Skip to main content


Table 1 Basic typology of different pooled funding mechanisms and defining characteristics*

From: Post-crisis Zimbabwe’s innovative financing mechanisms in the social sectors: a practical approach to implementing the new deal for engagement in fragile states

  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 + *
CPF Emergency Response Fund (ERF) Global Fund
  1. *With permission [24].