GF New Funding Model
The Global Fund’s funding model enables strategic investment for maximum impact.
It provides implementers with flexible timing, better alignment with national strategies and predictability on the level of funding available. There is active engagement with implementers and partners throughout the funding application and grant implementation to ensure greater global impact.
Ongoing country dialogue
Country dialogue is a process that is country-owned and led, which forms part of and builds upon existing coordination mechanisms in health and development that are already taking place in many countries between governments, donors, technical partners, civil society, and key affected and most-at-risk populations. Country Coordinating Mechanisms (CCMs) take a leading role in coordinating the discussions around the submission of the Global Fund concept note. Work on national strategies and resource mobilization should be ongoing and form the basis of this country dialogue to identify a country’s prioritized needs and ultimately prepare the submission of concept notes to the Global Fund.
The Global Fund strongly encourages countries to base funding requests on quality national strategic plans and through national systems. For the purposes of developing a funding request to the Global Fund, national strategic plans should be developed using an inclusive multi-stakeholder process. Ideally, these plans will be jointly assessed through a credible, independent, multi-stakeholder process that uses internationally agreed frameworks.
Where a country does not have a national strategic plan, or where one is no longer current, then an investment case may be presented in the concept note in support of the funding request.
Concept notes should be based on national strategic plans or an investment case.
The concept note is the mechanism to request financing from the Global Fund for any one of the three diseases or cross-cutting support for health systems strengthening (HSS). CCMs will submit the concept notes in most cases.
The concept note includes the following sections:
Section 1: Country Context
The concept note begins by requesting an analysis of the current disease context in the country. This allows the applicant to define the problem including health and community system constraints and human rights barriers that are critical to inform the most appropriate set of interventions.
The applicant then assesses the current national response against the disease(s). This information is provided within the broader framework of the national strategic disease plan(s) as the backbone of the response.
Section 2: Funding Landscape, Additionality, Sustainability
The applicant then outlines the current and anticipated funding landscape of the national program over the proposed grant duration. This enablers the reviewers to understand current and future commitments (government and donor) towards the disease(s), assess compliance with counterpart financing requirements, understand the government’s Willingness to Pay commitments, and determine the funding gaps of the national program.
Section 3: Funding Request
Building on the analysis provided, the applicant prioritizes its funding needs to the Global Fund through its selection of appropriate modules.
Section 4: Implementation Arrangements and Risk Assessment
After defining the modules and interventions included in the proposed funding request, the applicant must ensure sufficient implementation capacity and risk mitigation measures to program delivery.
Please also consult the application material page to review the concept note template and read detailed guidance.
The Technical Review Panel (TRP) reviews new funding requests in an independent and transparent way. The TRP begins its review by assessing whether what is proposed is positioned for highest impact. This means that the concept note should be strategically focused and technically sound, and investments should have maximum impact with the available resources in a given context. The TRP makes its funding recommendation on the allocation amounts and amounts above the allocation, prioritizing interventions.
The TRP review is designed to work towards identifying the highest impact programs, and getting to an outcome of “yes” (however, the TRP may deem that a concept note is not yet ready to advance to grant-making and request the applicant submit a revised concept note). Following its review, the TRP is delegating more clarifications and/or adjustments to the Secretariat during grant-making and implementation.
TRP reviews occur up to four times a year. Please also consult the Submission Dates page to see planned timing of TRP reviews.
If the TRP recommends a concept note proceeds to grant-making, it is sent to the Global Fund Grant Approvals Committee (GAC) to determine the upper-ceiling for the budget.
The GAC is composed of the following members:
When setting the upper-ceiling for grant making, this committee will consider the TRP’s recommendations and the application of qualitative factors. The budget will include funding available from a country’s indicative funding amount and, if applicable, any available ‘incentive’ funding. Incentive funding is a special reserve of funding available on a competitive basis, and awarded to applications that demonstrate the greatest potential for high impact with additional funds. Incentive funding is meant to encourage ambitious requests based on national strategic plans.
The Secretariat works with the organizations selected by a CCM to manage the grants (known as principal recipients) to transform technically sound concept notes into disbursement-ready grants. Once the principal recipient is nominated, the Secretariat will assess the capacity of the proposed organization. Then the principal recipient and the Secretariat country teams will work jointly to develop a Performance Framework, Budget, and Work Plan.
Country dialogue should continue into grant making to ensure that the input of those who will benefit from the programs is taken into account in their detailed design and that the latest technical and operational guidance is used. The grant goes through a second review by the GAC before it is presented to the Board for approval.
When a grant is ready for signature and deemed to be “disbursement-ready,” the Global Fund Secretariat submits it to its Board for approval. Having negotiations take place before Board approval should significantly reduce the time it takes for implementers to receive funds once their grant documents are completed.