Development Initiatives

English

Research Papers in Economics

Fund Profiles: Global Fund, GAVI, 
Fast Track Initiative, and Roll Back 
Malaria 
 
Development Initiatives. 2005. 
Human Development Report Office 
OCCASIONAL PAPER 
 
2005/7Please contact Development Initiatives directly if you would like any of 
the excel spreadsheets mentioned in this paper di@devinit.org  
The Development Initiatives website is currently being updated but all 
documents will be appearing shortly, see www.devinit.org  
 
FUND PROFILES: 
GLOBAL FUND, GAVI, FAST TRACK 
INITIATIVE AND ROLL BACK MALARIA 
 
1  THE GLOBAL FUND TO FIGHT AIDS, TUBERCULOSIS AND 
MALARIA: 
 
Financial data for 2001-2005 attached (see FundsGLOBALFUND (1) 092.xls).  
 
1.1 Pledges  and  paid contributions 
•  In 2001-2, the Global Fund received $956 million, $9m more than the pledged total of 
$947.5 million. There were no outstanding pledges 
 
•  In 2003, it received $4.3 m more than the pledged amount of $932.3 million. This 
was despite the fact that $2.4 million dollars worth of pledges were not paid. 
 
•  In 2004, payment received was below the amount pledged for the first time, by 
$135.9 million. Outstanding pledges totalled $136,735,210. 
 
•  For 2005, the Fund estimates its needs at $2.3 billion. At present, the pledged 
amount for 2005 stands at just over $1.2 billion. 
 
•  For 2006 and 2007, the Fund estimates its needs will increase to between $3 and $4 
billion per year. The pledged amount for 2006 is currently $711 million and for 2007 it 
is $409 million. These amounts may increase after the replenishment meeting in 
March (see below).  
 
1.2 Donors 
•  US$3.3b has been paid into the Global Fund to date from 56 donors.  Of that, 94% 
has come from DAC donors; 68% from the G7. The USA was the largest single 
contributor, with a total of $1.08 billion paid over the three year period. 
 •  Private donors accounted for just under 5% of the total but the Gates Foundation 
contributed $50 million each year from 2001-2 to 2004. This makes it the seventh 
largest donor to the Global Fund (see worksheet 'Ranking' in GlobalFund.xls) 
 
•  Although non-DAC countries contributed only 1% of the total, developing countries 
are represented on the list of donors which includes Kenya, Zambia, Brazil, 
Zimbabwe, Uganda, South Africa, China and Nigeria (rank 20 out of 56) as well as a 
number of Arab States and countries of Central and Eastern Europe.   
 
1.3  Under and Over payments by donor 
•  While the majority of donors paid the amount pledged, seven either failed to keep 
their pledges altogether or paid less than the pledged amount. These include Italy 
($120 million pledged but unpaid – 36% of the pledge), South Africa ($1.1m, 37%) 
Nigeria ($0.9m out of a pledge of $10 million, 9%), Brazil ($50,000 and 50%) and 
Mexico and Cameroon who failed to meet any of their pledged amount. (The sheet 
'Paidvspledged' in GlobalFund.xls ranks donors according to the total level of 
overpayment or underpayment during the period 2001/2-2004.) 
 
•  In 2001-2, there were three over-payments. None of the donors failed to keep their 
pledges. In 2003, Italy again overpaid by $6.5 million. Three countries did not pay the 
pledged amounts – Cameroon ($100,000), Nigeria ($1 million) and South Africa 
(nearly $1.2 million).  In 2004, Brazil failed to pay the pledged amount of $50,000 but 
this was not carried forward to 2005. Italy also failed to pay its pledged amount of 
almost $135.7 million. This has been carried forward as a pledge for 2005. 
 
1.4 Requirements 
•  In the past, the Global Fund has not requested specific amounts from donors 
because it received roughly $1.5 billion in pledges even before it had been 
established. For the first two years of its existence, the voluntary ad hoc contributions 
it received were sufficient to meet the demands of recipient countries. In 2005, for 
the first time, it will use a replenishment mechanism to ensure more predictable long-
term funding. The first replenishment meeting will be held in Stockholm in March and 
will define the targets.   
1.5 Earmarking 
•  One of the basic principles of the Global Fund is that contributions cannot be ear-
marked. This has enabled the Global Fund to develop a wide portfolio of activities in 
130 countries. It also means that the Fund can invest in countries with which some 
donors might have a problem. 
 
 
 
 2  EDUCATION FOR ALL, FAST TRACK INITIATIVE  (FTI) 
(Financial data for 2003-4 attached (see FundsFTI.doc). This covers the Catalytic Fund 
as well as the FTI Secretariat Trust Fund.) 
 
2.1  Functions of the FTI 
 
•  The Fast Track Initiative (FTI) is a partnership of developing countries and donors 
created to help low-income countries achieve the MDG of Universal Completion of 
Primary Education by 2015. 
 
•  Donor partners of the FTI are the DAC members: Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Canada, Denmark, European Commission, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, 
Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Russia, 
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, USA. 
 
•  The FTI does not itself finance education, but it “bridges global commitments and 
local implementation around a set of reciprocal obligations: for the low-income 
countries to develop and implement sound education programs, and for donors to 
support such programs with finance and with enhanced efforts at harmonization, 
coordination, and acceleration.”  
 
•  In June 2002, 18 countries, representing over 17 percent of the world’s out of school 
population, were invited to prepare proposals for FTI financing.  By November 2004, 
12 had received endorsement through the FTI review process
1. This first set of 
countries was selected because they responded to the FTI criteria of having a PRS, 
being off track in achieving the MDG, and demonstrated an upward trend in 
performance in primary education and domestic financing 
 
2.2  Requirements and Fund Gap 
 
•  According to an FTI Status Report in November 2004, total programme costs for the 
12 FTI-endorsed countries are estimated at about $2.2 billion/year between 2003-
2005.  
 
•  Domestic revenue is estimated to finance 75% ($1.6 billion a year), and external 
financing 25%. External financing needed for these countries is therefore $600 
million a year (the external financing is provided directly government-government)
2.  
 
                                                      
1 These were: Mauritania, Guyana, The Gambia, Honduras, Burkina Faso, Ghana, 
Nicaragua, Niger, Guinea, Vietnam, Mozambique, Yemen. Since the publication of the 
report, Ethiopia has been endorsed. The 5 awaiting endorsement are: Albania, Bolivia, 
Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia. 
2 The cost estimates were calculated by the FTI Secretariat on the basis of the country 
plans and funding figures provided by donors. •  Presently, donors contribute an estimated $350 million a year, leaving a financing 
gap of about $220 million in 2004, and $260 million in 2005
3. 
 
•  According to country plans, domestic financing is expected to increase by an 
average of 6% a year between 2003 and 2005. Between 2003 and 2004, donor 
funding increased by 16% (from $320 to 370 million). 80% of this increase is 
attributable to the Catalytic Fund ($45 million).  
 
2.3  FTI methods of moblising resources  
 
•  Existing bilateral and multilateral channels, including silent partnerships, are 
considered the most important avenue for increased financing. Should there be a 
shortfall, the FTI partnership serves as a platform for disseminating the financing 
gaps and mobilizing donors to fill them. As an FTI status report points out, this 
mobilization process will not work effectively for all countries because ODA is not 
always allocated on the basis of need or performance. This is where the Catalytic 
Fund has a role to play. 
 
•  The “Catalytic Fund” was established in November 2003 to support the FTI by 
providing transitional financial assistance to low-income countries which have 
completed a Poverty Reduction Strategy and whose education sector plans have 
been endorsed by donors through the FTI review process, but which have difficulty 
mobilising additional external funding at the country level due to a relatively limited 
donor presence. Transitional (2-3 year) assistance from the Catalytic Fund can 
enable these countries to begin scaling up the implementation of their sector 
programs and establish a track record of performance that will help in attracting 
longer-term support from new donors. Thus, not all the FTI-endorsed countries are 
eligible for funding from the Catalytic Fund, just those which are unable to mobilize 
resources adequately. 
 
2.4 Main  donors 
 
•  The accounts for the Catalytic Fund are divided into the “BNPP Education for All 
Fund” and the “Catalytic Fund”. Four donors contribute to the Catalytic Fund: 
Netherlands, Norway, Italy and Belgium. Of these, Netherlands is by far the most 
significant. 
 
•   The Bank-Netherlands Partnership Programme (BNPP) is a Dutch Trust Fund which 
was in place when the Catalytic Fund was established. The Dutch government then 
decided to channel its funding of approximately $39.5 million for 2003-4 through the 
Catalytic Fund. Of this, $14 million was disbursed in 2003-4.  
 
                                                      
3 As noted earlier, it is not the role of the Catalytic Fund to fill this financing gap but to 
help leverage funding from existing bilateral and multilateral channels. •  The Netherlands has pledged a further EUR 195 million to the Catalytic Fund.  
 
•  In 2003-4, Norway, Italy and Belgium contributed approximately $9.5 million to the 
Catalytic Fund. Of this, just over $5 million was disbursed. The 3 donors have 
pledged a further NOK 40 million plus EUR 6 million.  
 
•  The FTI Secretariat Trust Fund was established in July 2004 to finance the 
Secretariat's operations. The UK DFID pledged GBP 300,000 to this while Germany 
and France pledged $50,000 each. Due to a delay in receiving funds, $150,000 was 
advanced in September 2004 from the FTI interim budget and the pledges have 
been carried forward to 2005.  
 
•  According to the November 2004 Status Report, total cost of staff, travel and 
overheads are estimated at $1.17 million annually, of which the World Bank finances 
67%. Staff costs to partner agencies (DFID and France) are estimated at US$ 
523,000. 
 
2.5 Earmarking 
 
•  Since the Catalytic Fund is a multi-donor trust fund, there is no ear-marking of donor 
contributions. 
 
 
3  ROLL BACK MALARIA PARTNERSHIP 
 
Financial data for 2003-4 attached (see FundsRBMfinancialsituation 102.xls). For 1998-
2002, only income data available (see 1998-2002 tab of spreadsheet above). 
 
3.1  Structure of the RBM Initiative 
•  Although the Roll Back Malaria initiative was established in 1998, it was a project of 
the WHO Secretary-General's Cabinet until 2002. Therefore, financial information 
covered both the initiative and WHO's own anti-malarial activities.   
 
•  During the period 1998 – 2002 the RBM income ranged between $15m and $36m a 
year.   
 
•  The UK was the largest contributor to Roll Back Malaria during this period, with a 
total contribution of approximately $68 million. At the end of 2001, DFID expressed 
its dissatisfaction with the lack of results at country level (although the initiative had 
undertaken a lot of advocacy, there were no clear outcomes from its investment of 
about $60 million between 1998 and 2001). Therefore, an external evaluation, led by 
Richard Feachem, then an advisor with the World Bank, was commissioned. This 
concluded that the initiative could not remain a WHO Cabinet project as it needed to be a genuine partnership and include all actors involved in anti-malarial activities, not 
just the four founding partners – WHO, UNICEF, UNDP and the World Bank. It also 
recommended the establishment of a separate RBM Partnership Secretariat which 
would report to its own board rather than WHO. This led to a separation between the 
RBM Partnership, which now has over 200 partners and a board with 22 members, 
and WHO (although WHO's malaria department was re-named Roll Back Malaria in 
2003 and hosts the Partnership Secretariat). The 2003-4 financial data is for the 
Partnership alone.  
 
3.2 Donors 
•  The income data for 1998-2002 shows 16 bilateral donors to RBM. However, only 3 
of these – the UK, the Netherlands and the USA - remained donors to the 
Partnership in 2003-4. The UK remains one of the largest donors to the Partnership 
(with only the World Bank, one of the founding members, contributing more). 
However, at $1.4 million, the level of funding from the UK is considerably lower than 
during 1998-2002. This is probably the main reason for the very sharp drop in the 
Partnership's income for 2003-4.  
 
•  The WHO's RBM Department has retained a much higher level of support from 
bilateral donors (see tab 'WHO 2003-4' in FundsRBMfinancialsituation 102.xls). Of 
the 16 donating between 1998-2002, 13 remain donors (with only Canada, Sweden 
and Switzerland no longer providing support). The UK is still the largest bilateral 
contributor to the Department with contributions of $7 million in 2003 and $2 million in 
2004. The Department also has access to considerable funding from WHO's regular 
budget and received a total of $9.07 million in 2003-4. As a result, the Department's 
total income for 2003 and 2004 is much higher than that of the Partnership - $18.1 
million and $16.4 million respectively. 
 
•  The combined income for the Partnership and Department for 2003 and 2004 comes 
to $23.7 million and $22.2 million. This is similar to their combined income for both in 
2002 ($24.4 million) though less than the peaks of $35.8 million and $30.1 million in 
2000 and 2001. The level of the UK's contribution is a major factor in explaining 
these changes – it contributed $22.7 million in 2000 and $15 million in 2001. Its 
support to both the Department and the Partnership in 2003-4 has been considerably 
lower. 
 
3.3 Requirements  and  pledges 
 
•  Since its establishment as a separate Partnership, RBM has had difficulty raising 
funds to meet estimated needs. Pledges to the 2004 budget were so low that the 
budget was divided between 2004 and 2005.  
 
•  The Secretariat has now requested $26 million for 2006 and $34.5 million for 2007. 
This would involve a substantial increase in funding from current levels. 
 •  The Partnership received $5.6 million in 2003, $5.8 million in 2004 and has pledges 
of $7.7 million for 2005. In fact, the Partnership was in a very difficult financial 
situation at the beginning of January 2005. It had only $50,000 in cash plus funds set 
aside for four fixed contracts. The $50,000 went down to approximately $10,000 as 
the RBM Secretariat waited for pledged funding from DFID to arrive. It has sent 
urgent requests for funding to the European Commission, the USA and the Gates 
Foundation. 
 
 
4  GLOBAL ALLIANCE FOR VACCINES AND IMMUNIZATION 
 
4.1  Structure and purpose of GAVI 
 
According to the GAVI website (http://www.vaccinealliance.org/index.php), the 
relationship between the broader world of immunization, GAVI and The Vaccine Fund 
can be seen as concentric circles, with The Vaccine Fund having the most narrow focus.  
• Global  immunization incorporates activities to support all aspects of immunization, 
including basic research on vaccines for the developing world, immunization 
programs, policies and vaccine development for industrialized countries, and 
implementation of accelerated disease control programs.  
 
•  GAVI provides a forum for strategy development, coordination and communication in 
support of priority immunization goals, and setting policies for the use of Vaccine 
Fund resources. GAVI partners contribute the technical and on-the-ground expertise 
to help expand the reach of immunization delivery systems, and to introduce priority 
new vaccines. In addition, GAVI partners coordinate ‘downstream’ R&D, establish 
tools and systems to promote sustainable financing, address the needs of middle-
income countries, and help monitor and promote the accelerated disease control 
goals.  
 
•  The Vaccine Fund has the most focused job definition – increasing access to safe 
basic immunization and new and under-used vaccines in the 74 poorest countries 
(<US$ 1000 GNP per capita) by providing financial support, vaccines and safety 
equipment to countries’ health systems.  By the middle of 2002, it is anticipated that 
a limited amount of Vaccine Fund resources will also be available to fill specific R&D 
gaps to accelerate development of near-term vaccine projects.  
 
4.2 Donors 
 
•  Financial data for the period 1999-2000 to 2004 shows that for the first years of its 
existence (1999-2000 and 2001), GAVI had a substantial income of $343.6 million 
and $535.5 million (see GAVI.xls). This was mainly due to a $750 million grant from 
the Gates Foundation being spread over the two years.  
 •  The Gates Foundation has been the largest donor to GAVI by far with a total 
contribution of $758.5 million (the second largest donor has been the US with 
$218.73 million) (see tab 'Ranking' in GAVI.xls). The Gates Foundation has pledged 
a further $450 million for the period 2005-2010. 
 
4.3 Requirements  and  Pledges 
 
•  Although GAVI has set itself a rough target of raising $400 million a year, which it 
roughly achieved in the 1999-2001 period, its income dropped to $125 million in 
2002 before recovering a little to reach almost $196 million in 2004. This was mainly 
due to contributions from government donors - $59.6 million from the US, $40 million 
from Norway and $25 million from the UK.  
 
•  For 2005, it has received pledges of $325 million (including $150 million from the 
Gates Foundation, $65 million from the USA and $47 million from Norway).  
 
•  According to a Vaccine Fund staff member, for 2006-2010, it estimates income at 
between $305-$310 million a year, which would mean that it would remain short of its 
target income of $400 million a year. 
 
4.4 Commitments  and  Expenditure 
 
•  GAVI has two programmes which involve multi-year funding commitments. The 
Immunization Services Support (ISS) programme involves 5-year commitments to 
developing countries while the Injection Safety (INS) programme involves 3-year 
commitments. For GAVI's commitments and disbursements to date by country, see 
tab 'Disbursed to countries' in GAVI.xls. 
 
•  GAVI's expenditure by year (see tab 'Expenditure' in GAVI.xls) shows that this has 
varied from $196.24 million in 2002 and almost $234 million in 2001 to $367 million in 
2003.  
 
4.5 Earmarking 
 
•  Contributions to GAVI are not ear-marked – they are simply given to GAVI's general 
programme. 
 

Fund Profiles: Global Fund, GAVI, Fast Track Initiative, and Roll Back Malaria

http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2005/papers/HDR2005_Development%20Initiatives_7.pdf

Fund Profiles: Global Fund, GAVI, Fast Track Initiative, and Roll Back Malaria

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics