Subscribe To Our Newsletter
Abonnez-vous à notre bulletin
The Pandemic Fund continues to generate debate
GFO issue 432

The Pandemic Fund continues to generate debate


Editorial Team

Article Type:
Editor's Note

Article Number: 1

This GFO follows up the post-Board issue when we bring you articles on the most interesting issues that generated discussion during and after the Board. This includes the Pandemic Fund, the second part of the Technical Review Panel’s feedback on Window 1 lessons learned, and updates on human rights and community, rights and gender.

Dear subscribers,

Sometimes a topic is discussed at the Board meeting which not only results in an unexpected outcome but also gives rise to continued debate. Yes, we are talking about the Board’s decision not to approve a Decision Point regarding how the Global Fund should engage with the Pandemic Fund; and the subsequent ongoing discussion among stakeholders on what such collaboration should look like. Our follow up article to this, Civil society proposes an engagement mechanism with the Pandemic Fund, discusses the various arguments and stakeholders’ views. However, what is not in contention is that a wealth of experience already exists in dealing with pandemics through the Fund’s COVID-19 Response Mechanism and it would make little sense not to be able to bring this to bear for Pandemic Fund applications, including all the processes set up to manage such funds, report on them, and so on and so forth.

We also look at the second part of the TRP Findings on Window 1 funding applications and the Board’s Thematic Discussion on Human Rights as well as covering the details of the Community, Rights and Gender (CRG) Department’s Annual Report presented to the Strategy Committee in Marc and then reflected in the CRG-Ready presentation to the Board, outlining how the Secretariat propose to strengthen this aspect of its work, with a timeline for onboarding several new CRG staff members across various departments.

We also look at an OIG Audit of grants to the Republic of Niger.

There are still a few teething problems with our new website platform but gradually these glitches in the system are being ironed out. Let us know if you like our new-look website!

As ever, Aidspan and our editorial team, under the leadership of Ida Hakizinka, does its best to ensure the accuracy of data and statements in our published articles ― and hence our inclusion of hyperlinks ― but if you, the reader, identify an error or important omission, please notify us and provide us with your data source; and we shall be happy to publish a correction or amendment.

If you enjoy the GFO and find it relevant to your work, please encourage your colleagues to colleagues to subscribe!

Don’t forget: if you are aware of an interesting development relevant to disease programmes or health systems and that you feel is worthy of global discussion, do let me know together with the name of a person prepared to write about this. Suggestions and comments can be sent to us, Ida Hakizinka or Arlette Campbell White in English, French or Spanish at or

The Aidspan Editorial Team

1 thought on “The Pandemic Fund continues to generate debate

    • I am in fact рleɑsed to glance at this website posts which includes ⲣlenty of valuable data,
      thanks for prօviding such dɑta.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.