Rwanda has been ranked, fourth among the top ten performers in terms of the Global Fund’s average grant performance, according to a recently released report by Aidspan, a Nairobi-based independent watchdog of the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

According to the allocation of Global Funds to Rwanda, as of the third of November, the country received a total of USD 397,654,970, mainly for TB, malaria and HIV/AIDS, the effective use of which it received this high ranking.

In its report entitled "An Analysis of Global Fund Grant Ratings”, Uganda is among the 10 lowest-ranked countries at position 108 out of the 114 Global Fund recipient countries while Kenya was ranked position 110.

According to Aidspan: "Global Fund grants have shown distinct improvements in performance over the past three years. Each year, International NGOs have performed significantly better, on average, than any other PR type. Non-international NGOs have performed slightly less well, on average, than Ministries of Health, but they have steadily improved.”

It goes further to state, "Ministries of Finance have been the least well-performing PR type, and UNDP the second least well-performing.”

As part of its core philosophy and belief in "performance-based funding, " the Global Fund states: "To facilitate this, each time the Fund receives a request from a principal recipient (PR) for a new disbursement of grant money, the Fund provides a rating of the PR’s recent work.” Ratings are based on the following; (A) rating: Meeting or exceeding expectations; (B1) rating: Adequate; (B2) rating: Inadequate but potential demonstrated and (C) rating: Unacceptable.

According to these ratings the ten highest-ranked countries in terms of average grant performance, beginning with the best; 1 – Bulgaria; 2 – Multi-country Africa (RMCC); 3 – Bhutan; 4 – Rwanda; 5 – Mongolia; 6 – El Salvador; 7 – Jamaica; 8 – Armenia; 9 – Ghana; and 10 – Georgia.

In the report released last week, Aidspan also stated: "The Global Fund does not make its grant ratings easily available to members of the public, and has not published any report analyzing these ratings. In an effort to fill this gap, Aidspan has conducted an analysis of the 1,934 grant ratings that the Fund has provided over the past three years.”

Ends