Every Round 4 proposal that NGOs submitted direct to the Global Fund (that is, without CCM endorsement) was ruled ineligible by the Secretariat. Most, according to the Secretariat, had little technical merit. And the few that were strong did not make a legitimate case for bypassing their CCM. However, it is possible that some of those proposals were subsequently repackaged as part of proposals submitted by CCMs.
You are here
The Global Fund Secretariat has conducted a study projecting how many grants it will have under management each year, and how much money it will spend, if recent grant-approval patterns continue in effect for years to come. The study, entitled "The Global Fund's Grant Making: Future Projections" was recently sent to members of Global Fund board delegations, with no restrictions as to further dissemination.
[Note: The following report was published today by Aidspan, the NGO that produces GFO. The version as reprinted here does not include the detailed tables of data that are contained in two appendices. Footnotes, in square brackets, have been moved to the end.
The Secretariat of the Global Fund has undergone a significant reorganization. The main changes have occurred at the level immediately below Executive Director Richard Feachem: some staff have left, some no longer report directly to Dr. Feachem, and some now have increased responsibilities. The number of director-level staff reporting to Dr. Feachem has been reduced from six to four.
Long before Round 3 took place, the Secretariat projected that the cost of Years 1-2 of grants approved in Round 3 would be about $1,600 m., almost double the cost of Round 2. As it turned out, the cost of Round 3 approved grants came to only $623 m., which is almost 30% *less* than in Round 2. This was caused, in part, by the fact that the percentage of proposals recommended by the Technical Review Panel (TRP) for approval went down.
Unless a miracle takes place, many of the proposals to be approved in October for Round 3 will have to be put on hold as a result of under-funding.
At the April meeting of the board's Resource Mobilization Committee, there were varied views regarding the "cruising altitude" (that is, the amount to be spent annually) at which the Fund should eventually level out. Dr. Feachem said he was aiming at $7-8 billion per annum. Some delegates agreed, or wanted higher. But some delegates from donor countries said they were shocked at Dr.
Why, after one year, have only two thirds of the necessary Round 1 grant agreements been signed? Why has only $20 million been disbursed? (For details, see the Analysis article above.)
Nearly three months ago, Global Fund Observer asked "How can we expect $11 million to be raised every day under the leadership of a [Resource Mobilization] committee made up primarily of [board members] who would rather be somewhere else?
The following data are obtained primarily from a Secretariat paper to the Board entitled "Report of the Secretariat and the Technical Review Panel on Round 2 Proposals" (Revision 1) and a Secretariat slide show entitled "Summary of Key Findings from Round Two", both dated January 2003.
Regional split of proposals received in Round 2:
(in dollars to be spent over 5 years; 100% = $5.1 b.)