principle of a country-
    driven approach and a human rights approach in some contexts. However, the 2012-2016 Global
    Fund includes a new commitment to a human rights approach, and, in practice, ways have been
    found – through partners and through multi-country proposals – to channel funds indirectly to
    groups representing and working for most at risk populations.
•   National Societies present were challenged to do more to advocate for the needs of key
    populations. The IFRC department for Humanitarian Values and Diplomacy is available to
    support interested National Societies. Following the IFRC intervention at United Nations General
    Assembly Special Session on HIV/AIDS in support of the rights of most at risk populations, there
    was a lot of communication with SGs but this has not resulted in a great deal of action. National
    Societies need to unite with other civil society actors, develop coalitions and a social movement
    for change. They should be making use of their auxiliary to government status to work with
    parliamentarians on this issue.
•   Participants were reminded that the WHO and the Federation have formalized the ways in which
    they can work together in a Memorandum of Understanding and that it is now up to National
    Societies and WHO officers on the ground to find ways to implement this agreement.
•   It was noted that Round 11 will be a vital round as it is the one that will see countries through to
    the MDG deadline in 2015. Beyond 2015, it is likely that attention will shift at least partly to other
    emerging challenges such as climate change and urbanization. However, funding for the round
    will be tight, so countries are advised to stick to priority, evidence-based, context appropriate
    interventions. This is a time to ‘know your epidemic’.

5.2 Lessons learnt and recommendations for action
•   National Societies should aim to work on implementing the WHO–Federation Memorandum of
    Understanding at country level.




                                              Page 24 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                                    3 – 7 October 2011



6.0 National Societies share experience
The workshop provided a forum for National Societies to share experiences. Three sessions, in
particular, provided an opportunity for National Societies to present and discuss their practical
experiences with the Global Fund. Each National Society presented an overview of their Round 11
preparations to date. The Namibia Red Cross (RC) and the French RC also shared lessons learnt from
their experiences as Global Fund grant implementers.

6.1 Round 11 preparations
Prior to the workshop, National Society participants were asked to find out about the Round 11
preparations in their countries and prepare a brief presentation to share with other participants.

6.1.1 Prior Global Fund experience
Only two of the nine National Societies have direct experience of Global Fund grant implementation.
Namibia RC has engaged as a SR for both HIV and TB, and has ongoing grants for each disease.
Botswana RC is a Round 10 SR for community-based TB.

6.1.2 CCM contact
None of the participating National Societies are members of the CCM. For some National Societies, it
was clear who represented their interests on the CCM. For example, in Togo, civil society
organizations are represented by two nongovernmental organization (NGO) networks (the Federation
of NGOs in Togo and the Union of NGOs in Togo). For some, the CCM membership is known and
includes civil society representatives, but it was unclear how those representatives had been selected.
Malawi RC consider themselves to be in an excellent position to establish stronger relations with
CCM members as the National Society rents office space to the CCM Secretariat. The next step for
them is to mobilize the SG to network with CCM members.

6.1.3 National disease programme contact
Most participants had taken the initiative to inform their contacts in the national disease programme
that the National Society is interested to be part of the Round 11 proposal development process and
that they are interested to submit a SR proposal. All reported a positive response from their contacts.
This was a relatively straightforward step as the contact was essentially on the programme manager to
programme manager level.

6.1.4 Country and National Society proposal submissions
By approaching the CCM and national disease control programme managers, participants had been
able to find out which components (disease and/or HSS) the country will apply for and had been
informed about the proposal development process and timetable. Table 4 shows the components that
countries are expected to apply for9 in Round 11. The shaded components are those that National
Societies have also stated an interest in applying for.

Table 4 Expected country and National Society (shaded) Round 11 proposal submissions
Country           Malaria             HIV                TB                HSS/CSS
Malawi                                X                  X                 X
Botswana          X                   X                  X
Zambia            X NSA                                  X NSA
Burkina Faso      X
Benin             X                                      X
Togo              X                   X                  X
Namibia           X NSA
Liberia                               X
Lao                                   X                                    X

9
    Information from RBM, UNAIDS and StopTB together with that from National Society presentations.

                                                     Page 25 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                     3 – 7 October 2011




6.1.5 Stage of country proposal development
Most participants reported that their CCMs have delegated the responsibility for proposal writing to a
technical team that includes representatives from civil society as well as from government, technical
partners and others. Namibia, Botswana and Burkina Faso RCs are already members of these national
teams. Togo RC is to be added to the team following their contacts with the CCM Secretariat. Other
participants signalled their intention to explore how they can get involved as the proposal writing
process progresses.

There was considerable variation in the order in which inputs to the proposal were solicited and in the
way that the proposal was put together. In Benin, for example, the CCM has appointed a technical
team including representatives from the national malaria control programme, NGOs, and NGOs
networks. The NMCP and the NGOs (under the auspices of their networks) will each develop a
proposal after discussions/meetings and these will then be melded into one proposal. In other
countries, the constituency representatives will sit around a table to develop one proposal from the
start. There is, therefore, no one size fits all solution to Global Fund proposal writing. National
Societies need to identify exactly what the process is in their country to ensure that they participate at
key moments.

As Round 11 was launched in mid-August, and as countries are encouraged to start the proposal
development process even ahead of the launch date, a number of countries were already in a position
to tell National Societies what the priority interventions and geographical areas will be for the country
proposal, for example, in Namibia, Botswana, Zambia, Togo, and Malawi. Early knowledge about the
priority interventions and locations can provide National Societies with the vital few extra days or
weeks to position themselves and gather the information necessary to write a strong proposal. In other
cases, countries are at the stage of completing the gap analysis (e.g. in Malawi for HIV) and/or are
having stakeholder meetings to initiate the process (e.g. in Burkina Faso).

In Namibia, Zambia and Togo, malaria NSAs will be submitted. Each of these countries submitted an
Expression of Interest to the Global Fund earlier in 2011 requesting the go ahead to develop an NSA.
Now that the approval has been given, the process of proposal develop will now continue much in the
same way as the development of a regular proposal, albeit with a somewhat simpler proposal form.
National Societies will still need to apply to be SRs. Countries wishing to submit an NSA have to
demonstrate that they have a strong and appropriate national disease control strategy in place. This
strategy also needs to be externally assessed before an NSA can go ahead. In the Zambia RC
presentation, participants heard how, as part of the process leading to the submission of the NSA, a
joint assessment was conducted by in-country and external partners who used a detailed Joint
Assessment of the National Strategy (JANS) tool to guide an assessment of the core set of relevant
strategic documents – the National Malaria Strategic Plan, the accompanying operational plan and the
Surveillance M&E Plan. Feedback from the JANS report is now being addressed as the first step in
proposal development.

6.1.6 External consultants
A number of countries already have external consultants on the ground either for gap analysis support
(e.g. Malawi/HIV) or for proposal writing support (e.g. Botswana/malaria). RBM, UNAIDS, Stop TB
and other partners aim to have external consultants on the ground as early as possible in the proposal
development process. It can be worth making contact with the consultant to ensure that he or she is
aware of the National Society’s interest to participate.

6.1.7 Nomination of PRs and SRs
At the time of the workshop, it was unclear as to how the Round 11 delay would affect the roll out
and timing of proposal development and the call for PR and SR applications. A number of countries
had already nominated a PR or were about to launch a call for nominations. In Botswana and Malawi,
plans were in place to call for individual SR proposals as early as mid to late October. However, with
the delay in the submission date, these dates may slip. Nevertheless, National Societies should try and

                                              Page 26 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                   3 – 7 October 2011


stay ahead of the curve on this and know the dates in good time. There is often as little as two weeks
available for proposal writing once a call for proposals is published, so the more advanced knowledge
of the dates, the better for planning. As with all proposals, a great deal of work can be done ahead of
the call for proposals although the technical details of the proposal can only be finalized once the
exact details of the call are announced.

6.1.8 National Society eligibility requirements
National Societies were also asked to check on the eligibility requirements that the country will
demand of SRs e.g. the availability of externally-audited accounts. Several participants confirmed that
the National Society could demonstrate provide externally audited-accounts and demonstrate adequate
financial management systems and capacity. For others, these requirements may present an obstacle to
Round 11 inclusion.

6.2 Global Fund lessons learnt by Namibia RC
Naemi Heita, Programmes Coordinator and Deputy SG at the Namibia RC, gave an overview of the
National Society’s experiences with Global Fund proposal development and implementation on the
opening day of the workshop. She was asked to expand on this overview and focus on key lessons
learnt on the third day. The two presentations are combined below.

6.2.1 Level of engagement
Through Global Fund engagement, Namibia RC has benefited from significant funding and this
funding has been relatively stable and committed over 3 – 5 year timeframes. Table 5 provides a
summary of Namibia RC Global Fund SR experience to date. The Society is currently implementing a
Round 5 Phase 2 TB grant and a RCC HIV grant. The existing TB grant will end in 2011, but a Round
10 TB grant, which will secure continued funding for the Namibia RC’s TB activities, has been
approved by the Global Fund Board. In Round 11, the Namibia RC intends to submit an application to
be a malaria grant SR.

Table 5 Summary of Namibia RC Global Fund SR experience
Round         Component          Timeframe            Amount (USD)
2             HIV/AIDS           2005 – 2010          2,142,857
5             TB                 2006 – 2011          2,296,251
6             Malaria                                 Bed nets
RCC           HIV/AIDS           2010 – 2016          1,184,940 (over 3 years)
10            TB                 In negotiation       2,781,582

Engagement has enabled National Society systems to be improved and the capacity of staff and
volunteers to be strengthened; at the regional and branch level as well as at the national level. Over
time, the Society has received substantial capacity-building support from the PR’s programme
management unit (PMU). Being part of the Global Fund process has also allowed the National
Society to network with other organizations, share experiences and learn.

6.2.2 Proposal development
The National Society needs to be willing and ready to enter into a transparent process where strengths
and weaknesses may be exposed, and also to recognize that this is a highly competitive environment
where networking and positioning are key. To this end, senior management commitment to ‘getting
the job done’ is essential.

Proposal development – both at the country and National Society level – tends to come with tight
deadlines and makes high demands on staff, and the more staff members that can be committed to the
process the better. Namibia RC also benefitted from IFRC technical assistance during the writing of
their first HIV SR application.




                                             Page 27 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                     3 – 7 October 2011


The National Society should go into the proposal development process with a clear picture of its areas
of interest; to this end the Namibia RC’s strategic plan was extremely important. The National Society
needs to have accurate and up to date information that demonstrates its profile, areas of interest and
reliability (including, for example, externally audited financial statements, the curriculum vitae of key
staff, verifiable summaries of the Society’s relevant implementation experience and reporting) in
order to position as a credible SR candidate.

As the proposal is being written, it is crucial to think ahead to the realities of implementing a Global
Fund grant. National Societies should take great care not to commit to targets that it will not be
possible to deliver. Once the grant is awarded, targets and timeframes are non-negotiable and the
National Society will not receive any funds if targets are not met. Namibia RC has tried to agree to
realistic targets – based on the performance of previous years.

With the ever-closer scrutiny of the Global Fund, it is clear that National Societies should not be
tempted to gloss over major weaknesses. An organizational assessment will be conducted before the
grant is finally agreed. This is usually carried out by the PR and provides an opportunity for capacity
gaps to be identified and perhaps worked on as a pre-condition for grant go-ahead.

6.2.3 M&E systems development
To deal effectively with the Global Fund’s PBF approach, monitoring plans need to be clear on all
levels and good reporting tools are needed. Adherence to reporting deadlines is non-negotiable.
Monitoring data will be externally verified on a routine basis by the PR and – if a SR has a large grant
as is the case with the Namibia RC – by the LFA. Every activity needs to be documented so that there
is verifiable evidence that it took place. If not, the National Society will not be reimbursed for that
activity.

Going into the Global Fund, the National Society had a basic monitoring system in place. The system
has been strengthened thanks to considerable constructive support from the PMU of the PR and the
IFRC and harmonized with the national monitoring system (Table 6). The National Society is now at
the stage where a dedicated PMER person is employed and funded entirely from the HIV and TB
Global Fund grants.

Table 6 M&E improvements to date at the Namibia RC

•   Monitoring and evaluation framework development with
    - Clear reporting deadlines
    - Standardized reporting tools
    - Improvement in data quality check/verifications
•   Translation of reporting tools into local language
•   With TB, standard monitoring tools developed with all SRs
•   PMER focal person

6.2.4 Finance systems development
The Namibia RC has had to work on its finance and administration systems to ensure strict adherence
to the financial procedures and reporting deadlines demanded by the Global Fund. This has lead to
improved communication between the programme coordinator and the project accountant as
expenditures need to be tracked closely against budget and all variances picked up as early as possible
and explained. The development of a set of grant management guidelines, currently in draft form, will
be a big step forward for the Society. One tip that can be passed on is that National Societies should
start to keep evidence of various expenses and purchases so that these can be used to back up the
figures used in Global Fund budgets.




                                              Page 28 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                     3 – 7 October 2011


National Society governing board members have also approved a contingency fund that can be drawn
on in the case that Global Fund disbursements by the PR are slow or in case the Society runs into
unforeseen issues that slow implementation.

The whole experience has instilled a strong emphasis on resource mobilization.

6.2.4 Other policy developments
The Namibia RC has updated all staff contracts in the light of the need to recruit and retain key staff
for the running of their Global Fund grants. They collaborated with other civil society organizations to
carry out a salary survey to ensure that their rates were competitive.

Other key policies have been revised including: asset management guidelines; procurement
guidelines; the fleet management policy; the human resource policy; and volunteer management
guidelines. Although this has meant a lot of work, it has been rewarding and motivating to see the
Society develop to meet more rigorous expectations in terms of programme quality, reporting,
accountability and transparency.

One serious motivation to improve has been the Global Fund ‘Director’s Forum’. Every quarter, the
SG is required to participate at this meeting where PR and SR performance is reviewed. Results are
presented for all to see and discuss. No-one wants to see poor performance showcased at that meeting.

6.3 Global Fund lessons learnt by the French RC
Antione Peigney, Head of International Relations at the French RC, described how the Society has
positioned itself as a Global Fund partner in HIV and HIV/TB and engaged as SSR, SR and PR.

6.3.1 Level of engagement
The French RC has benefitted from Global Fund funding since 2003. It has managed a total of 17
Global Fund projects in six countries in Africa and Asia (Cambodia, Republic of Congo, Central
African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mauritania and Niger). The total funds
received from the Global Fund stand at just more than Euro 7 million and the French RC has
contributed approximately the same amount of its own funds to the projects. The ability to co-fund
has been a comparative advantage for the French RC – particularly as an external partner. Five grants
are currently in progress in four countries (Table 7).


Table 7 Summary of French RC Global Fund grants in progress
Round Country                  Component Role Timeframe                      Grant timeframe/
                                                                             amount (Euro)
5        Republic of Congo            HIV            SR       2007 –         Phase 1 & 2
                                                              2011           736,074
9        Republic of Congo            HIV            PR2      2011 –         Phase 1 & 2
                                                              2015           1,069,814
7        Central African Republic     HIV            SR       2009 –         Phase 1
                                                              2013           370,805
7        Central African Republic     HIV            SR       2009 –         Phase 1 & Phase 2/Year 1
                                                              2013           274,629
9        Central African Republic     TB             SR       2012 –         Two years
                                                              2016           62,992
8        Democratic Republic of       HIV            SSR      2010 –         Phase 1/Year 1
         the Congo                                            2014           75,029

5        Mauritania                   HIV            MOU                     600,000




                                             Page 29 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                    3 – 7 October 2011


Since 2003, the French RC has also been involved in writing an additional six proposals for projects
which did not finally go ahead either because they failed as SR proposals or because the entire
country proposal failed. Spending time writing proposals that do not get funded is an unavoidable
frustration when engaging with the Global Fund.

National Societies need to be prepared to answer systematically to requests for proposals to be
integrated into the national request. This requires National Societies to be permanently in contact with
civil society representatives, especially representatives on the CCM, so that they are informed as
opportunities to submit arise.

6.3.2 The highs of engagement
On the positive side, engagement has provided the French RC with: access to large-scale funding;
access to a new sponsor on a long-term basis (five-year grants); the possibility to strengthen the
HIV/AIDS department and systems; and the opportunity to learn and adapt with each round.

6.3.3 The lows of engagement
On the negative side, engagement has highlighted: the large gaps between calls for proposals and the
signing of grant agreements which mean that grant applicants should take care when setting start dates
for activities; the lack of local Global Fund representation in country which makes it difficult to
resolve bureaucratic problems and issues between PR and SRs; the lack of any flexibility regarding
the modification of contractual tools, especially budget lines; and that French RC advancement has
been dependent on the availability of co-funding and on the availability of ‘bridging’ funds to
overcome procedural constraints and disbursement delays.

Disbursements can be extremely slow and are dependent on overall country performance. The French
RC Board needed to make funds available to cover disbursement gaps and enable French RC Global
Fund programming to continue to avoid defaulting on targets.

Programmatic gaps can hold up or compromise the quality of care given. In one project in which the
French RC was involved, the funding for drugs for certain opportunistic infections were missing. In
another, the programme budget was not adequate for the size of the programme area. It is therefore
advisable to take part in national strategic and operationally planning as well as Global Fund proposal
development in order to help ensure that an approved proposal is realistic and implementable.

Procurement and supply chain issues remain a common problem e.g. in one of the French RC
projects, medicines were delivered in very large quantities and were often out of date on arrival.

6.3.4 The pros and cons of being PR, SR and SSR
As a PR, the National Society has overall executive responsibility for the performance of SRs and
SSRs and must accept final financial accountability for all funds received. Above all, a PR must,
therefore, be results-orientated and ensure that strong systems are in place to monitor activities and
follow up on poor performance. Any National Society considering taking on a PR role should not
underestimate the financial risks, the financial back up needed to see them through disbursement
delays, and the political tensions that will inevitably accompany the role. However, taking on a PR
role provides the National Society with an opportunity to be highly visible and to influence the
national response.

SRs face many of the same issues of managing for results and financial accountability as a PR.
However, they also have to factor in a dependency on the PR’s performance. Where the PR has
inadequate capacity, this can cause real problems. Disbursements can be held up and this can impact
on the SR’s ability to implement. As an SR, the National Society will have a more limited role to
play, but can still have an influence on the overall national response.

As an SSR, the National Society is dependent on both the PR and the SR and issues that impact
implementation can arise at one or both levels. SSRs usually play a limited role in both

                                             Page 30 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                    3 – 7 October 2011


implementation and in influencing the national response. However, this role can present a good
opportunity to identify the priorities, gaps and constraints of the National Society and provide a base
to build from in future applications.

In summary, National Societies need to be strong and well-structured in order to be successful
partners. In Round 11, National Societies should take a strategic view and aim for grants that will not
overstretch their absorption capacity but will allow them to evaluate the benefits and challenges of
grant implementation.

6.4 Key discussion points
•   Participants found the presentations by Namibia RC and the French RC useful and
    interesting and would have liked to have heard from the Kenya RC also.
•   Bukina Faso RC shared an experience of proposal development in Round 10. The country
    was submitting two proposals (HIV and malaria) and proposal writing for both was running
    more or less consecutively. As the Burkina Faso RC had only one person in the health
    department, he chose to put all his efforts – which added up to a considerable amount of
    time and energy – into helping to develop the HIV proposal and positioning the National
    Society for a significant role. In the end, as luck would have it, the malaria proposal was
    approved by the Global Fund but the HIV proposal was rejected. He was extremely
    frustrated. This is a problem that a number of National Societies will face if they cannot
    focus enough staff time and resources on covering all the bases.
•   Participants brought up the possibility of submitting a multi-country proposal to the Global Fund
    on behalf of a number of National Societies. This had been tried in the Southern Africa Region for
    Round 7 HIV. Ten National Societies agreed to be part of the proposal. A common proposal was
    developed with the help of a consultant. Each National Society then had to have the proposal
    accepted by their CCM. This is where the plan unravelled. Around half the National Societies
    succeeded; the proposal was not accepted by the CCM in some countries; and a number of
    National Societies did not get around to presenting the proposal to their CCM in time. Overall,
    this was a huge amount of work that came to nothing. IFRC would be reluctant to try it again,
    particularly as the Global Fund have a strict criteria that multi-country proposals must cover
    activities that could not simply be incorporated into the CCM’s country proposal.
•   When setting programme targets, it is vital to first develop a clear implementation strategy
    that identifies and timetables all the steps that will be needed to implement successfully, all
    the resources (e.g. staff, vehicles) that will needed, as well as some of the external
    constraints (e.g. weather, bureaucracy, staff turnover) that may affect delivery.
•   Participants noted that both Namibia RC and the French RC had needed to put their own
    funds on stand-by to tide them over funding gaps. Many National Societies in resource-poor
    environments do not have this option. The French RC proposed that IFRC and/or PNSs might put
    a pot of money aside for this purpose.

6.5 Lessons learnt and recommendations for action
1. An additional resource that National Societies may need to consider putting in place is a funding
   reserve to cover Global Fund disbursement delays. Cooperative mechanisms among National
   Societies or involving PNSs and/or the IFRC may need to be explored to support National
   Societies in resource poor contexts. More information on this issue is needed in order to guide
   National Societies.
2. It was interesting to note that each of the National Societies currently seen as pioneers in terms of
   Global Fund success, has benefitted from a global and outward looking perspective due to the
   experiences and contacts of their senior management and/or governing board members. Although
   an intangible resource, this is clearly valuable, and it would be interesting to explore how such
   experiences and contacts could be shared with a wider group of National Society leaders.
3. Participants would be interested to have a case study detailing how the Kenya RC has positioned
   itself to be DTF PR for the Round 10 HIV grant following earlier success as a SR.


                                             Page 31 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                   3 – 7 October 2011



7.0 National Society strengths and weaknesses
The agenda for the afternoon session on the third day of the workshop was adjusted from the original
agenda in order to provide National Societies with an opportunity to focus clearly on their strengths
(and potential comparative advantages as Global Fund partners) and equally on their weaknesses. This
change responded to:
1. The motivation shown by participating National Societies to engage with Global Fund but also
    their concerns that National Society weaknesses might work against them if not properly
    identified and acknowledged;
2. The request by IFRC senior management for a feedback from participating National Societies on
    their needs in terms of further support to ensure effective Global Fund engagement.

Participants completed a two-part exercise, working as individual National Societies. In the first part
of the exercise, participants identified the main strengths of their Society. In the second part of the
exercise, each National Society was asked to identify three main areas that need to be strengthened.
They were asked to explain why efforts to strengthen these areas would be important in terms of a
Global Fund application and how they would plan to work on these issues.

7.1 National Society strengths
Nine National Societies were represented around the table, and a total of 68 responses were received
across 10 categories.

7.1.1 Volunteers
National Society volunteer networks were cited 12 times (see responses in Table 8). Several
participating National Societies have volunteer networks that cover the entire country and involve
large numbers of volunteers. A number of National Societies have volunteer management
policies/systems in place and National Societies have clearly invested in training volunteers.

Table 8 Volunteers as a core strength
We have trained and committed volunteers in most of the country
We have country-wide volunteers
Strong volunteer network covering the entire country
We have over 19,000 volunteers across the country / a volunteer management policy is in place / these
volunteers are readily available for humanitarian work when called upon
The National Society can draw on a huge reserve of volunteers (32,000) in all
Local branches are functional in 70% of the communes of the country
We have a strong volunteer base – 4,000 at grassroots and household level
Existence of a volunteer network in all the regions of the country
National Society has invested in the training of volunteers
Good volunteer management systems
Our National Society has a volunteer management system
Our National Society has succeeded to put in place a loyalty strategy for volunteers (across meetings,
relaxation activities) within the provincial committees

7.1.2 Coordination and partnership
Twelve responses identified strengths in coordination and partnership (Table 9). Participants reported
good relations with various local stakeholders including government, civil society and the media.
More specifically, two mentions were made of the participation of National Societies in government
and civil society committees. One National Society has established a partnership agreement with the
Ministry of Health. One National Society highlighted its financial support from government. One
National Society mentioned the recognition of National Society auxiliary status by government,
private sector and workers unions as a key strength.




                                             Page 32 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                 3 – 7 October 2011


Table 9 Coordination and partnership as a core strength
Good relations with government / government financial support
Good relations with media
Good relations and partnerships with stakeholders (government, media, various committees, PNS,
Ministry of Health (MOH))
Good relationship with other partners and are good in coordination
Good partnership with civil society
Strong coordination and partnership with in-country stakeholders
Coordination with other stakeholders very good and in place / we have a lot of partners
Members of management participate in civil society and government committees
National Society is a member of various committees and attends meetings regularly (coordination and
networking)
Existence of a partnership agreement with MOH
The National Society has established a good working relationship with the MOH
Recognition of the National Society auxiliary status by government, private sector and workers unions

7.1.3 Finance and administration
Eight responses indicated that National Societies had sound financial management and administration
strengths to build on (Table 10). Five mentions were made of existing financial management policies
and systems. In three responses, financial systems were part of a broader package developed by the
National Society which also included human resource (HR), logistics, M&E and volunteer
management systems.

Table 10 Financial management and administration as a core strength
Existence of internal control documents supported by senior management: HR, finance, volunteers,
M&E
We have systems in place to deliver: finance, M&E, logistics and organizational development
Existing and utilized policies in: finance, volunteer management, asset management, staff code of
conduct
Finance management policy in place
Good finance management systems
Proper financial systems are in place
Experienced and highly-technical finance team
Audit certification of our National Society (NEPARC in 2010)

7.1.4 M&E and reporting
Eight responses identified strengths in M&E and reporting with one National Society stating: ‘we
have an exceptionally robust PMER system’ (Table 11).

Table 11 M&E and reporting as a core strength
We have an exceptionally robust PMER system
Our National Society has a monitoring and evaluation unit
The National Society has clear monitoring systems and project reporting (tools)
Regular reporting and documentation of health projects
Evaluations exist for all health projects
We have demonstrated capacity in programme delivery in the past. Four grants as recipient
organization
We have just developed the M&E and reporting system through the fellowship programme/college of
medicine
Good, well-intentioned programmes

7.1.5 RC/RC support
Six responses acknowledged the support that National Societies receive from IFRC and/or PNSs
(Table 12).


                                            Page 33 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                      3 – 7 October 2011




Table 12 RC/RC support as a core strength
Presence of PNS and IFRC in National Society / National Society get support in areas where capacity
is required
Good relations with PNS
Support of PNS during planning processes
The National Society enjoys support from the government when need arises / IFRC
PNS and IFRC support visible and assisting
National Society gets support from IFRC in areas where capacity in limited

7.1.6 Staff
Six responses identified the commitment and competence of staff as one of the core strengths of the
National Society (Table 12). One National Society recognized the importance of having a health
coordinator with Global Fund experience. One National Society had developed a staff code of
conduct.

Table 12 Staff members as a core strength
We have committed and dedicated staff and volunteers
The National Society has competent personnel
Very committed staff who work over and beyond working hours
Existence of competent staff and a health coordinator with Global Fund experience
The National Society has been able to retain staff in the past year (the level of staff turnover has
decreased)
The National Society has a staff code of conduct

7.1.7 Management
In five responses (Table 13), the importance of strong and capable management was recognized, with
one response highlighting the importance of continuing training and updating for managers and
programme coodinators.

Table 13 strong and capable management as a core strength
Presence of competent and continually-developed management (coordinators and managers)
Strong and capable management team
Committed management team
Management is very committed and supportive in resource mobilization
Willingness of management to support programme performance

7.1.8 Governance
Four issues related to the governance of National Societies were mentioned as strengths and included:
the existence of a well-functioning Board; regular board meetings; and regular general assemblies.
One National Society mentioned that they had an updated and endorsed constitution.

7.1.9 Emergency response
Four responses cited experience and capacity for emergency response as a strength (Table 14).

Table 14 Capacity for emergency response as a core strength
The coordinated response to disasters is extremely dynamic in our National Society
Staff and volunteers have experience in disaster management / floods
Staff and volunteers have basic training in emergency response
We have a valuable network of emergency response teams which consist of volunteers trained in
various issues, including water and sanitation




                                              Page 34 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                     3 – 7 October 2011


7.1.10 Other
Three responses highlighted the importance of the National Society having a strategic plan that covers
the three diseases of interest to the Global Fund. One response identified the National Society’s asset
management policy as a strength.

7.2 Priority areas that National Societies identified for strengthening
The identification of priority areas to be strengthened was interesting in that it highlighted an apparent
difference in levels of resourcing between the Southern African National Societies (better resourced)
and the West African National Societies (less well resourced). Burkina Faso, Benin and Togo RCs
each selected improved staffing, and support to strengthen M&E and finance systems as priorities.

7.2.1 Volunteers (Namibia, Malawi and Botswana)
Namibia, Malawi and Botswana RCs identified a need to strengthen volunteer management. Namibia
and Botswana RCs would focus on improving volunteer retention (including decreasing loss of
volunteers to other organizations), with Botswana RC proposing to carry out a volunteer satisfaction
survey as a first step and Namibia RC to look at ways of standardizing incentives among
organizations working with volunteers. Namibia RC already has a volunteer management policy in
place, but needs to disseminate this. Botswana RC would aim to develop a policy. Malawi and
Namibia RCs need to broaden the recruitment of volunteers from the current base which includes
many vulnerable, and sometimes illiterate, volunteers to recruit from other sectors of society. A PNS
is working with Malawi RC to support them with volunteer management, but they are still to see
results. Botswana and Malawi RCs would aim to involve a PNS in addressing this issue, and Namibia
RC also requested external support for volunteer management, including sharing of best practices.

7.2.2 Coordination and partnership (Liberia, Malawi and Botswana)
Malawi RC highlighted the need for Global Fund engagement to start with senior management as the
engagement process needs to be addressed at a strategic level as well as at the implementation level.
Following the workshop, the Malawi RC participants would brief senior management on the Global
Fund. However, IFRC was also requested to assist in briefing senior management, in particular from a
strategic/diplomatic perspective. Botswana RC participants would request that their management start
to attend national disease control programme coordination meetings, establish relations with the civil
society representatives on the CCM, and eventually lobby for CCM membership. Liberia RC also
wanted to promote more active involvement of National Society managers in coordination,
networking and fund raising.

7.2.3 Finance and administration (Benin, Burkina Faso, Togo and Zambia)
Benin, Burkina Faso and Togo RCs all recognized that the proper management and reporting of funds
is an essential requirement for Global Fund engagement. Benin and Togo RCs lack sufficient,
qualified staff in finance and all three lack adequate financial management tools. At Togo RC, the
IFRC has helped introduce financial management tools at the headquarters level but not in the
regional offices. In all three National Societies, human resources need to be strengthened, financial
management systems and tools need to be put in place and backed up by necessary hardware, written
guidelines need to be developed and staff need to be trained. External support will be needed. Zambia
RC also recognized a need for the Society’s financial management policy to be updated and for up to
date, externally-audited accounts to be made available.

7.2.4 M&E and reporting (Benin, Burkina Faso, Togo, Botswana and Namibia)
Benin, Burkina Faso and Togo RCs all recognized that weak M&E and reporting would make it
difficult to manage a Global Fund grant. Benin and Burkina Faso RCs lack a dedicated M&E person.
Togo RC has one person to cover a nationwide programme. They each need to strengthen and
integrate their M&E systems and tools at all levels of the National Society. Technical assistance to put
in place an M&E plan was requested along with financial support to recruit an M&E person. If this is
not possible, then it will be essential that existing staff are trained on M&E systems and tools.
Botswana RC would also prioritize the development of an M&E plan (within the next few months to


                                              Page 35 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                   3 – 7 October 2011


support their Round 11 application), and requested IFRC PMER technical support. Namibia RC has
strong manual systems in place, but would aim to introduce an electronic database system and roll out
the mobile-phone based reporting technology that they have been piloting with IFRC. Internally they
will secure management support for these steps, but they will need access to external expertise in
database management and training on the same.

7.2.5 Staff (Benin, Burkina Faso, Togo and Zambia)
Benin, Burkina Faso, Togo and Zambia RCs all identified a lack of adequate staffing of the National
Society health department. This leads to a lack of active participation in coordination meetings and
follow up with national disease control programme teams and CCM members. In Benin and Burkina
Faso RCs, the Health Coordinators are alone in the health department. All would look for external
resources to fill gaps. Benin RC noted that it may be possible to submit a proposal and get accepted as
a Global Fund SR with one person in the health department, but that getting the quality results
necessary to hang on to the grant would be a different matter. Togo RC will also aim to re-activate the
volunteer working groups that have been used to provide support for health programme
implementation in the past. However, such volunteers may not have the specialist skills, e.g. in M&E,
needed to run a quality programme.

7.2.6 Governance (Liberia, Malawi and Zambia)
Liberia and Malawi RCs prioritized building the capacity of governing board members on resource
mobilization and project management. Zambia RC requested IFRC support to help the Society
overcome issues with Board positions remaining vacant (including that of the representative for
health), irregular board meetings, lack of board capacity in resource mobilization and lack of
engagement of board members with other civil society actors and CCM representatives.

7.2.7 Disease-specific technical assistance (Liberia and Namibia)
For Round 11, Namibia RC requests IFRC support for malaria proposal writing – a new programme
area for them. Liberia RC prioritized capacity building for programme staff around proposal
development.

7.3 Key discussion points
•   National Society participants remain motivated to engage with the Global Fund. However,
    workshop presentations had underlined the need to ensure quality implementation, monitoring and
    reporting, and rigorous financial accountability, in order to meet the Fund’s PBF requirements.
    There was discussion around the need to balance active lobbying and technical support to get the
    National Society into the Global Fund and essential capacity building to ensure that the National
    Society has the capacity to deliver on agreed targets. As one participant noted, it might be
    possible to write a successful Global Fund grant application with one person alone in the health
    department, but delivering quality results would be another matter. Participants from southern
    Africa expressed surprise and concern about the low levels of staffing and weakness of basic
    systems identified by National Societies in western Africa.
•   The need for technical support from the IFRC and PNS was mentioned. However, there was also
    an understanding that the various National Societies around the table had different strengths and
    that National Societies could learn a great deal from each other. Exchange of knowledge and tools
    between peer National Societies, including exchange visits, would be a valuable capacity-building
    strategy.
•   Ian Steed, from the IFRC volunteering development team, participated in the session and took up
    some of the participants’ issues related to volunteers:
-   Volunteer surveys, mentioned by a couple of National Societies, are a good idea. It can be useful
    to find out who your volunteers are, how long they think they will stay with you, and what their
    needs, interests and aspirations are. Equally, it can be useful to ask people why they do not
    volunteer for you. Namibia and Malawi RC mentioned broadening their volunteer recruitment
    strategies to increase volunteering from different sectors of society. Some initial research would
    be useful here in order to develop appropriate recruitment messages.


                                             Page 36 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                                 3 – 7 October 2011


-      When engaging with donors such as the Global Fund, it is important to question whether such a
       partnership would, overall, support or limit the development of the National Society’s sustainable
       community resource base. For example, National Societies should be sure that the interventions
       they will implement with donor funds do align with the real priorities of communities and
       volunteers; providing one level of incentives to volunteers involved in a Global Fund project,
       while other volunteers are expected to work for less might be a mistake; referring to people as
       volunteers when they work regular hours, contribute more than a few hours a week, and receive
       significant incentives might also be a mistake in terms of the longer term view.
-      He described a recent pilot project to build sustainable capacity in the local branch structure of the
       Burundi RC as an example of an organizational development model that focused on mobilizing
       sustainable local resources rather than carrying out unsustainable activities based on time bound
       project funds. In 2005, the Burundi RC employed four people at national level. Services around
       the country were limited or non-existent and based at the commune level of administration, rather
       than the ‘colline’ (community) level. In 2011, the National Society employs about 200 people at
       national and provincial levels. It mobilizes some 300,000 volunteers (from a total national
       population of approximately 8.5 million), the vast majority of whom are vulnerable, on a weekly
       basis to identify and deliver services at the community level. Services are typically based on
       simple activities that are well understood by large groups of people: digging fields, building and
       mending houses etc. In addition, many local groups take initiatives to get vulnerable people to
       hospital and pay for their medicines when needed, and carry out activities such as reforestation
       and terrace building. This capacity to mobilize people to carry out relevant services attracts
       financial and material resources at community, commune, provincial branch and national levels,
       from individuals, local governments, and Movement and other partner organizations. The
       Burundi RC still have to face the challenge of retaining and building the capacity of this huge
       number of volunteers, but the model has succeeded in challenging a dependency culture in local
       populations brought about by years of external aid.
-      The Burkina Faso RC representative had earlier mentioned that the National Society needed to
       strengthen volunteer numbers at the village level (to complement existing networks at
       regional/provincial levels), and was struck by this model. He recognized that volunteer
       recruitment is a ‘downstream’ process for the National Society and that sustainable volunteer
       involvement cannot be turned on and off ‘like water from a tap’ according to the availability of
       donor funds. He wondered whether IFRC had guidance available for National Societies on
       volunteer issues and examples of best practice.
-      IFRC guidance on volunteer policy setting and management systems has been revised and will be
       available soon. A report on the evaluation of the Burundi RC pilot project is also available10.
•      Pablo Medina, from the IFRC’s Operations Quality Assurance team, attended the session and
       encouraged National Societies interested in building capacity for health-related emergency
       response to get in touch with the IFRC. He noted that the Global Fund has become more receptive
       to the idea of working with countries to reprogramme funds from existing grants to respond to
       emergencies. Funds must, however, link directly to actions on HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria. He
       reminded participants that National Societies and the IFRC have two resource mobilization tools
       available to support immediate responses to health emergencies: the Disaster Relief Emergency
       Fund (DREF) and the Emergency Appeal (or preliminary).
•      Francois Courtade, from the IFRC resource mobilization team, welcomed the opportunity to
       participate in the session. He encouraged participants to explore other opportunities to connect
       with international donors at the country level and noted that the knowledge they have gained at
       this workshop should be also be applicable to other donors. He noted that the IFRC still tends to
       pursue a vertical, top-down approach to resource mobilization. However, there is a need to adapt
       to the times as other donors, including the European Union with whom he works a lot, are
       decentralizing their decision making.
•      Namibia RC reiterated that National Society senior management and governance should be
       involved in resource mobilization, including accessing government funding, in order to support
       programmes. Namibia RC would be happy to share their corporate governance training materials

10
     http://www.ifrc.org/docs/Evaluations/Evaluations2011/Africa/978-92-9139-180-6%20Burundi-evaluation-report.pdf

                                                      Page 37 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                 3 – 7 October 2011


    with any interested National Society. They have found it to be very important that when
    governing board members are recruited they are trained in corporate governance to enable them to
    fully understand their role and obligations.

7.4 Lesson learnt and recommendations for action
1. Participants identified a range of individual National Society capacity building needs that should
   be addressed as part of an effective Global Fund engagement process, including: strengthening
   monitoring and evaluation, finance- and volunteer-recruitment management systems, staffing up
   health departments, improving partnership and coordination mechanisms, and promoting senior
   management understanding of resource mobilization and project management principles.
2. A set of benchmarking criteria for assessing Global Fund preparedness might be developed by
   aligning IFRC organizational development checklists with the Global Fund PR assessment
   checklists.
3. Significant opportunities for capacity building and systems strengthening are provided to Global
   Fund implementers. However, National Society SGs need to put in place the essential, minimum
   capacity to succeed as a grant recipient.
4. During the workshop, it was clear that the National Societies represented had different strengths
   and weaknesses. Peer exchanges to share best practices and tools were identified as a valuable
   capacity-building mechanism, and such exchanges could be facilitated.
5. National Societies participating at this workshop could be facilitated to form a community of
   practice focused on Global Fund engagement, perhaps together with the Kenya and French RCs.
6. This community of practice would also provide a forum for National Societies, IFRC and PNS to
   systematically address organization development issues such as volunteering and volunteer
   management, including the need to balance donor demands, volunteer expectations, community
   accountability and opportunities to influence the agenda for health, and ensure that donor
   partnerships overall support and do not hinder the development of the National Society’s
   sustainable community resource base. Recommendations from community of practice members
   could be used as an advocacy tool in efforts to address the same issues with donors interested in
   task shifting to volunteers as a means to increase access to basic services.
7. It was also recognized that National Societies benefit greatly from the capacity building support
   provided by IFRC and PNS. Ways could, perhaps, be found to focus such support on a timely and
   specific Global Fund preparedness capacity building effort.
8. Equally, the technical, logistical, PSM support, for example, available to National Societies
   through the IFRC and PNSs during implementation is also a potential comparative advantage for
   the National Society. Ways to formalize and market this comparative advantage at all levels need
   to be developed.




                                            Page 38 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                   3 – 7 October 2011



8.0 Proposal development
The final two days of the workshop aimed to provide participants with proposal development support.
Siddharth Chatterjee, returned to the workshop to discuss what areas of capacity National Societies
might be asked to demonstrate in a Global Fund application. Mazuwa Banda from the WHO talked
participants through the essential logic of putting together a technical proposal for the Global Fund,
and Marcy Erskine from the IFRC worked with participants to define the components of the logical
framework (log frame) – a tool used to structure proposal content.

Participants then worked in National Society pairs to develop a log frame for their proposed
interventions. The draft log frames were presented and discussed on the final day of the workshop in a
mock TRP session. Feedback was provided by Marcy Erskine, Lasha Goguadze and Patrick Couteau
from the IFRC, Richard Carr, Country Support Facilitation Officer at RBM and Peter Olumese from
WHO. Most important, peer National Societies were also encouraged to review and provide feedback
on each others’ log frames.

Richard Carr briefly outlined some of the preparation steps that RBM have put in place to increase the
success of malaria country proposals in recent rounds: orientation meetings covering Global Fund and
technical updates tied in with the launch of each new round, provision of external consultants to
support countries with gap analysis and proposal development, and mock TRPs held about one month
ahead of the submission deadline at which countries present their draft proposals for expert and peer
review. He emphasized the need for National Societies to ‘sell’ themselves through their proposal; to
highlight how the National Society will add value to the country response, increase access to service;
to explain how you are going to scale up the services provided and why the National Society is the
best placed organization to do it.

8.1 Demonstrating National Society capacity
In a brainstorming session, participants identified what they thought would be included in an
assessment of National Society capacity. The assessment criteria used by the Kenya RC, as Round 10
HIV grant PR, to assess potential SRs were then introduced as a basis for further discussion. These are
as follows:

1. Application process fully complied with
   The proposal must be delivered to the right place, in the right format, with all requested
   attachments, by the stated deadline. Normally, any proposal that does not meet administrative
   requirements will be failed immediately (see Table 15 extracted from the process used by Kenya
   RC to assess proposals). Therefore, these requirements should be noted from the outset of
   proposal development and factored into a proposal development plan.
2. Organization is legally registered
   Copies of the registration papers will be needed.
3. Technical capacities to plan, organize, implement, monitor and report on projects through a
   participatory approach
   Kenya RC asked for a listing of key staff expected to work on the project with their qualifications
   and previous project reports.

Table 15 Monitoring of administrative compliance
Was the         Was the proposal     Hard and   Was the          Are all the          Qualify (if yes
proposal        submitted in the     soft       proposal         attachments          in all
delivered on    appropriate place    copy?      delivered in     provided?            categories)
time?           (YES or NO)          (YES or    the right        (YES or NO)          Disqualify (if
(YES or NO)                          NO)        format?                               no in any
                                                (YES or NO)                           category)



                                             Page 39 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                                  3 – 7 October 2011


4. Evidence of audited accounts for the last three years
   This is likely to be a requirement for SR applicants, but may vary from country to country. Kenya
   RC waived the need for audited accounts for applicants who would work on a small scale (i.e. in
   one district).
5. Evidence of financial management capacity and systems, internal controls and bank details
   National Societies can use the IFRC financial management and systems checklist to help describe
   their financial management and systems capacity. It may be useful to look at the Global Fund’s
   format for assessment of financial systems11. This was developed for LFAs to assess PR capacity.
   However, it may also be used by PRs as a basis for assessing potential SRs12.
6. Evidence of a board of directors and governance system
   Kenya RC asked applicants to attach names, addresses and the minutes of two recent board
   meetings.
7. Evidence of implementation in HIV or TB or malaria for at least 2 years
   Here National Society annual reports and/or project annual reports should be attached.
8. Linkages to communities in county in which activities will be implemented
   Here is the ideal opportunity to detail the National Society branch structure and volunteer
   network, including recent and relevant volunteer trainings and activities. Letters of support from
   local government and traditional leaders would also strengthen this section.

National Societies will find a number of variations on the above in their countries. However, the
Kenya RC example provides an excellent basis for planning out the inputs likely to be necessary to
demonstrate capacity, and can be used as the basis for an application in countries where the process is
less clearly spelled out.

Table 16 illustrates another key aspect of the proposal assessment process. Many countries will use a
scoring system to assess applications, in order to promote a more systematic and objective approach
to the task. An extract from the Kenya RC process related to the demonstration of governance systems
is show in the table. Each of the criteria in the capacity assessment and each element of the technical
proposal were scored in this way.

Assuming a similar process in other countries, it is, therefore, vital that National Societies complete
each and every section in the proposal form or risk not meeting the overall cut off score for a
successful proposal. In most countries, proposals will need to pass at the administrative stage, and
then pass again at the capacity stage before the assessors even open the technical details of the
proposal. On no account should it be assumed that the assessors will know the National Society and
its capacity. Everything should be documented as requested in the proposal submission.

Table 16 Methodology for the review of SR applications
Category                  Criteria                  Detailed questions          Maximum score           Score attained
                                                    and score per               possible
                                                    question
Leadership/               Evidence of               e.g. Does your              20 (for the whole
governance                existence of a            organization have a         section which
                          board of directors        board of directors,         includes four
                          and governance            executive                   questions in
                          system                    committee or board          total)
                                                    trustees?
                                                    If yes – Score 5
                                                    If no – Score 0

11
   Go to http://theglobalfund.org/en/lfa/documents/ (LFA tools and guidelines/before grant implementation/PR assessment
tools) to see the financial management and systems capacity assessment tool.
12
   Go to http://theglobalfund.org/en/lfa/documents/ to find the tools used to assess PR M&E, SR management and other key
capacities.

                                                     Page 40 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                                3 – 7 October 2011


All the documents used by Kenya RC in their assessment of Round 10 SR applications, from the call
for expressions of interest to the checklists used to assess the proposal submitted, are available on the
Round 11 Fednet site.

8.2 Developing a successful technical proposal
Overall, a technical proposal needs to be:
• Appropriate – it has to address priority needs using evidence-based strategies/interventions that
   are suited to the context;
• Convincing – it has to be based on a comprehensive situation analysis and gap analysis.
   The situation analysis should describe:
   - What is the scale of the disease?
   - What is driving the epidemic (particularly for HIV and TB)?
   - Who is affected?
   - What are the current national policies/strategies?
   - What has been achieved so far?
   - What are the constraints? (Often left out in earlier proposals, especially CSS/HSS)
     The gap analysis is based on the following logic (see Figure 1):
     - What is in the national plan?
     - What are the national targets?
     - What is covered by existing resources?
     - What is the gap?
     - How much of the gap should this proposal cover?
•    Coherent – the strategies and activities proposed must be linked to the achievement of proposal
     SDAs13 (outputs), objectives (outcomes) and goals (impacts). The basic parameters of the
     proposal interventions (what, where, for whom and when) must be set out at the start of the
     proposal and care must be taken not to stray from them as the proposal is put together. The same
     parameters should determine, for example, the M&E plan, the work plan and the budget. If TRP
     members spot that variances in these key parameters have crept in, the proposal will be in trouble.
•    Clear – even the most technically correct proposal may fail if it is not well written and the logic is
     not clearly presented. TRP members have little time to assess each country proposal and assessors
     reading SR applications will also likely have limited time. Maps, graphs and charts, and flow
     charts can provide readers with complex information in an accessible format, and clear chapter
     headings and other ‘signposts’ to help readers pick out key points can improve readability.


Figure 1 Identification of the gap to be addressed by the Global Fund proposal




                                    Unmet need


13
  The Global Fund uses the terms SDAs, objectives and goals. Other commonly-used terms for each level of achievement
are inserted in brackets in the text.

                                                    Page 41 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                       3 – 7 October 2011


For some issues the gap to be filled by the Global Fund proposal/funding request should be equal to
100% of the unmet need e.g. on blood safety there can be no compromises. For some interventions,
however, it may only be feasible to cover a certain proportion of the unmet need e.g. for the provision
of ARVs.

The proposal strategy should be outlined with reference to: goals (impact), objectives (outcomes),
SDAs (outputs), activities, indicators at each level, budget and work plan. Other proposal elements
might also be required depending on the focus of the intervention e.g. a PSM plan.

The proposal should outline a five-year programme, unless activities will last less than five years.
Years 1 and 2 (Phase 1) must be planned out in detail. Years 3 to 5 (Phase 2), should be planned out
in as much detail as possible and a clear map for the implementation of key interventions should be
provided.

As of Round 11, the country proposal strategy must be presented in a log frame (Figure 2). The log
frame is a tool commonly used to enhance the coherence and clarity of proposals. It focuses on the
flow of a proposal. Each level of the log frame must contribute directly to the level above using an ‘if
... then’ logic e.g. if the listed activities are carried out, then the SDA will be achieved; if the listed
SDAs are achieved, then the associated objective will be achieved, and so on. The log frame also
focuses attention on how progress will be monitored and evaluated.

The log frame should include a column for assumptions i.e. the external conditions that will need to
apply in order for the work to be realized e.g. that external procurement systems will ensure delivery
of items according to the stated schedule; that external technical assistance will be provided as stated,
that areas prone to natural or manmade emergencies remain stable. Assumptions need to focus on
issues that cannot reasonably be influenced by the implementer. As noted in earlier presentations (see
Section 5.0), SRs and SSRs are highly dependent on the good performance of the PR and/or SR, and
make or break aspects of this performance (e.g. supply of commodities) should be noted in the
assumptions section.

Figure 2 The basic log frame structure
Goal     Indicator    Objective   Indicator    SDA     Indicator    Activity     Indicator      Assumption
Goal 1   Goal 1       Obj. 1      Obj. 1       SDA 1   SDA 1        Activity 1   Activity       Assumptions
         indicators               indicators           indicators                indicator
                                               SDA 2   SDA 2        Activity 1   Activity       Assumptions
                                                       indicators                indicator
                                                                    Activity 2   Activity       Assumptions
                                                                                 indicator
                      Obj. 2      Obj. 2       SDA 1   SDA 1        Activity 1   Activity       Assumptions
                                  indicators           indicators                indicator
                                               SDA 2   SDA 2        Activity 1   Activity       Assumptions
                                                       indicators                indicator
                                                                    Activity 2   Activity       Assumptions
                                                                                 indicator
                                                                    Activity 3   Activity       Assumptions
                                                                                 indicator
                      Obj. 3      Obj. 3       SDA 1   SDA 1        Activity 1   Activity       Assumptions
                                  indicators           indicators                indicator
                                                                    Activity 2   Activity       Assumptions
                                                                                 indicator
                                                                    Activity 3   Activity       Assumptions
                                                                                 indicator
                                                                    Activity 4   Activity       Assumptions
                                                                                 indicator

In addition to these essential log frame sections, other sections may be added according to country
preferences (e.g. a cost column, a coding column linked to budget tracking and/or a column
identifying the organization/person responsible for each element of the proposal). If a log frame is not


                                               Page 42 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                                 3 – 7 October 2011


specifically requested in a call for SR/SSR proposals, it may still be a good idea to complete one as:
(1) it promotes coherence and clarity in the proposal development process, and (2) it will help
assessors understand how the interventions you propose fit into the overall country log frame.

Figure 2 illustrates a very simple log-frame format. The log frame that Kenya RC asked SR applicants
to complete (and the one used by participants during the workshop) was more complex. The Global
Fund Round 11 country proposal log frame includes additional elements to help the country put
together consolidated proposals.

When preparing a SR or SSR proposal, it is important to:
• Be familiar with the basics of the country proposal –these details should be outlined in the call for
  expressions of interest/proposals. If not, applicants should request access to the proposal.
• Align activities and targets with those in the country proposal (and/or national plan). This is
  crucial. If the National Society simply submits a proposal outlining what they would like to do,
  but the proposed activities do not fit with the location, population group, intervention and
  timeframe of the national proposal, the application will fail.
• Align costs with those in the country proposal – the country is required to provide unit costs for
  all items/activities e.g. the cost/per person/day of a training workshop as well as the cost per drug.
  If National Society proposed unit costs are widely different, they will not be accepted.
  Opportunities to access information about the unit costs used in the country proposal and/or
  standardized costs agreed among civil society actors for e.g. volunteer incentives, staff salaries
  should be explored. With the current financial pressure at the Global Fund and with the Fund’s
  renewed commitment to value for money, submitted budgets should be realistic and backed up
  with quotations and receipts or other evidence of ongoing expenditures.
• Demonstrate an implementation track record.
• Identify capacity issues to be addressed.

The five most common weaknesses identified by the TRP in Round 10 HIV non-recommended
country proposals are as follows14:
• The proposed activities, interventions and/or strategies are not evidence-based or are part of an
   inappropriate approach for the epidemiological context.
• The proposal lacks a coherent strategy; and/or there are inconsistencies between objectives,
   SDAs, activities, budget and indicators.
• There was insufficient detailed information to assess the feasibility of the proposed activities.
• The impact and/or outcome indicators were inappropriate or poorly defined (weak performance
   framework).
• The budget information was inaccurate, questionable and/or not sufficiently detailed.

Some final tips:
• The process is as important as the content;
• Start early. Constitute a good proposal team;
• Aim to have a complete draft ready at least one month in advance of the submission deadline;
• Spend adequate time on important preliminary steps including the situation analysis, gap analysis
   – strategic planning;
• SRs are often inward looking and focus on their own needs and own programme. However, it is
   also important to be outward looking – to the national plan/gaps/strategy – to ensure success;
• Make it clear in the proposal what you need to do to develop both quality and quantity.

8.2 Key discussion points
Two sets of discussion points are reported. General areas of discussion related to the session
presentations followed by those related to the mock TRP presentations.



14
  Most common weaknesses identified by the TRP in Round 10 proposals http://theglobalfund.org/en/application/infonotes/

                                                     Page 43 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                     3 – 7 October 2011


8.2.1 General discussion points
• National Societies have ambitions to be SR and even PR, but lack capacity. How do they make
    this leap and is there a watchdog role that IFRC can play in terms of ensuring governance and
    senior management meet their obligations to build the capacity of the National Society and
    mobilize resources to support programmes?
• Most important in terms of progression will be the internal commitment of the governing board
    and secretary general to find the funds necessary to put in place a basic set of personnel, skills and
    systems (whether the National Society is aiming to be SR or PR). As mentioned throughout the
    workshop, active networking with the CCM by senior management is vital, and if they are able to
    show that a commitment to putting robust systems in place has been made this will allow the
    CCM to consider positioning the National Society for a significant role. The experiences of
    Kenya RC, the French RC and Namibia RC indicate that funds follow function and the National
    Society needs to make that decision to capacitate by one means or another.
• The National Societies present were all aiming to engage initially with the Global Fund as SRs.
    Their aim must be to produce a quality proposal and follow up with quality implementation and
    reporting (financial and programmatic). In this way, they will demonstrate accountability and
    opportunities to position as PR may open up and be a realistic prospect – as Kenya RC has shown.
    The PR role does not come without significant risk and major obligations. However, it also
    provides a chance to provide leadership and coordination, and to focus the national health agenda
    on the most vulnerable in society and humanitarian values. Meanwhile, SRs are the key to
    implementation – a RC/RC comparative advantage – and, with a clear strategy and argument
    about what they bring to the table, National Societies can take on this role and scale up their
    services to address key problems for communities.
• In Namibia RC’s experience, during implementation Global Fund will want to see terms of
    reference and budgets for monitoring visits, reports on the visits, and evidence that the monitoring
    effort is being used to make programme adjustments.
• National Societies could think about using external monitoring as well as internal monitoring for a
    more objective view.
• Global Fund proposal development is a tough task. However, these requirements are common to
    many of the international donors. Therefore, work done to prepare a Global Fund proposal will
    prepare the National Society to make applications to other donors should opportunities arise.

8.2.2 Mock TRP discussions points
• It was noted that the log frames presented were provisional, and would need to be reformulated
    according to the precise content of calls for proposals (i.e. according to country proposal
    objectives, SDAs and activities).
• In NSA countries, the country proposal goals, objectives etc will be taken directly from the
    country disease control strategy. Other National Societies can use an up to date national strategy
    to orientate proposal development ahead of the call for proposals. Some country strategies contain
    more roles for civil society than are actually implemented in practice, and can provide the
    rationale for more extensive civil society inputs into the country proposal as well as for the
    National Society application.
• National Societies need to think carefully about the grant start date. Q4 2013 is the probably the
    earliest realistic start date given the March 2012 submission date plus the time needed for grant
    approval and negotiation processes. Global Fund has also indicated that funds will not be
    available until Q4 2013. Setting an earlier start date might put the National Society in a position
    where it needs to bridge a funding gap ahead of the first disbursement.
• Participants were reminded that the proposal should cover the five-year grant period.
• Population figures need to be adjusted annually for population growth over the five years of the
    grant to ensure accurate quantification.
• Target populations need to be described precisely e.g. is the target the total population, under-
    fives, sex workers, households of TB patients, in all or selected locations?
• Country and National Society proposals need to be aligned with the national strategy and
    operational plan. But, they also need to align with WHO guidance. For example, the TRP is
    unlikely to agree to a proposal to double up on LLINs and IRS as the WHO policy outlines a

                                              Page 44 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                     3 – 7 October 2011


    principle of insecticidal coverage i.e. coverage by one means or another (except in exceptional
    circumstances).
•   The overall proposal strategy must align with the situation/problem analysis. For example, one
    National Society identified late help seeking behaviour and low use of nets as problems, but did
    not focus in the log frame on interventions directed at solving these problems. Similarly, Richard
    Carr highlighted the importance of getting the situation and gap analyses right in the first place. If
    these are incorrect or weak, then the log frame that follows will likely be inappropriate.
•   Proposal objectives/outcomes need to be stated as the change that will be brought about by the
    chosen interventions e.g. a per cent behaviour change or per cent uptake of ARVs.
•   Objectives must be SMART.
•   National Societies were advised to work within existing systems for maintaining LLIN coverage,
    as country proposals will be focused on the evidence-based essentials in a potentially cash-
    strapped Round 11. Aim to increase ANC uptake and check if a campaign is planned.
•   National Societies should explore the possibility of CCMm or iCCM implementation – especially
    in hard to reach areas underserved by formal health services. In contexts where MOH policy
    blocks the full roll out of community-based diagnosis and treatment, volunteers could assist the
    MOH with outreach clinics (include LLIN distribution). Or volunteers can promote increased
    access to pre-referral treatment for severe malaria, ensure that malaria patients can travel to get
    treatment, and monitor treatment compliance.
•   If IRS is part of the national malaria control strategy, the National Society can provide
    information, education and communication (IEC) support.
•   National Societies are encouraged to include integrated HIV and TB interventions in a TB
    proposal (at least HIV testing with TB sample taking). Check the StopTB and UNAIDS Round 11
    guidance to know which interventions to focus on in a TB and HIV proposal, respectively.
•   Treatment adherence monitoring and psychosocial social support for multidrug resistant TB
    (MDR-TB) patients and their families are interventions where a National Society can add value.
•   Infection control trainings are vital in any TB intervention.
•   National Societies should address TB stigma and discrimination as part of a TB intervention.
•   The five-year timeframe means that refresher trainings for volunteers will need to be factored in
    to the intervention, perhaps two rounds.
•   National Societies should look for opportunities to train government CHWs alongside Red Cross
    volunteers. Aim to align and harmonize National Society volunteer training materials with those
    used by the MOH as Kenya RC did in their HMM pilot. Or advocate for the use of the WHO –
    IFRC community volunteer HIV prevention treatment care and support training package. This
    been adopted by MOH in e.g. Namibia, Swaziland and Lesotho.
•   If the National Society proposal includes a request for BCC funds, make sure the proposed
    intervention is specific to the outcome/objective and population group(s) targeted.
•   Always check what other IEC materials are already in use or in development by others.
•   Think carefully about risks, assumptions and constraints. Do not include those that should be
    within your control e.g. difficulty recruiting and motivating large number of volunteers. In this
    case, it is up to the implementer to design an intervention based on a realistic volunteer numbers.
•   Review existing grants and identify opportunities to scale up ongoing priority interventions.

8.4 Lesson learnt and recommendations for action
1. As part of draft Federation Wide Resource Mobilization Strategy there is an intention to
   implement a: ‘senior leadership mechanism to be established to help develop and sustain a culture
   of mutual accountability for resource mobilization results.’
2. IFRC was requested to provide technical support to National Society proposal development. A
   support plan based on the needs and timeframes of proposal submissions should be developed and
   resources mobilized for its implementation.




                                              Page 45 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                     3 – 7 October 2011



9.0 Workshop follow up
On the final morning of the workshop, participants were asked to identify the immediate areas of
support needed by their National Societies in order to develop and submit a Round 11 SR application
and the timeframe for that support. Participants were asked to be as specific as possible. See Annex 6
for a complete description of the needs identified per National Society. The needs are summarized in
Section 9.1 below.

9.1 Feedback of National Society strengths and support needs to the IFRC
The final working session of the workshop was attended by Goli Ameri, IFRC Under-Secretary
General, Humanitarian Values and Diplomacy, and provided an opportunity for participants to
feedback on and discuss some of the key lessons learnt and recommendations for action arising from
the workshop.

Naemi Heita, Programmes Manager and Deputy Secretary General of the Namibia RC, expressed
participants’ satisfaction with the workshop – including their appreciation of the comprehensive
contributions from Global Fund, WHO and RBM presenters which had significantly raised the level
of knowledge of National Societies with regard to Global Fund structures and processes and Round 11
priorities.

National Societies had also shared their experiences with Global Fund to date and this had helped to
identify both their strengths (including their volunteers, coordination and partnership efforts, internal
systems for finance and M&E, committed and competent staff, management and governance,
emergency response capacities, and access to RCRC support) and the areas that still need to be
strengthened in order to for them to be effective Global Fund partner (Table 17).

Table 17 Priority areas that National Societies identified for strengthening in the medium term
Area to be         Number of Types of strengthening needed
strengthened       National
                   Societies
Volunteers         3             Volunteer recruitment from new sectors of society; volunteer
                                 retention, incentives, volunteer management systems
Coordination and 3               Mobilization of SGs and board members to take a lead on Global
partnership                      Fund engagement at a strategic level; CCM membership
M&E and            5             Strengthen and integrate M&E and reporting systems and tools at
reporting                        all levels of the National Society; recruit M&E expertise; train
                                 existing staff; develop M&E plan; roll out mobile-phone based
                                 reporting technology
Finance and        4             Put financial management systems and tools in place and/or
administration                   decentralize systems; recruit additional staff; train existing staff;
                                 update financial management policies; carry out external audits
Staffing           4             Increase staff in health departments
Governance         3             Build capacity of governing board members on resource
                                 mobilization and project management; fill vacant board positions
                                 and address lapsed board meetings
Technical          1             Strengthen technical capacity for malaria programme
capacity                         implementation

She noted that National Societies were not uniform with regards to their strengths and weaknesses.
What one National Society had noted as a strong point another had identified as one of the three core
areas in which their National Society needed to be strengthened. Three main concerns were presented:
• First, that the Francophone National Societies present (Benin, Burkina Faso and Togo) appeared
    to be facing severe staffing and capacity issues.


                                              Page 46 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                               3 – 7 October 2011


•   Second, that examples of best practice and National Society strengths had been highlighted and
    that ways should be found for these to be shared more widely for peer-based capacity building
    purposes.
•   Third, a call was made for technical support from the IFRC, PNS and other partners to support
    National Societies with Global Fund specific organizational development in both the immediate
    and the medium to longer term – across a spectrum of issues including finance, PMER, volunteer
    management, resource mobilization and humanitarian values and diplomacy.

Ghislaine Glitho Alinsato, Health Coordinator at the Benin RC, then continued the feedback by
emphasizing the motivation of all the National Societies represented at the workshop to move ahead
with closer Global Fund engagement and for many the intention to submit a Round 11 SR application.
She focused on the immediate support needs identified by National Societies which were summarized
as shown in Table 18 (see Annex 5 for more details).

Table 18 Summary of immediate support needs
Immediate technical support need  Number of requests          Who to      Timeframe
                                                              support
Briefing and mobilization of senior    4                      IFRC        Within two weeks
management to position the National
Society with the CCM
Proposal development                   10 (one National       IFRC and    October 2011 to
                                       Society will develop   WHO         January 2012,
                                       two proposals)                     depending on country
                                                                          process
Follow up workshop in-country          1                      IFRC        -
To put in place external audits        2                      IFRC        -
Development of an M&E plan             1                      IFRC        By February 2012
Encouragement of National Society      1                      IFRC        -
senior management to recruit
additional staff for the health
department

9.2. Key discussion points
•   Discussion focused on National Society engagement with the CCM, and, in particular, on how
    better to engage secretary generals and governing board members in CCM networking and
    lobbying. It was reiterated that programme staff can work on Global Fund engagement by
    cultivating strong links with national disease control programme managers and civil society
    health programme managers, but it must be senior managers that lead the process with
    regard to their peers on the CCM and indeed with senior officials within the Ministry of
    Health and with other civil society leaders.
•   Participants requested that the IFRC work to brief and mobilize National Society senior
    leadership on this issue, as an urgent follow up action to the workshop and in line with the
    Round 11 timeframe (i.e. within 2-3 weeks). Senior management can be encouraged to
    recognize the Round 11 delay as an opportunity to act.
•   National Society senior management need to review the revised CCM requirements and
    guidelines ahead of discussions. It would be useful if these documents and the names and
    contacts of CCM members/country could be forwarded to secretary generals by the IFRC.
•   Suggested means of communication with National Society secretary generals included
    picking up the phone, sending a letter and/or organizing a support mission. The option of
    sending a letter was preferred.
•   It was, however, noted that secretary generals, in the southern Africa region at any rate,
    have already been extensively briefed on the Global Fund process and the central
    importance of the CCM, including during the process of developing a Round 7 multi-country
    HIV proposal lead by IFRC. This has not resulted in a great deal of action on their parts.

                                           Page 47 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                 3 – 7 October 2011


•   IFRC zone and regional representatives should also be briefed following the workshop so
    that they can follow up with National Society leadership during their regular contacts.
•   The process of becoming a CCM member takes time since it is a participatory process
    involving constituency elections, and membership cannot be a realistic target within the
    Round 11 timeframe. However, this period provides an opportunity to scope out the pros
    and cons of CCM membership and also to explore the possibility that an additional seat on
    the CCM is created based on the National Society’s unique auxiliary to government status.
•   For workshop participants, becoming members of the country proposal writing team is an
    important target in order to promote the National Society’s chances of Round 11 success.
    The time and commitment needed to take part in the country process will however have to
    be taken into account.
•   Given the capacity issues identified by Burkina Faso, Togo and Benin RCs, and considering
    that Togo and Burkina Faso RC, in particular, are well-positioned for Round 11 success,
    what can be done to address their organizational development needs?

9.2 Lessons learnt and recommendations for action
1. IFRC will develop a support plan based on the requests made by workshop participants and the
   timeframe of Round 11, and aim to mobilize resources for its implementation.
2. There will be a need to balance active networking and technical support to get the National
   Society into the Global Fund and the essential capacity building to ensure that the National
   Society has the capacity to absorb requested funding and deliver on agreed targets. Relatively
   small investments in capacity building by the National Society itself and by the IFRC and PNS
   may provide significant investment returns in terms of: (1) increased funding; (2) access to
   additional capacity building support as part of the Global Fund process; (3) increased visibility
   and opportunities to focus national agendas on the most vulnerable and on humanitarian values.
3. National Societies in certain contexts could explore the creation of a specific seat on the CCM on
   the basis of their auxiliary to government status.
4. With more experience of engagement, the overall advantages and disadvantages of resource
   mobilization through the Global Fund will become clearer. In Round 11, National Societies are
   encouraged to take a strategic view and aim for grants that will not overstretch their absorption
   capacity but will allow them to evaluate the benefits and challenges of grant implementation.
5. The workshop discussions echo the need – as identified in the draft Federation wide resource
   mobilization strategy – to define models of cooperation that are unique for this funding stream
   (multi-laterals). Such models will need to be cross-cutting in terms of the departments involved
   (programmes, organizational and volunteer development, PMER, M&E, finance, resource
   mobilization, humanitarian values and diplomacy) and in terms of the relationships between
   National Societies, PNS and the IFRC.
6. The experience of organizing this workshop suggests that departments such as finance, PMER
   and organizational development within the IFRC Secretariat could benefit from additional
   briefings on the Global Fund, the IFRC’s position with regard to increased engagement, and their
   roles potentially in supporting National Societies to engage more effectively.




                                            Page 48 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                     3 – 7 October 2011



10.0 Workshop evaluation
10.1 Participation
Six of the 9 National Societies represented at the workshop were able to send two participants. This
worked well during sessions when National Societies developed their individual issues and plans.
Inviting a National Society ‘team’ to attend future workshops would be valuable. Participants came
prepared to represent the interests of their National Society and to learn. All participated actively.

10.2 Content and implementation
10.2.1 Global Fund structures, processes and priorities
Participants found these sessions informative and relevant. More time could usefully have been given
to the session on the basic workings of the Global Fund. Participants found the session on the new
Global Fund requirements for Round 11 extremely detailed and the issues complex. Feedback from
the Global Fund presenters suggested that they were not the only ones; apparently Ministry of Health
and proposal writers who have been given the same presentation have had the same reaction. In a
future workshop, this session could be further simplified. However, the information remains relevant
for participants wishing to join and follow the country process.

10.2.2 Community systems strengthening
Participants considered the session on CSS to be highly relevant. However, the group exercise
suggested that they had not fully grasped the need to develop CSS strategies and activities at the level
of the whole community system and not at the level of an individual organization. This point should
be emphasized using specific examples in future workshops.

10.2.3 Technical updates
Participants evaluated the technical update sessions highly in terms of their relevance and
implementation. The updates at this workshop focused on malaria and HIV, but it would also have
been useful to have a comprehensive update on TB. The cross-cutting gender and MNCH technical
updates were perhaps too technical and could have focused more on how these cross-cutting issues
can be covered in a Global Fund proposal in practice. Overall, this was a demanding day, and future
workshops should seek a better balance between presentations and discussion.

10.2.4 National Society strengths and weaknesses
Participants recognized that this session was important in terms of positioning the National Society
and planning what is needed in order to improve on weaknesses. National Societies were able to share
their experiences of capacity building and systems strengthening, and more time could usefully be
spent on this in future workshops.

10.2.5 Proposal development
Participants found the proposal development sessions useful and practical. Several mentioned that
more time could have been spent on the explanation of the log frame and that National Societies
needed more time to work on their individual log frames. In future, workshops it would perhaps be
useful to spend a little time with each National Society to look through their draft ahead of the plenary
presentations. Again, more time for the presentation of the log frames and discussion were requested.
However, one participant mentioned that this session ‘geared us up for action’ and others had found
the feedback on the draft log frames very useful.

10.2.6 National Societies shared experience
Overall, this was a very interactive group of participants from National Societies with many good
experiences to share. As mentioned above, more time for National Societies to learn from each other
on capacity building and systems strengthening could be usefully built in to future workshops. The
presentations from Namibia RC and the French RC were appreciated, and participants would also
have been interested to hear from the Kenya RC.


                                              Page 49 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                            3 – 7 October 2011



Annex 1: Workshop agenda
Day 1: introductions, aims and Global Fund structures and processes
Moderator: Sarah Hargreaves
    Time                                          Theme                                     Responsible
08:30-09:00     Arrival of participants
                         Participants arrive and register
09:00-09:10     Welcome                                                                   Jason Peat
                         Welcoming of participants                                        (IFRC)
                         Administrative information
09:10-09:30     Self-introductions                                                        Moderator
                         Self-introductions by participants and facilitators
09:30-10:00     Objectives and outputs                                                    Siddharth
                         Objectives of workshop and expected outputs                     Chatterjee
                         Parking lot                                                     (IFRC)
10:00-10:30     Tea break
10:30-11:00     Official opening                                                          Matthias Schmale
                                                                                          (IFRC)
11:00-12:15     Global Fund 101                                                           Ntombekhaya
                        Presentation                                                     Matsha-Carpentier
                        Plenary Q&A                                                      (Global Fund)
12:15-12:30     An overview of NS / IFRC and GFATM experience to date                     Stefan Hoyer
                        Presentations                                                    (WHO)
                        Plenary Q&A
12:30-13:00     RC/RC experience of Global Fund engagement                                Naemi Heita
                        Presentation                                                     (Namibia RC)
                        Plenary Q&A
13:00-14:00     Lunch
14:00-16:00     Round 11 proposal development processes                                   Participants
                        NS presentations on country processes, priorities & timeframes   Moderator
                          and NS aims
                        Plenary discussion
16:00-16:30     Tea break
16.30-18:00     New requirements for applications in Round 11                             Phyllis Heydt
                        Presentation                                                     (Global Fund)
                        Eligibility, counterpart financing and prioritization
                        New grant architecture and consolidated disease proposals
                        The proposal form structure
                        Information resources
                          Q&A
18:00-18:15     Wrap up Day 1                                                             Moderator
                        Parking lot issues and key themes
18:30 – 20:00   Reception

Day 2: Technical updates and key populations
Moderator: Jason Peat (IFRC)
    Time                                          Theme                                     Responsible
08:30-09:00     Arrival of participants
09:00-10.30     The French Red Cross experience of Global Fund processes and lessons      Antoine Peigney
                learnt                                                                    (French RC)
10:30-11:00     Tea break
11:00-12.30     Malaria technical updates                                                 Peter Olumese
                                                                                          (WHO)
12:30-13:00     New opportunities for NS and IFRC                                         Stefan Hoyer
                                                                                          (WHO)
13:00-14:00     Lunch
14:00-14:45     Community Information systems                                             Peter Olumese
                       Presentation community information systems                        (WHO)
                       Plenary discussion
14:45-16:00     Behaviour change communication (BCC)                                      Michael Charles
                       Presentation on BCC best practices                                (IFRC)


                                                   Page 50 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                           3 – 7 October 2011


                       Discussion of NS experiences and Round 11 opportunities/issues
                       Available resources
16:00-16:30    Tea break
16:30-17:45    Gender and mother, newborn & child health                                 Tonya Nyagiro
                       Presentation on the Global Fund focus on gender and MNCH         (Global Fund)
                       Technical update on MNCH                                         Vivianna
                       Discussion of NS experiences and Round 11 opportunities/issues   Mangiaterra
                       Available resources                                              (WHO)
17:45-18:15    Human rights                                                              Mauro Guarinieri
                       Presentation on human rights as a cross-cutting issue            (Global Fund)
                       Plenary discussion
18:15-18:30    Wrap up Day 2                                                             Moderator
                       Parking lot issues and key themes

Day 3: CSS and positioning the National Society
Moderator: Lasha Goguadze (IFRC)
Time          Theme                                                                      Responsible
08:30-09:00    Arrival of participants
09:00-11.00    Community systems strengthening                                           Ntombekhaya
                       Presentation of the 2011 CSS Framework                           Matsha-Carpentier
                       Presentation of CSS SDAs and indicators                          (Global Fund)
                       Plenary Q&A
11:00-11:30    Tea Break
11:30-13:00    Community systems strengthening
                       Facilitated brainstorm and discussion on CSS applications
                       Presentation of CSS in approved grants
                       Incorporation of CSS activities into Round 11 applications
                       Plenary discussion
13:00-14:00    Lunch
14:00-15:30    NS areas of strength                                                      Facilitators
                       Group work to identify areas of strength                         (IFRC)
                       Presentation and plenary discussion on NS strengths
15:30-16:00    Tea break
16:00-17:45    NS areas in need of further strengthening                                 Facilitators
                       Group work to identify areas in need of strengthening            (IFRC)
                       Presentation and plenary discussion on areas in need of          Pablo Medina
                           strengthening                                                 (IFRC)
                                                                                         Ian Steed
                                                                                         (IFRC)
17:45-18:00    Wrap up Day 3                                                             Moderator
                      Parking lot issues and key themes

Day 4: Development of NS R11 Global Fund proposals
Moderator: Sarah Hargreaves
    Time                                       Theme                                        Responsible
08:30-09:00    Arrival of participants
09:00-09:15    Overview Days Four and Five                                               Moderator
09:15-09:45    Demonstrating SR eligibility/capacity                                     Siddharth
                                                                                         Chatterjee
                                                                                         (IFRC)

09:45-11.00    The essential logic of a GF proposal                                      Mazuwa Banda
                       Alignment with national policies and strategies                  (WHO)
                       Alignment with the country proposal
                       Evidence
                       Gap analysis
                       Goal, objectives, service delivery areas (SDAs)
                       Indicators
                       Log frame
                       Budgets
                       Technical assistance
                       Plenary discussion


                                                 Page 51 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                           3 – 7 October 2011


11:00-11.30   Tea break
11:30-13:00   Technical updates HIV and TB                                              Mazuwa Banda
                                                                                        (WHO)
                                                                                        Lasha Goguadze
                                                                                        (IFRC)
13:00-14:00   Lunch
14:00-15:00   Log frame elements                                                        Marcy Erskine
                                                                                        (IFRC)
15:00-15:30   Individual NS work on draft R11 proposal                                  NS
15:30-16:00   Tea break
16:00-18.00   Individual NS work on draft R11 proposal                                  NS

Day 5: Individual NS follow up on workshop issues and planning
Moderator: Michael Charles (IFRC)
    Time                                       Theme                                      Responsible
08:30-09:00   Arrival of participants
09:00-10:30   Individual NS work on R11 proposal                                        NS
10:30-11:00   Tea break
11:00-12:00   Individual NS work on R11 proposal                                        NS
12:00-13:00   Presentation of individual NS draft proposal status, plan for follow up   Facilitators
              and needs                                                                 (IFRC)
                                                                                        Richard Carr
                                                                                         (RBM)
                                                                                        Peter Olumese
                                                                                        (WHO)
13:00-14:00   Lunch
14:00-15.00   Presentation of individual NS draft proposal status, plan for follow up
              and needs (continued)
15:00-16:00   Presentation of workshop recommendations and lessons learnt               Goli Ameri
                                                                                        (IFRC)
                                                                                        Naemi Heita
                                                                                        (Namibia RC)
                                                                                        Ghislaine Glitho
                                                                                        Alinsato
                                                                                        (Benin RC)
16:00-16:30   Workshop evaluation by participants / Tea break                           Moderator
16:30-17:00   Closing of workshop                                                       IFRC
                      Closing remarks
                      Administration
                      Presentation of certificates and photos
                      Handover of workshop materials




                                                Page 52 of 60
      IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                          3 – 7 October 2011



      Annex 2: CCM requirements revised for Round11
      Requirement 1
      The Global Fund requires all CCMs to:
      i. Coordinate the development of all funding applications through transparent and documented processes that
      engage a broad range of stakeholders - including CCM members and non-members – in the solicitation and the
      review of activities to be included in the application.
      ii. Clearly document efforts to engage key population groups in the development of funding applications,
      including most-at-risk populations.
      • Documented efforts to involve key population groups and most-at-risk populations for HIV/AIDS are
           required

      Requirement 2
      The Global Fund requires all CCMs to:
      i. Nominate one or more PR(s) at the time of submission of their application for funding.
      ii. Document a transparent process for the nomination of all new and continuing PRs based on clearly defined
      and objective criteria.
      iii. Document the management of any potential conflicts of interest that may affect the PR nomination process.

      Requirement 3
      Global Fund requires all CCMs to submit and follow an oversight plan for all financing approved by the Fund.
      The plan must detail oversight activities, and must describe how the CCM will engage program stakeholders in
      oversight, including CCM members and non-members, and in particular non-government constituencies and
      people living with and/or affected by the diseases.

      Requirement 4
      The Global Fund requires all CCMs to show evidence of membership of people living with HIV and of people
      affected by TB or malaria (where funding is requested or has previously been approved for that disease).
      People affected by TB or malaria include people who have lived with these diseases in the past or who come
      from communities where the diseases are endemic.
      • Membership must reflect the CCM’s portfolio of grants
      • Membership relates differently to HIV, TB and malaria
      • People living with HIV
      • People affected by TB or malaria

      Requirement 5
      The Global Fund requires all CCM members representing non-government constituencies to be selected by their
      own constituencies based on a documented, transparent process, developed within each constituency.
      This requirement applies to all non-government members including those members representing people living
      with or affected by the three diseases, but not to multilateral and bilateral partners.

      Requirement 6
      To ensure adequate management of conflict of interest, the Global Fund requires all CCMs to:
 i.       Develop and publish a policy to manage conflict of interest that applies to all CCM members, across all
          CCM functions. The policy must state that CCM members will periodically declare conflicts of interest
          affecting themselves or other CCM members. The policy must state, and CCMs must document, that
          members will not take part in decisions where there is an obvious conflict of interest, including decisions
          related to oversight and selection or financing PRs or SRs.
ii.       Apply their conflict of interest policy throughout the life of Global Fund grants, and present documented
          evidence of its application to the Global Fund on request.
      •   Make policy publicly available
      •   Applies to all members, across all CCM functions
      •   Members must periodically declare conflicts of interest
      •   Documentation to demonstrate application of policy through grant life.


                                                       Page 53 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                   3 – 7 October 2011



Annex 3: Definition of focus criteria for Round 11
Underserved and most-at-risk population          •   Defined within a defined and recognized
                                                     epidemiological context
                                                 •   Have significantly higher levels of risk, mortality
                                                     and/or morbidity; AND
                                                 •   Have significantly lower access to, or uptake of,
                                                     relevant services is than the rest of the population
Highest impact interventions                     •   Defined within a defined and recognized
                                                     epidemiological context
                                                 •   Address emerging threats to disease control, lift
                                                     barriers to the broader disease response and/or
                                                     create conditions for improve service delivery
                                                 •   And/or enable the roll-out of new technologies
                                                     that represent best practice; AND
                                                 •   Are not adequately funded
Focus for HSS                                    •   Health systems and community systems
                                                     strengthening interventions that, within the
                                                     country context, improve program outcomes for
                                                     underserved populations in two or more of the
                                                     diseases by improving equitable coverage and
                                                     uptake addressing availability of services, access
                                                     to services, utilization of services and/or quality
                                                     of services;
                                                 •   AND are not funded adequately




                                          Page 54 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                          3 – 7 October 2011



Annex 4: Priority areas to be strengthened
Namibia
Core areas        Why important?                                  What is needed?
Volunteer         Standardization of incentives                   Internal: volunteer management policy in
management        Improve volunteer retention                     place; dissemination needed
                  Decrease the loss of volunteers to other orgs   External: support with volunteer
                                                                  management including sharing of best
                                                                  practices
M&E / reporting   Too much paper work (manually) =>               Internal: management support
                  database development/mobile phones              External: Expertise in database
                                                                  management and training
RC/RC support     Lack of expertise in GF proposal writing in     External: technical support during proposal
                  new programme area (malaria)                    development

Zambia
Core areas        Why important                                   What is needed?
Governance        Irregular Board meetings                        IFRC support
                  Board positions remain vacant
                  Lack of training in RM
                  Lack of engagement of Board with civil
                  society
Finance           Need updated finance policy                     Internal
                  Need up to date audited accounts
Staff             Inadequate staffing                             IFRC support
                  Lack of active participation in coordination    Internal
                  meetings
                  Lack of contact with CCM civil society
                  representative(s)

Liberia
Core areas        Why important                                   What is needed?
Governance        Need more active: fund raising, advocacy,
                  lobbying – national and international
Management        Need more active: fund raising,
                  coordination, networking
Staff             Need more active coordination
                  Proposal development capacity

Togo
Core areas         Why important                                  What is needed?                Period
                                                                                                 T1 T2     T3
M&E / reporting    Key area for planning, implementation,         Recruit a person to            X
                   reporting (e.g. indicators)                    strengthen the unit
                   Use ++
                   Plans ++
                   HR?                                            Reinforce the reporting        X    X    X
                   ?                                              system at all levels of the
                                                                  NS
Staff              Lack of staff to support NS departments        Re-activate the working        X
                   (e.g. health)                                  groups
                                                                  Recruit more staff: sec,       X    X
                                                                  chef prog
Finance            Essential link in the management/reporting     Strengthen HR                  X    X    X
                   of GF funds
                   Lack of qualified staff                        Put financial management            X    X
                   Lack of financial management tools and         system in place at central
                   systems                                        and regional levels

                                               Page 55 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                             3 – 7 October 2011


                                                                      Develop rigorous financial
                                                                      management manual
                                                                      Strengthen system                            X
                                                                      hardware ??
                                                                      Training                              X      X

Benin
Core areas          Why important                                     What is needed?
                                                                      T1            T2                  T3
M&E / reporting     The NS lacks an M&E system                        Call for      Put in place a      Test the
                    This would make it impossible to manage a         technical     M&E plan,           plan
                    Global Fund grant                                 support       tools
                                                                                                        Put in
                                                                                    (translated)
                                                                                                        place an
                                                                                                        M&E unit
Staff               Insufficient staff for management, health,        Identify the                      Strengthen
                    coordination                                      essential                         HR?
                                                                      positions
                                                                      (e.g. SSE,
                                                                      cond RP,
                                                                      RM)

Finance /           Insufficient staff                                Needs           Technical         Strengthen
administration      Lack of capacity building                         assessment      support           HR?
                    Lack of planning for management of                Identify        Retraining
                    accounts                                          technical       NS staff
                                                                      support

Malawi
Core areas           Why important                                            What is needed?
Coordination /       Engagement with Global Fund should start with            Senior management should be
partnership          senior management at the strategic level (as well as     briefed by programme people on
                     at implementation level)                                 the Global Fund
                                                                              IFRC need to sensitize
                                                                              management on Global Fund and
                                                                              diplomacy
Governance           Board members not in forefront of RM                     Capacity building in RM and
                     Capacity gap in project management                       project management
Volunteers           Vulnerable volunteers – some of whom illiterate –        Strengthen volunteer recruitment
                     attracted to RC                                          and management
                     Creates pressure when recruiting programme               Engage PNS to support
                     volunteers

Burkina Faso
Core areas           Why important                                            What is needed?
Staff                Insufficient technical staff, especially in health       Recruit an assistant health
                     (currently the department consists of only the health    coordinator
                     coordinator)
M&E                  Lack of a dedicated M&E staff person                     Either recruit an M&E person or
                                                                              train existing staff in M&E
Finance              Lack of financial management tools                       Put in place financial management
                                                                              tools and train the finance staff to
                                                                              use them
Also mentioned: putting in place and strengthening volunteer networks at the village level (to complement
existing networks at regional/provincial levels); strengthening governance leadership on (?) and RM




                                                  Page 56 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                  3 – 7 October 2011


Botswana
Core areas                   Why important                  When              What is needed?
Establish partnership with   Lobby for CCM                  End of Oct 2011   None
CCM and NACA                 membership
                             Managers to attend NACA
                             meetings
                             Establish relations with
                             civil society representative
                             in CCM
M&E                          Develop an NS M&E              Feb 2102          IFRC technical support
                             plan/framework                                   (PMER)
Volunteer management         Conduct a volunteer            End of Jan 2012   IFRC Zonal volunteer
                             satisfaction survey                              management office /
                             Establish sustainable                            Australian RC
                             volunteer incentives
                             Develop volunteer
                             recruitment and retention
                             strategy




                                                Page 57 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                        3 – 7 October 2011



Annex 5: Immediate support needs for Round 11
National society: BENIN – Finagnon Ghislaine Glitho Alinsato (Health Coordinator)
#1 support need R11 proposal submission: Note officielle à la gouvernance pour qu’elle se positionne dans le
                                         CCM
Timeframe support need #1:               Deux semaines (début du processus au Benin et c’est le moment)
#2 support need R11 proposal submission: Appui technique de Stefan Hoyer (OMS) pour rédaction de
                                         proposition malaria
Timeframe support need #2:               Décembre 2011 (pour correction et finalisation le document
                                         partenariat CCM)
#3 support need R11 proposal submission: Discussion avec la gouvernance pour plan de recrutement de
                                         personnel pour le département santé
Timeframe support need #3:               Mars 2012

National society: BURKINA FASO – Maxime Yameogo (Health Coordinator) and Prosper Zombre
(Volunteer)
#1 support need R11 proposal submission: Appui technique pour l’original d’un atelier de restitution de cet
                                         atelier
Timeframe support need #1:               D’ici fin octobre 2011
#2 support need R11 proposal submission: Appui technique et financial pour l’élaboration du proposal de la
                                         Society National
Timeframe support need #2:               D’ici fin novembre 2011

National society: TOGO – Kuami Battah (Chef du départment Santé)
#1 support need R11 proposal submission: Appui de la Fédération pour motion leur implication lors le
                                         processus
Timeframe support need #1:               D’ici pour deux semaines
#2 support need R11 proposal submission: Appui technique de la Fédération / OMS pour finalisation de la
                                         proposition surtout l’aspect au maintienne la couverture universel
                                         du MILDA
Timeframe support need #2:               De octobre – novembre
#3 support need R11 proposal submission: Besoin de caution de la Fédération
Timeframe support need #3:               Tout le long du processus
#4 support need R11 proposal submission: Appui technical et financien pour la réalisation des audits
                                         périodiques de la Society National
Timeframe support need #4:               Novembre – decembre 2011

National society: BOTSWANA – Boitumelo Segwabanyane (Programmes Manager) and Chebukani
Nkobodo (Health and Care Coordinator)
#1 support need R11 proposal submission: Review of BRC Round 11 draft proposal and input from IFRC
                                         Zone office
Timeframe support need #1:               1st week of December 2011
#2 support need R11 proposal submission: Development of NS M&E plan with IFRC Zone office support
Timeframe support need #2:               February 2012

National society: LIBERIA – Judah Morris (Head of Health)
#1 support need R11 proposal submission: In country technical support for proposal development
Timeframe support need #1:               October – November 2011
#2 support need R11 proposal submission: Support need for the Federation to engage our Governance and
                                         Secretary General to increase commitment to Global Fund through
                                         communications.
Timeframe support need #2:               End October 2011
#3 support need R11 proposal submission: Support needed from the regional office to visit Liberia and to join
                                         the LNRC leadership in engaging the CCM and other stakeholders
                                         to present LNRC interest in Global Fund
Timeframe support need #3:               November 2011




                                               Page 58 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                    3 – 7 October 2011


National society: MALAWI – Hellen Dzoole Mwale (Community Based Health & First Aid coordinator)
and Patrick Phiri (Malaria, HIV and AIDS Programme Manager
#1 support need R11 proposal submission: Technical support on TB proposal development.
                                         Both the narrative component and logical framework
Timeframe support need #1:               17th – 30th October
#2 support need R11 proposal submission: Technical support on HIV proposal development.
                                         Both the narrative component and logical framework
Timeframe support need #2:               30th October – 30th November

National society: NAMIBIA – Naemi Heita (Programmes Coordinator) and Rosemary Nalisa (Resource
Mobilization Coordinator)
#1 support need R11 proposal submission: Technical support for proposal development
Timeframe support need #1:               November 2011

National society: ZAMBIA – Patricia Nambuka (Programme Manager)
#1 support need R11 proposal submission: Technical support for proposal development
Timeframe support need #1:
#2 support need R11 proposal submission:
Timeframe support need #2:
#3 support need R11 proposal submission:
Timeframe support need #3:

National society: LAO – Somsri Tantipaibulvut (IFRC South East Asia Regional HIV Programme
Officer)
#1 support need R11 proposal submission: Need peer support to review the proposal
Timeframe support need #1:               December 2011 or January 2012. Before submission to the Global
                                         Fund




                                             Page 59 of 60
IFRC Global Fund Round 11 Workshop                                                3 – 7 October 2011



Annex 6: Acronyms and abbreviations
ACT       Artemisinin-based combination therapy              M&E      Monitoring and evaluation
ADP       Applicant disease profile                          MARPs    Most at risk population
AIDS      Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome                 MDG      Millennium development goal
ARV       Antiretroviral                                     MNCH     Mother, neonatal and child
                                                                      health
BCC       Behaviour change communication                     MOH      Ministry of health
CBHFA     Community based health and first aid               NEPARC   New Partnership of African Red
                                                                      Cross Societies
CBO       Community based organization                       MSM      Men who have sex with men
CCM       Country coordinating mechanism                     NGO      Nongovernmental organization
CCMm      Community case management of malaria               NSA      National strategy application
CHW       Community health worker                            OIG      Office of the Inspector General
CSS       Community systems strengthening                    PBF      Performance based financing
DREF      Disaster Relief Emergency Fund                     PLHIV    People living with HIV
DTF       Dual track financing                               PMER     Planning, monitoring,
                                                                      evaluation and review
GAVI      Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation      PMU      Programme management unit
GFATM     Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and        PNS      Partnering national society
          Malaria
HIV       Human immunodeficiency virus                       PR       Principal recipient
HLP       High Level Independent Review Panel on Fiduciary   PSM      Procurement and supply chain
          Controls and Oversight Mechanisms                           management
HR        Human resources                                    RBM      Roll Back Malaria Partnership
HSS       Health systems strengthening                       RCC      Rolling continuation channel
iCCM      Integrated community case management               RC/RC    Red Cross/Red Crescent
IDU       Injecting drug user                                RC       Red Cross
IEC       Information, education and communication           RDT      Rapid diagnostic test
IFRC      International Federation of Red Cross and Red      SDA      Service delivery area
          Crescent Societies
IGA       Income generating activities                       SG       Secretary general
IHP+      International Health Partnership Plus              SR       Sub-recipient
IRS       Indoor residual spraying                           SSF      Single stream financing
JANS      Joint Assessment of National Strategy              TA       Technical assistance
KRC       Kenya Red Cross                                    TB       Tuberculosis
LFA       Local fund agent                                   TRP      Technical review panel
LIC       Low income country                                 UMIC     Upper-middle income country
LLIN      Long-lasting insecticidal net                      UNAIDS   Joint United Nations
                                                                      Programme on HIV/AIDS
LMIC      Low-middle income country                          USD      United States dollar
Log       Logical framework                                  WHO      World Health Organization
frame




                                             Page 60 of 60

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:0
posted:4/28/2013
language:Unknown
pages:60
wang nianwu wang nianwu http://
About wangnianwu