Executive Director Mark Dybul’s first formal report to the Global Fund Board covered a lot of ground.
You are here
Gabriel Jaramillo, who was a member of the High-Level Panel and who served as the Global Fund’s General Manager from February 2012 to January 2013, has provided the Board with some reflections on his time working with the Fund.
The current governance structures at the Global Fund are inadequate for a big and complex financial institution, former General Manager Gabriel Jaramillo says. Mr Jaramillo, who was a member of the High-Level Panel and who served as the Global Fund’s General Manager from February 2012 to January 2013, recently provided the Board with some reflections on his time working with the Fund.
In the last two years, the Global Fund has implemented a comprehensive set of measures to better manage risk, particularly the risk of fraud and misappropriation of grant funds. The Fund has established a Grant Management Assurance Framework (also referred to as the “risk framework”) that sets out the Global Fund’s general approach to managing risk.
Communities and NGO Delegations Seek More Information on Funding Allocations for the Transition Phase of the NFM
The Communities and NGO delegations on the Global Fund Board have written to Executive Director Mark Dybul seeking clarification and additional information on how funding was allocated to early and interim applicants in the transition phase of the new funding model (NFM).
“If we don’t seize this moment, we will be dealing with these diseases for generations,” Global Fund Executive Director Mark Dybul told his audience at the Preparatory Meeting of the Global Fund Fourth Replenishment.
Since the Global Fund’s Indirect Cost Recovery (ICR) policy was adopted on 18 April 2011, a number of concerns have been raised about the interpretation and application of the policy. This article describes the concerns and provides responses from the Global Fund Secretariat.
As of 31 December of 2012, donors had pledged $10.4 billion for the 2011–2013 replenishment period. This is a 13% increase over the $9.2 billion pledged at the actual replenishment conference in October 2010.
The difference comes primarily from pledges made following the New York conference. A group of donors, including Belgium, Netherlands, Saudi Arabia and Sweden, announced their pledges after the conference.
In preparation for the Fourth Replenishment meetings, the Global Fund has a published an “Update on Results and Impact.” This article provides some of the highlights of the report; more details are provided in separate articles on each of the three diseases.
The Global Fund will conduct a process evaluation of the transition phase of the new funding model (NFM) to enable the Fund to draw some conclusions and make adjustments for the full rollout of the NFM.
This information was contained in the Global Fund’s “Update on Results and Impact” report published on the eve of the Fund’s pre-replenishment meeting in Brussels, Belgium on 9–10 April.