Originally posted by the Voice of America. Voice of America content is produced by the Voice of America, a United States federal government-sponsored entity, and is in the public domain. UNAIDS: Overall Funding Shortfall for Global Fund Joe DeCapua 06 October 2010 The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria collected $11.7 billion in pledges this week. The pledges â which cover the next three years â were made by 40 countries, private foundations and corporations at the fundâs replenishment meeting in New York. UNAIDS says it welcomes the pledges, including the $4 billion commitment from the United States. However, it warns there is still an âoverall funding shortfall for the AIDS response.â Many activists and NGOs had said the global fund needed $20 billion dollars to sustain current programs and create new ones. They also said $13 billion was the bare minimum needed to âkeep the fundâs doors open.â On the plus sideâ¦. Pradeep Kakkattill, chief of UNAIDSâ effectiveness division, says, âOverall, I think it was a significant first step towards what we really see as a fully funded global fund response. I think the good news is certainly we have seen a 20 percent increase in commitments compared to what we had in 2007. Thatâs good news. We have two billion more than what was committed in 2007.â He describes it as a âpositiveâ response, considering the current state of the world economy. âWe also donât see the meeting in New York as an end. We see that as a beginning of a process. There are some donors that have not yet committed and Iâm sure that they will be coming in over the next few months. So we see this as an ongoing process,â he says. On the negative sideâ¦. Kakkattill, âWhat we really believe is that the current (funding) levels are probably not sufficient. We would push for a slightly higher number. We also think that we need to see some level of sustainable commitment from some of the emerging economies, so that they are investing their own resources when theyâre scaling-up the response. But weâll need to reconfigure those figures and see what it really means when it comes to operations.â He adds, âI certainly donât think weâll be closing the doors at this point of time with the current figures we have received. We need more, no doubt about it.â New funding ideas âThere is a need for innovative ways for mobilizing resources â not just the traditional donors, but really look at some of the innovative financing mechanisms like having a levy on airlines. Similarly, we want to expand investments from the private sector. Maybe try and expand the funding base to look at the G20 (countries) and other emerging economies,â he says. Differing estimates There have been varying estimates on what the global fund needs. They range from a minimum of $13 billion to a high of $20 billion. Kakkattill says, âThere were three scenarios, which the global fund put out. There was the $13 billion as being the lowest estimated need. Then there was a mid-level of $17 billion and then there was the high scenario of $20 billion.â He says the estimates are models based on current funding levels, but he says âthere are a number of unknowns when you really look at what resources are needed.â The unknowns, he says, raise the question of how much would be funded by external sources and how much by in-country resources. Treatment & prevention The UNAIDS official estimates about 5 million people worldwide are now receiving anti-retroviral drugs. A little more than half that number are getting treatment through fund-related programs. âOver the last six years,â he says, âthereâs been about a 13 fold increase in the number of people who are receiving treatment.â However, itâs estimated at least 10 million people should be on treatment. âThere is a gap between the number of people receiving treatment now and the number of people who need treatment,â he says. UNAIDS says more money should also be invested in prevention. â (In) twenty-two of the most affected countries of sub-Saharan Africa, thereâs been a reduction of new infections by more than 25 percent. Certainly, (itâs) much cheaper to do prevention compared to treatment. Itâs about three to four times more expensive to look at treatment compared to having somebody on prevention,â he says. .