The Global Fund has adopted a revised Eligibility and Counterpart Financing Policy to replace the old Eligibility, Counterpart Financing and Prioritization Policy. Aside from the fact that the prioritisation section of the policy was dropped – it is no longer relevant in the context of the new funding model (NFM) – the revisions were not particularly extensive.
With only six months to go before the expected full rollout of the new funding model (NFM), several aspects of the model have not yet been finalised. Decisions still have to be made on the following:
On 18–19 June 2013, the Global Fund Board held its 29th meeting in Colombo, Sri Lanka. GFO was present, with observer status. The main decisions made at the meeting, in chronological order, were as follows. (For precise wording of what the Board agreed, see the decision points document that has been posted here.
Executive Director Mark Dybul’s first formal report to the Global Fund Board covered a lot of ground.
The two NGO delegations and the Communities delegation on the Global Fund Board met in Paris on 19–20 May to review recent developments in the implementation of the new funding model (NFM) and to develop a plan to improve communications and advocacy on this issue. Representatives from early and interim applicant countries were also present.
There is a fair consensus among stakeholders that, in theory at least, the iterative process for funding applications under the new funding model (NFM) – which involves the development of concept notes and a process of country dialogue – is a significant improvement over the rounds-based applications process. The iterative process is being pilot tested now among early applicants.
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.
“Country ownership” has been one of the core principles of the Global Fund since it was created in 2002.
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).
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.