Table 1 Basic typology of different pooled funding mechanisms and defining characteristics*
Pooled funds from contributing donors agreed and defined in Zimbabwe | Global pooled fund or thematic | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Multi-donor trust fund (Bank) | Transition fund | Common fund (Pass through) | Simple basket | Request or allocation from global pooled fund | |
Alignment to National Priorities | Aligned to national Government priorities (not necessarily sector policies or strategies) | Aligned to national Government strategies and multi-year plans. Government contribution | Aligned to national policies and strategies and priorities | Aligned to national priority | Aligned to national priorities (with some conditions set by the global fund requirements) |
Coverage | Have national coverage relevance e.g. studies | Implemented on national scale through national structures | No national coverage (but could be expanded) | National coverage and relevance | Not necessarily |
Operational Framework | Arrangements include standard legal agreements with all donors, which specify governance procedures covering trust fund management, operational and financial reporting, | Policies and procedures agreed, e.g. Joint Statement of Intent, Code of Conduct, administrative procedures meets agency requirements | MOU signed between agencies, administrative arrangements meet Un agencies’ requirements | Project document signed between agency and Government, meets all agency requirements | Request submitted and/or allocation made from global fund |
Implemented through single or multiple UN, Government, or NGOs guided by agreements | |||||
Accountability | World Bank has financial management, technical oversight and accountability for ensuring high quality results | Agency is fund manager and has technical oversight management and implementation responsibilities for results | UN agency identified to manage fund on behalf of other agencies with only financial accountability (meets agency requirements) | One UN agency as fund administrator, technical oversight and implementing agency | Agency identified in country to manage fund and co-ordinate it through multi-stakeholder forum |
Multiple implementing UN agencies and NGOs according to defined roles and responsibilities | |||||
Un-earmarked | Bank-administered MDTFs do not allow donors to earmark funds | Generally Unearmarked | Generally unearmarked | Unearmarked | Unearmarked |
Management and Administration Costs | 7% overhead (2% + 5%) | 12% overhead (5% + 7%) | 1–3% overhead for fund administrator, 7% for implementing UN agencies | 12% overhead (5% + 7%) | 3% (ERF) or 7%–12% overhead |
M and E | M and E developed through | Monitoring and evaluation linked to national targets, research component, independent review | Developed for individual agencies or programs | Developed against workplan and results of project | M and E framework developed to guide all implementing partners and/or indicators developed by project using template/guidelines |
Examples | A-MDTF | HTF | Expanded Support Programme (ESP) | COPAC | CERF |
P-MDTF (Zimfund) | ETF-II | H4 + * | |||
(ERF) | |||||
CPF | Emergency Response Fund (ERF) | Global Fund | |||