The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria

1

• The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and
  Malaria
• July 2006

2
Contents
The Partnership Forum Local Fund Agents
2 July 2006

• Background Local Fund Agent
• What has worked
• What has not worked
• Recommendations

3
The Partnership Forum - LFAs

• Background
• 2 July 2006

4
Background What is the LFA model?
The Partnership Forum

• The GF does not have a country level presence
  outside its office in Geneva and so it hires
  Local Fund Agents to oversee, verify and report
  on grant performance.
• There is an LFA in most countries where the GF
  has approved a grant. Where there are exceptions,
  the LFA is in a nearby country.
• Local Fund Agents are selected through a
  competitive bidding process. Six organizations
  provide LFA services worldwide and these consist
  of
• Management consulting audit firms (86)
• Research health consultancy firms (6)
• Multilateral organizations( 8)
• The advantages of the LFA Model are
• Leverages local expertise
• Avoids need for establishing local presence
• Enables GF Secretariat to remain lean and flexible

5
Background Role of the LFA
The Partnership Forum

• Before the grant agreement is signed
• Assesses PR readiness for managing/implementing
  approved programs including identification of
  capacity building needs and
• Assists in grant negotiations.
• During Program implementation
• Verification of implementation which involves
  receiving and reviewing periodic financial and
  progress reports
• Reviewing and making recommendations on the PRs
  disbursements
• Phase 2 reviews Reviewing the CCM request for
  continued funding and providing input in the
  decision making process and
• Provides specialized services such as
  investigations, reviews and support to slow
  moving grants
• Grant closure Assisting the Global Fund with
  closure of the grant.
• LFAs are not permitted to undertake a number of
  activities with respect to any grants that they
  oversee. They cannot
• Participate in the design of the grant-funded
  program
• Participate in the implementation of the program
  
• Provide technical assistance/ capacity building
  to the PR or sub recipients
• Make decisions concerning the grants and
• Audit the PR.

6
The Partnership Forum

• What has worked?
• 2 July 2006

7
What has worked?
The Partnership Forum

• The GF Secretariat has remained lean and
  flexible. The GF has not had to establish local
  presence.
• The GF has leveraged on the local expertise
  resident in the LFAs.
• LFAs have been instrumental to the verification
  of implementation which is at the heart of
  performance based funding. In order to
  effectively undertake this role, they have been
  independent and have had to acquire certain
  skills sets in undertaking their roles.
• LFAs have flagged challenges in-country to the
  Secretariat for timely resolution.
• The LFA model has been a good vehicle for sharing
  information across the Global Fund network and
  acquiring best practice.

8
The Partnership Forum

• What has not worked?
• 2 July 2006

9
What has not worked?
The Partnership Forum

• The GF has evolved since its inception while the
  LFA model has not changed at the same pace in
  addressing the increasing complexities in the GF
  operations.
• The LFA model did not envisage the different
  situations that each country would have and so
  terms of reference that were drawn up for all the
  countries were generic.
• There is an expectation gap in the role of the
  LFA. Because LFAs report directly to the GF,
  they are seen to be spies/ hindrances as
  opposed to partners in the GF architecture.
  Others are expected to provide capacity
  building/training to PRs/ sub recipients.
• Quality of work of LFAs has not been good across
  the board.
• The skills set of some LFAs has not been ideal to
  enabling them to undertake their role.

10
The Partnership Forum

• Recommendations
• 2 July 2006

11
Recommendations
The Partnership Forum

• The GF has evolved and so should the LFA model.
  The GF should update the terms of reference for
  the LFAs by defining the product that the GF is
  buying from LFAs to reflect the current needs
  and any arising complexities.
• The GF should modify its contracting model for
  LFA work. The One size fits all can not work
  due to the different challenges and risks that
  are resident in different countries and regions.
  The prescribed mode of operation e.g. having
  quarterly reviews should also be revisited to
  address the unique situations in different
  countries.
• The GF should undertake periodic reviews of LFA
  work in order to ensure quality. Assessment of
  past performance should be part of the bidding
  process.
• LFAs need to raise their game by aligning
  themselves to GF requirements (having the right
  skills mix) and providing timely input and
  communication to relevant stakeholders.
• The working relationship between the LFA and in
  country stakeholders should be enhanced. LFAs
  should be seen to be partners rather than
  bottlenecks to implementation and receipt of
  funds from GF.