{"id":9685,"date":"2019-12-05T07:50:08","date_gmt":"2019-12-05T11:50:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/plataformalac.org\/?p=9685"},"modified":"2019-12-05T07:50:14","modified_gmt":"2019-12-05T11:50:14","slug":"technical-review-panel-publishes-observations-on-2017-2019-allocation-cycle-as-aid-to-countries-funding-requests-for-2020-2022","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/plataformalac.org\/en\/2019\/12\/technical-review-panel-publishes-observations-on-2017-2019-allocation-cycle-as-aid-to-countries-funding-requests-for-2020-2022\/","title":{"rendered":"Technical Review Panel publishes observations on 2017-2019 Allocation Cycle as aid to countries\u2019 funding requests for 2020-2022"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Source:<\/strong> aidspan.org<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Author:\u00a0Ad\u00e8le Sulcas<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Panel finds \u201coverall improvement in funding requests\u201d for this period and makes recommendations for five areas<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Global Fund\u2019s Technical Review Panel (TRP) has published a 35-page report on the Global Fund website<\/a>, intended to offer content-related support to countries that are developing their funding requests for the next allocation cycle. The report is based on the panel\u2019s observations made during the 2017-2019 funding cycle, during which 225 country applications and 30 multicountry applications for funding were submitted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The core of the report, which summarizes key trends and lessons learned, is the TRP\u2019s recommendations regarding funding requests for each of the three diseases and for resilient and sustainable systems for health.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now that the $14.02 billion total amount available for the Global Fund\u2019s next funding cycle is confirmed (following the Sixth Replenishment pledging conference in October), the Board will allocate funds for 2020-2022 at the upcoming Board meeting in Geneva on November 14-15.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Progress to date<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The TRP\u2019s report describes \u201can overall improvement\u201d in funding requests, noting that a majority of the funding requests were based on disease-specific, costed National Strategic Plans (NSP) or National Health Plans (NHP). The panel also noted some improvements in the use of data to target interventions to key populations, that the applications increasingly addressed health systems concerns, and that \u201ca number of applications\u201d paid greater attention to financial sustainability.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Overview of the 2017-2019 Allocation Cycle<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the \u2018overview\u2019 section of the report, the TRP breaks down the number and type of country applications received, in the context of the \u2018differentiated approach\u2019 adopted in the 2017-2019 allocation cycle. The differentiated approach was a response to lessons learned in the 2014-2016 allocation period, which the TRP calls \u201can essential change\u201d. This change enabled \u201cflexible and tailored\u201d country funding requests to match the needs and context of a country. The TRP says that the differentiated approach allows applicants to develop quality applications for funding more efficiently, theoretically freeing up more time and resources on actual grant implementation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From the differentiated approach flowed three main categories of application material:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. Full review application (of which there were 50 in the 2017-2019 cycle)<\/li>
  2. Program Continuation reviews (of which there were 93)<\/li>
  3. Tailored reviews (of which there were 82).<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    This section concludes by explaining how the TRP evaluated grants\u2019 strategic focus, as well as the review criteria the panel used to evaluate the requests\u2019 technical soundness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The TRP makes recommendations in five areas that \u201cpose some constraints in achieving Global Fund strategic objectives,\u201d the report says.<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Overarching concerns and related key messages and priorities<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    While acknowledging progress, the TRP\u2019s report identified \u201cseveral areas of critical concern\u201d. In section 3.1 of the report, the TRP sets out detailed context, followed by recommendations, for each of the five areas that \u201cpose some constraints in achieving Global Fund strategic objectives,\u201d the report says. (A large section of the report deals with each of the four strategic objectives, which we do not discuss here.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    These five areas of concern form the core of the report:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    1. Improve priority setting<\/li>
    2. Increase focus on prevention and reducing incidence<\/li>
    3. Strengthen cross-cutting resilient and sustainable systems for health (RSSH) programming<\/li>
    4. Community systems strengthening<\/li>
    5. Sustainability and transition<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      These issues are interrelated, the report says, but warrant specific, separate recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Selected observations and recommendations from the TRP report<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The richly detailed content under each of the overarching concerns is too lengthy to report on comprehensively here, but we include a sample of some of the TRP\u2019s insights, which help inform the detailed recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Funding requests reviewed during this period:<\/p>\n\n\n\n