Punishing success? Explanation of Band 4 of the Global Fund


Explanation of Band 4 of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and its Implications for Civil Society and Key Populations

A new briefing paper published by MSMGF and ICASO asks whether the Global Fund’s New Funding Model (NFM) is punishing the successes that countries with low and relatively low disease prevalence have had in their fights against HIV.

One of the features of the NFM will likely have a negative impact on a number of countries in terms of the funding they can expect to be granted by the Global Fund. The Country Band has been introduced to group all 123 eligible countries into one of four Bands. Which band a country is grouped into is based on disease level and income burden. Band 4 is the largest band, with 55 countries grouped in it. Band 4’s overall share of the funding is only 7%. That means that almost half of all eligible countries will only be able to apply for less than a 10th of all available funding. This change in the way funds are shared among eligible countries appears to be because of the countries that now fall into Band 4, previously had invested in low impact interventions. This is what is so problematic – these 55 countries are effectively being penalised for having low or relatively low disease prevalence.

This briefing paper is intended to help advocates better understand the country allocation methodology in general and the specificities of Band 4 in particular. It also outlines the implications of Band 4 classification for civil society and key populations, and provides advocacy entry points and recommendations for how the model can be improved.


You can download this 15 page resource as a PDF. This resource is in English.