The Global Fund at a Crossroads: Recommendations for the Next Five Years

“Failure of the Global Fund would be a global health catastrophe,” wrote a panel that evaluated the Fund’s risk management systems in a report released on Monday. I agree. I have been closely involved with the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria for the past five years, working both at the Board level and with partners on the ground to make sure that its resources reach communities, support the right things, and are used in a way that is transparent and accountable. In that time, I have seen the Global Fund transform countries’ responses to HIV, TB, and malaria. And above all, I have seen the Global Fund save lives.

One of the Global Fund’s hallmarks has been its willingness to take risks and to invest in the most marginalized communities. Through its bold statements on gender inequalities and the health and rights of sexual minorities, I have witnessed the Global Fund prompt countries like Uganda to move away from demonizing sex workers and men who have sex with men to establishing strategies that address the HIV needs of these vulnerable communities.

In countries like Ukraine and Zambia, I have seen the Global Fund empower civil society and people living with and affected by the diseases to hold governments accountable when they fail to appropriately manage Global Fund grants.

Through its use of an independent, non-political technical review panel to judge whether the programs it supports are the ones likely to have the greatest impact, I have also seen the Global Fund prompt countries like Thailand and Swaziland to take a hard look at their HIV programs and refocus on addressing the most critical gaps in their responses.

For these reasons, the Global Fund is one of the most innovative, transparent, and effective aid organizations currently in operation. It has contributed to stronger civil society organizations, stronger community-based responses, and stronger health systems. But now, the Global Fund is at a crossroads. The decisions the Board and Secretariat make over the next few months will determine whether it continues to be a high-impact aid organization that is responsive to the needs of communities, or whether it becomes irrelevant.

The past few years have not been easy for the Global Fund. Its October 2010 replenishment failed to bring in the money necessary to continue to scale up programs, leading to delays in the launch of new funding opportunities and increased pressure to prove that its investments are achieving value for money. The ongoing global financial crisis continues to put downward pressure on aid dollars, while donor fatigue with the AIDS response and a shift by donors to prioritize funding for broader health systems have made fundraising even more difficult. To make matters worse, the misuse of funds by recipients in a limited number of countries has put pressure on the Global Fund to prove that its risk mitigation systems are adequate to the task of moving billions of dollars to scale up health programs and save lives, while safeguarding against fraud and corruption. Over the past few months, increasing risk aversion from the Secretariat and local partners has resulted in a level of micromanagement that has paralyzed programs and the ability to adapt to changing circumstances on the ground.

Fortunately, the Global Fund has several opportunities to change course and refocus. The Board and Secretariat will meet on September 26 to review recommendations made by the “High Level Independent Review Panel on Fiduciary Controls and Oversight Mechanisms.” If adopted, the panel’s broad and far-reaching recommendations could fundamentally change the way the Global Fund does business. The recommendations range from changing the job description and authority of Fund Portfolio Managers, to reorganizing the board, to creating a more iterative process for proposal development and review. In addition, the Board and Secretariat are developing a new five-year strategic plan that has the potential to refocus the Fund on achieving its mission: preventing new infections and saving lives.

The Global Fund’s Board and Secretariat have a real opportunity at this point to take this organization to the next level, increase its effectiveness, and ensure that its funding is really being used to save lives.  As it does this, the Global Fund should strive to:

  • Fight fraud while continuing to support risk-taking and innovation (which are often the things that make aid programs effective);
  • Build in more consistent feedback loops with countries and allow greater flexibility to adjust programs according to changing needs;
  • Ensure greater predictability and more transparency of funding in order to increase accountability;
  • Strengthen “country ownership” by supporting the real and meaningful participation of all stakeholders in decision-making about the use of Global Fund resources, particularly most-affected and marginalized communities;
  • Give more attention to improving program quality and building real capacity in countries;
  • Empower civil society to monitor transparency in the procurement, supply, and quality of medicines, and ensure technical assistance for the effective use of flexibilities within intellectual property agreements; and
  • Put human rights front and center to make sure that it is funding appropriate interventions and addressing real barriers to care.

It would be unfortunate if the Global Fund emerges from this process with a focus only on strengthening its financial safeguards without also committing to address some of the other factors that can just as easily undermine the effectiveness of its programs, such as a weak civil society or inadequate protections for human rights. Strengthening civil society, increasing transparency, and challenging the unjust legal and policy environments that allow HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria to flourish should be just as much a priority.

Learn More:



I agree that the global fund is walking a fine line of having to balance between respecting country driven approaches viz a viz being seen to be too involved to a point of micromanaging. From where i sit in sub suharan Africa a one size fits all aproach currently adoted by GF does not work. Some countries left to their own devises wil never include certain populations in their programming. others will siphon the money away while others will use the gf money to perpetuate exclusion and discrimination. The GF must therefore seize this moment to undertake genuine and well thought out reforms that will catapult them to the next decade of growth. Failure to do so will only render them irrelevant.

i apperiate all the programs that you have and i would like to put my request if you could extend this programs to south sudan will by joy because issues of haealth in south sudan need alot of effort for the betterment theliflyhood of south sudaanies
i work as volunteer in widows orphans ansd people living with HIV/AIDS (WOPHA)a community base organization in yei county centeral equatorial state south sudan

for any feed back you are free to send me your concerns about south south sudan

Add your voice