POVERTY: Global Fund Board Approves Round 10 Proposals

The Global Fund Board has approved all 79 Round 10 proposals recommended by the Technical Review Panel (TRP), at a cost of $1.73 billion over the first two years and $4.72 billion over five years. This makes Round 10 the third largest round ever, after Rounds 8 and 9 respectively.

The Global Fund Board has approved all 79 Round 10 proposals recommended by the Technical Review Panel (TRP), at a cost of $1.73 billion over the first two years and $4.72 billion over five years. This makes Round 10 the third largest round ever, after Rounds 8 and 9 respectively.
These decisions were made at the Fund's 22nd board meeting, held on 13-15 December in Sofia, Bulgaria.
Unlike in previous rounds, the Fund did not have to delay approval of certain proposals pending further funding becoming available; sufficient funding will be available to cover all Round 10 proposals that the TRP recommended for approval. Also, the Board has not required that budgets be reduced across all the approved proposals.
The Board's decision as to which proposals to approve was, as always, entirely based on the advice it received from the TRP, an independent and non-political body of 43 experts from around the world who serve in their personal capacities. No Board members or Secretariat employees are members of the TRP. As always, the TRP did not take into consideration the availability or otherwise of funding when determining which proposals to recommend for approval.

Some of the highlights of the Round 10 approvals were as follows:
The TRP reviewed 150 proposals, of which 78 were for HIV/AIDS, 48 for TB, and 24 for malaria.
The average Round 10 approved proposal has a two-year cost of $22 million, down from $26 million in Round 9 and $33 million in Round 8, but still double the $11 million average cost of the prior seven rounds.
Fifty-three percent of eligible proposals submitted in Round 10 were approved, about the same as in Rounds 8 and 9. Malaria proposals were by far the most successful in Round 10, with 79% approved (as against 54% for TB proposals and 44% for HIV/AIDS). Over the last three rounds, malaria and TB proposal success rates have always been above 50%, but HIV/AIDS proposal success rates have always been below 50%.
However, HIV/AIDS had more proposals approved (34) than either TB (26) or malaria (19). In dollar terms, approved HIV/AIDS proposals accounted for 47% of the total cost, with malaria at 34% and TB at 20%.
From Round 8 to Round 9 to Round 10, the percentage of eligible proposals from Africa that was approved steadily fell from 58% to 54% to 45%. In the Middle East and Northern Africa region, the percentage approved dipped and then rebounded dramatically, from 57% to 28% to 64%. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the percentage approved did the opposite, going from 34% to 57% to 38%. Easily the best-performing region each time was East Asia and the Pacific, with approval rates of 75%, 65% and 78% in Rounds 8, 9 and 10, respectively.
Fifty-six percent of Round 10 proposals from non-Francophone countries were approved, as against only 48% of proposals from Francophone countries. These rates were almost identical to those that applied in Round 9.
Fifty-five percent of the total two-year cost of approved Round 10 proposals was for proposals from low-income countries, down from 70% in Round 9. The success rate of Round 10 proposals from low-income countries was 52%, about five percent less than the success rate of proposals from lower-middle and upper-middle income countries.
Twenty-five of the 78 HIV proposals requested funding from the dedicated funding stream for most-at-risk-populations (MARPs), which was newly created for Round 10. The total two-year funding request under this stream was $99 million. The TRP recommended 12 of these proposals, with a two-year cost of $47 million. Two of the successful MARPs proposals were from Malaysia and Uruguay; this will be the first time that these countries will receive money from the Global Fund.
Of the 150 eligible proposals, 52 (35%) planned to implement dual-track financing, with principal recipients from both the governmental and non-governmental sectors.

http://www.aidspan.org/index.php?issue=135&article=1