Replenishment Meeting Discusses Challenges of Meeting Global Fund Resource Needs

Author:

David Garmaise

Article Type:

Article Number: 9

ABSTRACT Participants at the Global Fund's Third Replenishment meeting in March 2010 weighed the need to scale up Global Fund programmes to meet the health-related Millennium Development Goals by 2015 against the fact that even the lowest resource needs scenario advanced by the Fund involves a significant increase in contributions at a time when national budgets are under pressure.

Participants at the Global Fund’s Third Replenishmentmeeting for the period 2011-2013, held in The Hague, on 24-25 March 2010,acknowledged that continued scale-up of Global Fund programmes would berequired to meet the health-related Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by2015, and that even the scenarios presented by the Fund would not be sufficientto meet the needs. On the other hand, participants noted that even the lowestscenario involves a significant increase in contributions at a time whennational budgets were under pressure.

This information is contained in the Chair’s Summaryof the meeting. The meeting was attended primarily by representatives of donorcountries and other large contributors to the Global Fund. The Global Fund hadprovided donors with three possible resource needs scenarios for the period2011-2013:

• Resource Needs Scenario 1, which would cost $13 billion,would allow for the continuation of funding for existing programmes. Newprogrammes could only be funded at a significantly lower level than in recentyears.
• Resource Needs Scenario 2, which would cost $17 billion,would allow for the continuation of funding for existing programmes, andfunding for new programmes at a level that comes close to that of recent years.
• Resource Needs Scenario 3, which would cost $20 billion,would allow for the continuation of funding for existing programmes, and forwell-performing programmes to be scaled up significantly, allowing in turn formore rapid progress towards achieving the health-related MDGs.

(For more information on the resource needs scenarios, see “GlobalFund Seeks $17-20 Billion from Donors for 2011-2013” in GFO #117,at www.aidspan.org/gfo.)

The purpose of the meeting in The Hague was to review theGlobal Fund’s progress and discuss the resource scenarios. Most donors areexpected to announce their funding commitments at the next replenishmentmeeting, scheduled for 4-5 October 2010 in New York City.

Participants said that the March 2010 meeting highlightedthe need to widen the donor base and, in particular, “to see increasedcontributions from emerging economies.”

The Global Fund Secretariat presented its report, “GlobalFund Results Report 2010: Innovation and Impact.” Participants praisedthe report, noting that it demonstrated “the transformational impact ofthe Global Fund on the health situation in many countries.” Participantssaid that these results help to make the case for increased funding, and theyurged the Fund and its partners to disseminate them widely.

While welcoming the breadth of the information and thequality of the data in the report, participants encouraged the Global Fund tomove beyond output indicators towards outcome and impact measurements. Theyalso encouraged the Secretariat to continue its work to develop more effectivemeans of measuring the impact of prevention programmes and of health systemsstrengthening initiatives.

Participants stressed the need to ensure the sustainabilityof the Global Fund’s programmes with a view, ultimately, to enabling countriesto graduate from Global Fund support. For this to happen, participants said,would require: genuine country ownership, underpinned by capacity development;alignment with country priorities; harmonisation with bi- and multi-lateraldevelopment partners; the empowerment of communities; and enhanced domesticfinancial contributions.

Participants said that the contribution by the Global Fundin combating AIDS, TB and malaria has been “impressive,” but that thegains remain fragile. They said that effective leadership and advocacy will beessential in the lead-up to, and at, the G-8 and G-20 meetings (this month),the MDG Summit in September, and the Global Fund’s replenishment meeting inOctober – and that “the advocacy of implementing countries would be ofparticular significance in this respect.”

Other points made by participants at the March 2010 meetinginclude the following:

• The Global Fund could contribute further to maternal and childhealth based on its existing mandate.
• The Global Fund’s work in middle-income countries has a catalyticvalue, particularly in galvanising domestic support and targeting vulnerablecommunities.
• There is need to ensure rapid and flexible implementation ofprogrammes, including the timely re-programming of funds from non-performinggrants.
• The Global Fund’s strategies on gender equality, and sexualorientation and gender identities, should be implemented more rapidly, andshould include greater integration of sexual and reproductive health inprogrammes supported by the Fund.

The “Chair’s Summary” of the March 2010replenishment meeting is available at