by Bernard Rivers
In 2011, the Global Fund faced a crisis of confidence triggered by some negative media articles. In line with the old adage that you should never let a good crisis go to waste, the Fund’s Board sought to address a number of weaknesses, some of which had never been previously discussed.
Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) will from December 2015 no longer be eligible for Global Fund financing as it is currently designated an upper middle-income country with low burden of disease.
The Global Fund on 12 March announced the allocation of $14.82 billion dollars across the 123 countries eligible for financial support of activities in at least one disease component, timing the release of a comprehensive list of the amounts available to each country with personalized letters sent directly to country coordinating mechanisms (CCMs).
Representatives from African implementing countries took a step closer in March towards the inauguration of a regional bureau that will help coordinate and harmonize communications on the continent in order to be better positioned to influence decision-making by the Global Fund Board.
Aidspan approached dozens of countries for comment about the allocation envelopes announced on March 12. Below are the responses received in time for publication of GFO 240 on March 19. Several countries contacted said that consultations were expected in coming weeks; Aidspan intends to collate further responses and will publish another compilation if warranted.
“Significantly over-allocated” countries see limits on their resources under new funding model’s allocations
Countries considered by the Global Fund to be “significantly over-allocated” have seen dramatic reductions in their allocations under the new funding model (NFM), and will be limited to implementing existing grants until the end of 2016.
The introduction of the new funding model (NFM) has raised some concerns in the Middle East that it fails to consider the sweeping population movements and refugee crisis around the region and their impact on public health, particularly with respect to higher incidence of TB.
Meaningful change or more of the same rhetoric? The Global Fund’s new funding model and the politics of HIV scale-up
This week’s full roll-out of the new funding model provides an opportunity to review independent assessments at the country level that recommend a significant transformation in the way the Global Fund structures its operations.
DECISION POINT: GF/B31/DP09
The Global Fund Board has approved a framework and roadmap for transition between the rounds-based approach and the new funding model (NFM), aiming to align timelines for grant funding with replenishment of the Global Fund’s coffers.
DECISION POINT: GF/B31/DP13 and GF/B31/DP14
The Global Fund Board approved the appointment of new members for two-year terms on the the Audit and Ethics Committee (AEC) and the Strategy, Investment and Impact Committee (SIIC). Insufficient nominations to the Finance and Operational Performance Committee (FOPC) resulted in a reopening of the process.