Aidspan - independent watchdog of the Global Fund and publisher of Global Fund Observer
Aidspan is a non-governmental Kenya-based organization whose mission is to reinforce the effectiveness of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Aidspan does so by serving as an independent watchdog of the Fund, and by providing services that can benefit all countries wishing to obtain and make effective use of Global Fund financing. Aidspan finances its work primarily through grants from foundations. Aidspan does not accept Global Fund money, perform paid consulting work, or charge for any of its products.
Aidspan provides the following services:
1. Watchdog services
- Watch for and constructively comment on ways in which the Global Fund's leadership, Secretariat or grant recipients may not be living up to the Fund's founding principles.
- Communicate findings publicly (via Global Fund Observer) or privately, as appropriate.
2. Publication services
- Global Fund Observer (GFO), a free email newsletter providing news, analysis and commentary to over 7,000 subscribers in 170 countries.
- Aidspan Guides, a series of free publications providing detailed practical advice to those applying for, overseeing or implementing Global Fund grants.
3. Web services
- The Grant Details, Analysis and Evaluation pages on Aidspan's web site, a comprehensive on-line resource for comparing the performance of Global Fund grants.
- More web services (forthcoming).
4. Facilitation services
- Global Fund Round Tables for global health leaders and advocates (under the direction of a multi-sectoral steering committee).
- More facilitation services (forthcoming).
Aidspan Spotlight
Aidspan's facilitation services are provided in both developing and developed countries. In developing countries, Aidspan works with others to increase the number of viable grant applications that are submitted to the Global Fund, to strengthen the effectiveness of Country Coordinating Mechanisms (CCMs), and to improve the chances that grants are effectively implemented. In developed countries, it works with others to improve the chances that more money will be given to the Global Fund.
Aidspan's Grant Details, Analysis and Evaluation pages show how well each Global Fund grant is performing against its own goals and in relation to other grants. Based on in-depth data automatically downloaded from the Global Fund's website on a regular basis, the system offers both a graphical and a tabular assessment of the performance of each grant.
Global Fund Observer (GFO) is a widely-read, authoritative and free email-based newsletter, produced by Aidspan, that provides an independent platform for news, analysis and commentary about the Global Fund to over 7,000 subscribers in 170 countries.
Global AIDS and the Global Fund
Since its inception, the Global Fund has approved 526 grants, of which 282 have been extended to Phase 2 (Years 3 and beyond).
The most recent agreement for a new grant was signed on 25 April 2008, providing an initial amount of $18,848,751 for a Malaria project in Burkina Faso.
The most recent agreement to extend a grant beyond its initial 2-year period was signed on 17 April 2008, providing $1,689,334 for a TB project in Macedonia, FYR.
Funding has been distributed by disease component and by region as follows:
| Approved funding by disease component | |
|---|---|
| HIV/AIDS | $6.24 billion |
| Malaria | $2.70 billion |
| TB | $1.51 billion |
| Mixed | $0.29 billion |
| Approved funding by region | |
| East Africa | $2.91 billion |
| Southern Africa | $2.02 billion |
| East Asia and the Pacific | $1.39 billion |
| West and Central Africa | $1.30 billion |
| Eastern Europe and Central Asia | $0.86 billion |
| Latin America and the Caribbean | $0.81 billion |
| South Asia | $0.80 billion |
| North Africa and the Middle East | $0.66 billion |
For details of individual grants, country-by-country information, indications of which grants are ahead of or behind schedule, and more, visit the Grant Details, Analysis and Evaluation pages on this site.
Recent News
In an unexpected development, the GF Board yesterday agreed that Round 9 will be launched nearly six months earlier than had been anticipated. The Board also agreed that CCMs whose Round 8 proposals narrowly fail to be approved will be permitted to resubmit those proposals as part of Round 9.
Round 8 is expected to be the biggest Global Fund Round thus far. The Fund expects at least $2 billion to be available for Round 8, twice as much as has been spend on any previous Round. The most significant new feature in Round 8 is that the Fund urges applicants to use "dual-track financing", in which there is one PR from the government sector and one from the various non-government sectors.
The Global Fund Board yesterday concluded a two-day meeting in Kunming, China. Topics dealt with included Round 7 grant approvals, financial support for CCMs, eligibility of upper-middle income countries, health system strengthening, glitches with the new Rolling Continuation Channel, representation of affected populations in CCMs, and gender issues.
Recent News
In an unexpected development, the GF Board yesterday agreed that Round 9 will be launched nearly six months earlier than had been anticipated. The Board also agreed that CCMs whose Round 8 proposals narrowly fail to be approved will be permitted to resubmit those proposals as part of Round 9.
Round 8 is expected to be the biggest Global Fund Round thus far. The Fund expects at least $2 billion to be available for Round 8, twice as much as has been spend on any previous Round. The most significant new feature in Round 8 is that the Fund urges applicants to use "dual-track financing", in which there is one PR from the government sector and one from the various non-government sectors.
The Global Fund Board yesterday concluded a two-day meeting in Kunming, China. Topics dealt with included Round 7 grant approvals, financial support for CCMs, eligibility of upper-middle income countries, health system strengthening, glitches with the new Rolling Continuation Channel, representation of affected populations in CCMs, and gender issues.
Recent GFO Highlights
"Large parts of the GF Board meeting that ended yesterday were mind-numbingly boring, sometimes inevitably so and sometimes not. However, things certainly came to life when Round 9 was discussed. The Board's decision regarding Round 9 creates some important new options that every CCM that is currently working on a Round 8 proposal needs to think hard about."
If the Global Fund is to achieve the continued rapid growth that it is planning for, it will have to recognize, and tackle, some significant barriers to growth that are becoming increasingly apparent. These are examined in an Aidspan white paper that is summarized in this article.
Wycliffe Muga says: "Everybody dropped the ball here [regarding UNAIDS support for Round 8 applicants] – the civil society groups that pressured UNAIDS to take action, but didn't do so until well after the Call for Proposals; UNAIDS itself, for not getting moving on this until it was pushed by the civil society groups; and those many CCMs that delayed strategizing regarding their Global Fund applications until months later than they should."
Wycliffe Muga says "Round 8 will be a big test of CCMs: Do they have the courage, and the foresight, to apply for larger grants that will be spent on activities to be carried out both within the government sector (including on health systems strengthening activities) and within the non-government sectors?"
An analysis shows that nine percent of Global Fund grants have two or more PRs, and 22 percent have an NGO, FBO or private sector PR.
Recent GFO Highlights
"Large parts of the GF Board meeting that ended yesterday were mind-numbingly boring, sometimes inevitably so and sometimes not. However, things certainly came to life when Round 9 was discussed. The Board's decision regarding Round 9 creates some important new options that every CCM that is currently working on a Round 8 proposal needs to think hard about."
If the Global Fund is to achieve the continued rapid growth that it is planning for, it will have to recognize, and tackle, some significant barriers to growth that are becoming increasingly apparent. These are examined in an Aidspan white paper that is summarized in this article.
Wycliffe Muga says: "Everybody dropped the ball here [regarding UNAIDS support for Round 8 applicants] – the civil society groups that pressured UNAIDS to take action, but didn't do so until well after the Call for Proposals; UNAIDS itself, for not getting moving on this until it was pushed by the civil society groups; and those many CCMs that delayed strategizing regarding their Global Fund applications until months later than they should."
Wycliffe Muga says "Round 8 will be a big test of CCMs: Do they have the courage, and the foresight, to apply for larger grants that will be spent on activities to be carried out both within the government sector (including on health systems strengthening activities) and within the non-government sectors?"
An analysis shows that nine percent of Global Fund grants have two or more PRs, and 22 percent have an NGO, FBO or private sector PR.
Recent Publications
Description:
If the Global Fund is to achieve the continued rapid growth that it is planning for, it has to examine closely, and address, some significant growing pains that are becoming increasingly apparent. Some of these growing pains exist within developing countries; others exist within the Fund itself.
Accordingly, this white paper tackles three linked questions:
- What problems at the country level are preventing adequate scale-up to meet the need? (Example: Many implementing countries have weak health systems, limited capacity, and insufficient health workers.)
- What problems at the Global Fund level are preventing adequate scale-up by the countries? (Example: Some of the GF's rules for grant implementers are too burdensome, or they are enforced in too rigid a manner. The transaction costs of dealing with the GF are too high.)
- What should be done about these problems? (Example: On an open-ended basis, the GF should have just one "single-stream grant" for each country/disease/PR combination, extendable and expandable as and when agreed.)
In the five years since Aidspan was founded, this is easily the most substantive report we have published on problems affecting the Global Fund and on recommendations to address those problems.
Download options:
| English |  387KB |
 544KB |
This Aidspan white paper tackles two linked questions: What problems arise in the provision of adequate, timely, appropriate and effective Technical Support (TS) to projects financed by the Global Fund? And what can be done about these problems? These issues were discussed at the first "Global Fund Round Table", organized in 2007 by Aidspan. The meeting consisted of a private "conversation" between twenty leaders representing government, civil society and multilateral agencies. Participants agreed that Aidspan would produce this white paper, based in large part on problems that were discussed at the Round Table, and including recommendations generated before and after the Round Table by Aidspan and others.
The white paper discusses three main problem areas:
- TS needs are usually identified and met too late in the Global Fund grant cycle.
- TS that is provided often does not meet grantee needs. In particular, it usually does not build local capacity.
- TS is under-funded, and GF partners do not collaborate sufficiently regarding TS provision.
Download options:
| English | 261KB |
472KB |
Recent Publications
Description:
If the Global Fund is to achieve the continued rapid growth that it is planning for, it has to examine closely, and address, some significant growing pains that are becoming increasingly apparent. Some of these growing pains exist within developing countries; others exist within the Fund itself.
Accordingly, this white paper tackles three linked questions:
- What problems at the country level are preventing adequate scale-up to meet the need? (Example: Many implementing countries have weak health systems, limited capacity, and insufficient health workers.)
- What problems at the Global Fund level are preventing adequate scale-up by the countries? (Example: Some of the GF's rules for grant implementers are too burdensome, or they are enforced in too rigid a manner. The transaction costs of dealing with the GF are too high.)
- What should be done about these problems? (Example: On an open-ended basis, the GF should have just one "single-stream grant" for each country/disease/PR combination, extendable and expandable as and when agreed.)
In the five years since Aidspan was founded, this is easily the most substantive report we have published on problems affecting the Global Fund and on recommendations to address those problems.
Download options:
| English | 387KB |
544KB |
This Aidspan white paper tackles two linked questions: What problems arise in the provision of adequate, timely, appropriate and effective Technical Support (TS) to projects financed by the Global Fund? And what can be done about these problems? These issues were discussed at the first "Global Fund Round Table", organized in 2007 by Aidspan. The meeting consisted of a private "conversation" between twenty leaders representing government, civil society and multilateral agencies. Participants agreed that Aidspan would produce this white paper, based in large part on problems that were discussed at the Round Table, and including recommendations generated before and after the Round Table by Aidspan and others.
The white paper discusses three main problem areas:
- TS needs are usually identified and met too late in the Global Fund grant cycle.
- TS that is provided often does not meet grantee needs. In particular, it usually does not build local capacity.
- TS is under-funded, and GF partners do not collaborate sufficiently regarding TS provision.
Download options:
| English | 261KB |
472KB |