GF’s allocations methodology for 2017-2019

The Board has approved a methodology for determining the allocations for 2017-2019.

The methodology does not differ significantly from the one used for the 2014-2016 allocations. The main differences are as follows:

  • There will be no country bands (or country groups of any kind) used.
  • No specific sum of money has been set aside for incentive funding or for regional proposals (though there will be funding available for both as part of a new pot of money for “catalytic investments”).
  • The qualitative adjustment for minimum required level will be replaced by a simplified system.
  • A simplified system will be used to identify initiatives to be placed on the Unfunded Quality Demand register.
 The catalytic investments will serve three purposes: (1) to provide a form of incentive (“beyond allocation”) funding; (2) to fund multi-country approaches; and (3) to fund strategic initiatives.
Once the amount of money available for country allocations is known, the allocations model will be applied. As before, the funds will first be divided into three envelopes, one for each disease, as per the global disease split. The Board already decided that the split for 2017-2019 will be the same as the split used for the 2014-2016 allocations: HIV 50%; malaria 32%; and TB 18%.
For 2017-2019, a simplified process will be used to identify unfunded quality demand. Applicants will no longer be asked to prepare allocation and above-allocation portions of their concept notes. Instead, costed national strategic plans and/or programmatic and financial gap tables in the concept notes will serve as the basis for estimating beyond-allocation need. During development of the funding request, a limited set of key additional, prioritized and costed needs will be identified for programming, should resources become available. These needs will be reviewed and registered at the time of initial submission of a funding request and maintained on a register to attract additional resources, and to facilitate reprogramming of savings or efficiencies during the grant lifecycle.
The methodology has caused some concerns and comments, some of which are referred to in the original article on Aidspan website.
“Allocation Methodology 2017-2019,” Board Document GF-B35-05, should be available shortly at A copy of the MSF letter is on file with the author. 
Source: Aidspan