This report reflects on the founding values of the Global Fund, where it has made progress and where it has fallen short. It outlines three critical areas that require attention and advocacy:
realizing the Global Fund’s human rights objectives
preserving support in middle income countries
supporting access to medicines for all at the lowest possible price
A period of changing global health governance and a dramatically shifting geography of poverty are part of the context for this briefing paper’s consideration of the impact of changes at the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria, including the Fund’s so-called New Funding Model.
This report is a resource for advocates working to assess the impact of the New Funding Model and to help shape the next five-year strategy.
In its 2012-2016 strategy, the Global Fund has prioritized the promotion and protection of human rights, as well as efforts to reach key affected populations. It has also made strategic decisions about the ways it allocates financial resources under the New Funding Model, pulling away from middle-income countries. These two objectives are at odds. But does the global health community really understand the implications? It’s time to consider the consequences.
This paper presents an analysis of the allocations under the NFM for 2014-2017, including a description of the impact of “over-allocated” and “significantly over-allocated” determinants on totals for different countries and regions. The analysis also includes a comparison between the allocations totals with the funding received by those countries between 2010 and 2013.
A key feature of the NFM is the Country Band. All 123 eligible countries are grouped into one of four Bands based on disease burden and income level. Although Band 4 is the largest Band, comprising 55 countries, its overall share of funding is only 7%. This shift in distribution methodology appears to be predicated on the assumption that with Band 4 countries, previous investments have been in low impact interventions – the result: countries are penalized for having low or relatively low disease prevalence.This briefing paper is intended to help advocates better understand the country allocation methodology in general and the specificities of Band 4 in particular. It also outlines the implications of Band 4 classification for civil society and key populations, and provides advocacy entry points and recommendations for how the model can be improved.
Publisher: Global Fund Developed Country NGO Delegation
Under the New Funding Model (NFM) the Global Fund Board has encouraged all countries to express full demand, stating that Concept Notes should be comprehensive and inclusive, building on fully costed and prioritized National Strategies.
The Delegation is extremely concerned by feedback and early signs, demonstrating significant confusion and contradictory information being received about core elements of the New Funding Model. The findings indicate that further clarification and support is urgently needed for applicants now developing concept notes. The position paper contains the thematic focus on shortening of grant duration, incentive funding and full expression of demand, as well as the UQD. The paper presents additional insights and discussions and was sent to the senior management of the Secretariat, which then was shared to the SIIC prior to its meeting from 7-9...
The key feature of the Global Fund’s New Funding Model (NFM) is to ensure the inclusiveness of civil society and key populations (KP), including men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender people.
Country Dialogue is the term used by the Global Fund to describe the inclusive, ongoing consultative processes at the country level that is meant to inform all stages of the NFM process. It is also one of the main criteria in assessing whether funding applications are robust.
APCOM has released a set of guidance documents, entitled ‘MSM and Transgender Engagement in Global Fund New Funding Model Country Dialogue’. There are 17 different versions of the guidance document for each of the 17 countries in Asia and the Pacific region (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, PNG, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam). These guidance documents aim to help c...