Listen to the following passage. Write a short English summary of around 150-200

Friday wag World AIDS Day, an annual observance sponsored by the United Nations to measure progress in combating the global epidemic of HIV/AIDS.
    Although there still is no cure, HIV/AIDS can be managed with knowledge, commitment, doctors, medicine, and money.
    That’s why the Global Fund comes in. It’s the largest single non-political source of money in the battle against the disease. VOA’s Adam Phillips takes a closer look at the Global Fund, as seen through the eyes of a leading activist who is trying to make sure the Fund’s resources are well     spent.
    The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is a multi-billion dollar project supported by a consortium of donor nations, non-governmental organizations, in-country health care providers, educators and others. While the workings of this Geneva-based agency are quite complex, the core idea underlying its work is quite simple. It says that each of the 131 nations that seek AIDS funding is in the best position to know what its own needs are, and how best to spend the money it receives. Bernard Rivers is the executive director of AIDSPAN, an independent organization that monitors the Global Fund and publishes the Global Fund Observer, a free, online newsletter about its activities.
    "The Global Fund says to each country, in effect, ’what do you want to do to fight AIDS?’ And each country can design what kind of program it wants. One country might want to set up an anti-retroviral treatment program. That is, they may want to buy lots of the modem drags, the ARV drugs, which are used to treat AIDS. Another country may want to focus primarily on prevention through education.
    Here’s how the Global Fund works. Donor nations contribute funds to a common reserve, which today totals about $6.3 billion. Nations who apply for funds submit very specific proposals. The proposals, says AIDSPAN’s Bernard Rivers, are judged according to their merit and the results that are promised, never on political considerations. What’s more, Rivers says, the decision to renew funding is based entirely on results achieved.
    Now this is an interesting challenge. Because if the country sets ridiculously high targets -- by spending a very small amount of money it claims it will deliver phenomenal results -- that may look good in the proposal. But then, if the grant is approved, the Global Fund says ’where are the results? Are you delivering those results?’ If on the other hand, the country aims rather low and promises very modest results, the Global Fund may say ’well, we can get better results elsewhere by giving grants to other countries.’"
    One example of this tough "bottom line" approach occurred early in 2006 when the Global Fund cut off $70 million in funding to Nigeria. Rivers says that Nigeria’s proposal had promised that 14,000 of its AIDS-infected citizens would receive anti-retroviral drugs by the end of last year.
    "The actual number of people who were on treatment by the end of the first year was zero. Quite a number of people started to be put on treatment in the second year, but the grant was way behind schedule, and there was a serious lack of desire by the government of Nigeria to make those grants really work efficiently."