PREAMBLE: Over the past two issues we have taken note of decisions by several European entities (Germany, Ireland, and Sweden and the European Commission itself) to suspend funding to the Global Fund on AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM). In part, this decision was made ostensibly due to concerns about corruption in recipient countries, even though this was limited to only 4 countries (among over a hundred recipients) and was discovered, investigated and openly reported by the Global Fund itself. This level of corruption, independently analysed, is significantly lower than that of the EURO block.
The truth behind this decision is that Europe has been financially mismanaged, with bank failures in some countries, and problems of corruption and mismanagement. European captains of industry (like their Americans counterparts) walked away with fortunes under their belts in the form of self-awarded bonuses, even as their operations have been bailed out by their taxpayers. Several governments are now at risk of unprecedented financial defaults.
The decisions of these European entities smack of old style colonialism: arrogance from the top down. It damages their hard won (or restored) reputations for being global leaders.
To use developing countries and the Global Fund as a scapegoat for this is unconscionable: at least be honest! Instead, these particular European entities should have had the integrity to own up and say “sorry, we cant afford this now, because we ourselves are in such a mess”.
Thankfully, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, being evidence-based, has stepped in to shore up Global Fund finances due to this donor default. Also, former Japanese prime minister Naoto Kan said his country would contribute $340 million to the fund this year. Two years ago, Japan contributed $200 million, but it gave only $110 million last year because of domestic needs from the earthquake and tsunami. Of course many other countries are honoring their pledges, even as many of them also have financial challenges at this time.
“These are tough economic times, but that is no excuse for cutting aid to the world’s poorest,” Bill Gates said in announcing the $750 million contribution.
We congratulate the Gates Foundation, and the government of Japan, a nation that knows more than most the meaning of hardship and tragedy, and apparently has a high sense of integrity.
We dedicate this issue to the major successes now taking place in malaria control, largely thanks to support from the Global Fund. With this purpose, we have partially extracted verbatim the report below which appeared in the Health and Development Global Update published by the HLSP Institute in June 2011.
Reference: Brown D, Gates Foundation gives $750 million to Global Fund. Washington Post January 27, 2012. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/gates-foundation-gives-750-million-to-global-fund/2012/01/26/gIQAHKw5TQ_story.html Accessed February 18, 2012.
MALARIA: A GLOBAL UPDATE
The latest WHO World Malaria Report in April 2011 documents impressive increases in intervention coverage and reductions in malaria morbidity and mortality. WHO estimates that the number of malaria cases has fallen by more than 50% in 43 countries over the past decade. Eleven countries in Africa have shown a reduction of more than 50% in either confirmed malaria cases or malaria admissions and deaths in recent years. In Asia, four countries saw a decrease in the number of malaria cases of more than 50% since 2000.
Africa in particular has seen tremendous progress in increasing access to insecticide-treated nets (ITNs) in past 3 years. However, given an estimated lifespan of three years, nets delivered in 2006 and 2007 are already due for replacement and those delivered between 2008 and 2010 will soon be. The challenge is in ensuring that the high levels of coverage achieved are maintained.
We still have incomplete information on access to treatment in general, and particularly for the significant proportion of patients treated in the private sector. We do know that the number of procured rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) and artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) is increasing globally yet, especially in African countries, most patients are receiving ACTs without confirmatory diagnosis. This continues to represent a significant financial, technical and personal challenge for many patients, health care providers and national malaria control programme managers. One exception is Senegal, which has introduced RDTs on a national scale in public facilities and, with high levels of adherence to diagnostic results, achieved dramatic reductions in ACT consumption . On the other hand, another study in urban Tanzania shows that the introduction of RDTs also had the unintended consequence of increasing inappropriate antibiotic prescription (from 49% to 72%) – a behaviour ascribed to clinicians’ insufficient knowledge and training on other causes of fever. This is why RDTs able to diagnose a range of common illnesses are high on the malaria community’s R&D ‘wish list’.
Coverage with intermittent preventive treatment for pregnant women (IPTp) remains far from target levels – ranging from 2.4% in Angola to 62% in Zambia. No country has yet adopted a national policy of intermittent preventive treatment for infants (IPTi), as recommended by WHO.
In the countries with greatest progress, the decreases are associated with intense malaria control interventions. But this progress is fragile. The resurgence of the disease in 2009 in Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, and Zambia shows that control programmes need to be maintained even if numbers of cases have been reduced substantially.
Source: HLSP Institute. Health and Development Global Update. July 2011. http://www.hlsp.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=VxUphqNpW_w%3D&tabid=1575
Envoie: The prevention and control of AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria represent moving targets. Only with sustained international support from both public and private sectors, and perseverance by the countries mostly affected, will eventual success be achieved. The results as reported in the above extract are extremely encouraging and should be taken into account by the European entities mentioned in our preamble, when they eventually reconsider their support: which they surely will.
Showing posts with label AIDS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AIDS. Show all posts
Saturday, 18 February 2012
Thursday, 15 December 2011
EUROPEAN COUNTRIES RENEGE ON COMMITMENTS TO THE GLOBAL FUND
PREAMBLE:
The track record of developed countries honoring their aid commitments is not impressive (especially the G8 nations)[1]. However, until recently, there was optimism that most would honor their commitments to support the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
To briefly revisit the MDGs for those readers who may not recall what they were about, here is a thumbnail sketch: at a United Nations conference in 2000, governments around the world pronounced the MDGs, to be achieved by 2015. Eight goals were constructed (listed below), reflecting the world's main development challenges and responding to the calls of civil society.[2] Within these goals there are 18 targets, complemented by 48 measurable indicators to measure progress towards the MDGs.
Goal 1: Halve Proportion of People in Extreme Poverty and Hunger
Goal 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education
Goal 3: Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women
Goal 4: Reduce Child Mortality by 2/3
Goal 5: Reduce Maternal Mortality by 3/4
Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other diseases
Goal 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability
Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership of Development
Last year’s UN Special Session on MDG outcomes provided an important reminder: in relation to Goal 8 (Develop a Global Partnership of Development) there was a message for all donor countries, namely that, without more reliable support from developed countries, several Goals are likely to be missed in many developing ones.[3]
However there is now serious concern regarding the 6th goal, which comes within the remit of a “Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria”. Tragically, in November 2011, several European entities (Germany, Ireland, Sweden and the European Commission itself), ostensibly in response to fraud in a small number of developing nations (4 out of >120 recipient countries), have frozen or drastically cut back on their funding support to the Global Fund as a whole with the effect that it will not be able to take on any new commitments for a 3 year period.
Although it is understood around the world that the entire European Union is now under existential threat, and therefore unable to make good on their commitments, in our view it is a “bit rich” (to use the vernacular, no pun intended) that these rich nations, whose own financial mismanagement and fraud in some instances led to their own current morass, feel free to tar recipient countries with the same brush.
The documented fraud amounts to $34 million, which represents 0.03% of the Fund’s whole portfolio, and all of the evidence of fraud that was cited in the press was uncovered by the Fund itself after it undertook investigations. Furthermore, the Fund had publicly announced these findings as they were uncovered. There was never any duplicity or attempts to cover up the losses. It would be interesting indeed to see how this compares with the extent and impact of fraud in the European Community itself, especially on the heels of various banking collapses, and national defaults. Pot calls kettle black?
For this issue of PacificSci Global Perspectives, we extract from an objectively critical situation analysis as presented by Results UK, an NGO registered in England, Wales and Scotland.[4]
NOTE: This is our last issue for 2011. Our Year in Review will appear as the first issue for 2012.
References:
1. White F. Development assistance for health – donor commitment as a critical success factor. Can J Public Health (2011)102,6:421-3
2. United Nations Development Programme. About the MDGs: Basics - What are the Millennium Development Goals? http://www.undp.org/mdg/basics.shtml Accessed December 15, 2011.
3. UN General Assembly. 65th Session Agenda Items 115. Special Session on the MDGs. Outcome Document: New York. September, 2010.
4. Supporting the Global Fund – making the case for immediate intervention. Background Sheet 1: RESULTS – the power to end poverty. December 11, 2011. http://results.org.uk/sites/default/files/December%202011%20Background%20Sheet%201%20Supporting%20the%20Global%20Fund.pdf Accessed December 15, 2011.
THE GLOBAL FUND TO FIGHT AIDS, TB AND MALARIA (GF)
Note: This report is extracted verbatim from the work of Results-UK (citation #4 above). While we fully endorse what they have stated, the originality of this analysis belongs entirely to them. We recognize that it was written for a primarily UK audience, but we feel that it deserves global recognition and readership.
The GF is a multilateral agency founded in 2002 and is the world’s largest financer of anti-AIDS, TB and Malaria programs. It operates as a partnership between governments, civil society, the private sector and affected communities. It draws its funding from donor governments, trusts and foundations and distributes that money to implementing agencies. To ensure that GF money goes to where it is needed most, it prioritises countries with low incomes and high disease burdens. Importantly the GF is guided by the principles of accountability and transparency. It focuses explicitly on results and has an outstanding track record for delivering real impacts on the ground.
At the end of 2010 the GF has approved funding of $22 billion for more than 600 programs in 150 countries. Because it has such clear monitoring mechanisms the Fund states that it has distributed 190 million insecticide treated nets to treat malaria, provided TB treatment for 8.2 million people and provided antiretroviral drugs and holistic care for some 3.2 million people, saving 7.7 million lives.
How funding works: the replenishment process
The fund is predominantly bankrolled by contributions from the governments of developed nations. Since it was created in 2002, 95% of pledges have been from these governments (totalling $28.3bn), with the other 5% coming from private sector and philanthropic givers like the Gates Foundation. From 2001-2010 by far the largest contributor to the fund has been the USA, followed by France, Japan, Germany and the UK. In terms of giving as per cent of GNI, Sweden gives the largest proportion, followed by France, Norway, Holland and Spain.
After the initial funding it received for 2002-2004 the GF has gone through a replenishment cycle every three years, with the last of these events taking place in 2010 in New York. The GF went into the New York conference seeking $20 billion to fully fund the fight against the three diseases. Whilst this represented a doubling of contributions from the 2007 replenishment, it was considered as absolutely vital to avoid losing ground to the diseases. Unfortunately, pledges and projections at the conference only ended up totalling $11.68 billion. The result was that the GF needed to seek new funding, could not fund certain high cost programs and had to slow the pace of scale up.
The UK contribution
The UK government has been a strong historic supporter of the Fund. In 2001 the Labour government made a pledge to give £1.36 billion between 2001-2015 and has delivered £1.06bn thus far. After coming to power the new coalition undertook a review of all UK giving to multilaterals and the Fund came out very well, rated in the highest category as providing ‘Very Good’ value for money, which was only given to 9 organisations. In giving the Global Fund a top score, the Multilateral Aid Review (MAR) found its “quality and depth of reporting” were very high, and reported that “standards for financial management and audit” were very high as well. Overall it found the Global Fund to be critically important in the delivery of the MDGs.
As such, the new government has committed to continued giving to the fund at the same levels as the previous administration. The UK has not made a new pledge recently, however, our historically strong stance puts us ahead of many European countries. Civil society organisations across the UK and Europe have been calling on the UK to make a contribution of £840 million between 2011-2013, a figure that would represent a ‘fair share’ of the $20 billion that the GF requested to fill financing needs of partner countries.
What went wrong?
There have been several competing factors that have led to countries withdrawing or withholding their payments to the Global Fund.
1. The financial crisis: The global economic downturn of 2008 has severely hit the GF. With aid budgets being squeezed more tightly than ever before, many countries have chosen to hold back or renege on their commitments to the Fund, citing a variety of causes. As the crisis has continued the ratio of pledges to money actually delivered has steadily worsened, with countries including Spain, Holland, Denmark, Italy, Belgium and the US seriously behind on their commitments. Countries are finding the crisis a convenient excuse not to meet their commitments.
2. Global Fund Corruption: In January this year, corruption in GF programmes was inaccurately and sensationally reported by the Associated Press. Citing losses of $34 million dollars across several countries, the media created a situation in which Germany, Ireland, the European Commission and Sweden all announced that they were withholding funding until investigations into the causes of the losses and how they occurred were carried out.
3. A victim of its own success: Ironically, the Fund’s success up until 2010 has partly led to these problems. The Fund introduced new paradigms in the global health and international development arenas. It established a mechanism which channels resources to fund demand through the submission of evidence based, technically sound TB/Malaria/HIV proposals, and as a result has regularly met and exceeded its targets. As such, scale up in demand has been steep, leaving the Fund needing increasingly more and more funding. When global economics were good, this was a curve that could continue. Now this is clearly no longer the case.
The issue of corruption
Stories began to circulate in January 2011 about money going missing from GF supported programs in nine different countries. The total sums that were misappropriated or unaccounted for totalled around $34 million dollars. As a reaction, Germany, Ireland, Sweden and the E.C all stated that they were withholding money to support pledges. They all cited slightly different reasons – and had slightly different motivations – but all called for the Fund to conduct an investigation into its activities.
The media reports of corruption have been very damaging to the Fund, but it’s important to look at this in detail and put the figures into perspective. All of the evidence of fraud that was cited in the press was uncovered by the Fund itself after it undertook investigations. Corruption was found in 9 out of 33 investigated programs (of 145 the fund administers). In Mali, the country with the greatest losses, the Fund has reclaimed a large amount of that money and secured the convictions of nine civil servants involved in its theft. The Office of the Inspectorate General (OIG) is a completely independent body within the Fund that carries out these investigations. What’s more, the Fund had publicly announced these findings as they were uncovered. There was never any duplicity or attempts to cover up the losses. Joe Liden, a spokesman for the Fund stated that they felt they had been “treated very badly by the media.”
Within the whole of the Fund’s portfolio, the $34 million represents 0.03% of the Fund’s whole portfolio (although only 33 countries were investigated). However, these 9 programs were investigated for the very reason that they were some of the riskiest grants the Global Fund provided. Looking at the most recent set of reviews from the OIG, which analysed over $1b of grants, indicates that across the whole portfolio, no more than 1% of funds have been lost to fraud. This is substantially less than is lost by the UK’s DWP every year.2 However, the sensationalist language used by the media has stuck and the Fund’s reputation as been damaged. The Fund has been through a process of self-evaluation and produced a High Level panel report discussing the problems it faced around fiscal accountability, auditing and investigation practices and has addressed many of the criticisms made by concerned donors.
OUR COMMENT: The ethics of the European Community need to be called into question. It appears that they have held the Global Fund to a higher standard than they themselves could meet, especially given the evidence of everything from bank fraud to gross mismanagement of national finances in several of their own members (Ireland is one of the countries that have reneged on their GF commitments, but isnt this also one of the so-called “PIGS” that have exhibited financial mismanagement?), leading to the current crisis in the Euro. At least one should expect Europe to be honest about this and not play “bully in the pulpit”. Why not lay the blame for reneging on commitments on their own mismanagement, and by extension accept responsibility for any reversals that will result from funding shortfalls in global efforts to combat these diseases over the next 3 years?
We wish all readers the very best for the Holiday Season, and a Happy New Year.
The track record of developed countries honoring their aid commitments is not impressive (especially the G8 nations)[1]. However, until recently, there was optimism that most would honor their commitments to support the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
To briefly revisit the MDGs for those readers who may not recall what they were about, here is a thumbnail sketch: at a United Nations conference in 2000, governments around the world pronounced the MDGs, to be achieved by 2015. Eight goals were constructed (listed below), reflecting the world's main development challenges and responding to the calls of civil society.[2] Within these goals there are 18 targets, complemented by 48 measurable indicators to measure progress towards the MDGs.
Goal 1: Halve Proportion of People in Extreme Poverty and Hunger
Goal 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education
Goal 3: Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women
Goal 4: Reduce Child Mortality by 2/3
Goal 5: Reduce Maternal Mortality by 3/4
Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other diseases
Goal 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability
Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership of Development
Last year’s UN Special Session on MDG outcomes provided an important reminder: in relation to Goal 8 (Develop a Global Partnership of Development) there was a message for all donor countries, namely that, without more reliable support from developed countries, several Goals are likely to be missed in many developing ones.[3]
However there is now serious concern regarding the 6th goal, which comes within the remit of a “Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria”. Tragically, in November 2011, several European entities (Germany, Ireland, Sweden and the European Commission itself), ostensibly in response to fraud in a small number of developing nations (4 out of >120 recipient countries), have frozen or drastically cut back on their funding support to the Global Fund as a whole with the effect that it will not be able to take on any new commitments for a 3 year period.
Although it is understood around the world that the entire European Union is now under existential threat, and therefore unable to make good on their commitments, in our view it is a “bit rich” (to use the vernacular, no pun intended) that these rich nations, whose own financial mismanagement and fraud in some instances led to their own current morass, feel free to tar recipient countries with the same brush.
The documented fraud amounts to $34 million, which represents 0.03% of the Fund’s whole portfolio, and all of the evidence of fraud that was cited in the press was uncovered by the Fund itself after it undertook investigations. Furthermore, the Fund had publicly announced these findings as they were uncovered. There was never any duplicity or attempts to cover up the losses. It would be interesting indeed to see how this compares with the extent and impact of fraud in the European Community itself, especially on the heels of various banking collapses, and national defaults. Pot calls kettle black?
For this issue of PacificSci Global Perspectives, we extract from an objectively critical situation analysis as presented by Results UK, an NGO registered in England, Wales and Scotland.[4]
NOTE: This is our last issue for 2011. Our Year in Review will appear as the first issue for 2012.
References:
1. White F. Development assistance for health – donor commitment as a critical success factor. Can J Public Health (2011)102,6:421-3
2. United Nations Development Programme. About the MDGs: Basics - What are the Millennium Development Goals? http://www.undp.org/mdg/basics.shtml Accessed December 15, 2011.
3. UN General Assembly. 65th Session Agenda Items 115. Special Session on the MDGs. Outcome Document: New York. September, 2010.
4. Supporting the Global Fund – making the case for immediate intervention. Background Sheet 1: RESULTS – the power to end poverty. December 11, 2011. http://results.org.uk/sites/default/files/December%202011%20Background%20Sheet%201%20Supporting%20the%20Global%20Fund.pdf Accessed December 15, 2011.
THE GLOBAL FUND TO FIGHT AIDS, TB AND MALARIA (GF)
Note: This report is extracted verbatim from the work of Results-UK (citation #4 above). While we fully endorse what they have stated, the originality of this analysis belongs entirely to them. We recognize that it was written for a primarily UK audience, but we feel that it deserves global recognition and readership.
The GF is a multilateral agency founded in 2002 and is the world’s largest financer of anti-AIDS, TB and Malaria programs. It operates as a partnership between governments, civil society, the private sector and affected communities. It draws its funding from donor governments, trusts and foundations and distributes that money to implementing agencies. To ensure that GF money goes to where it is needed most, it prioritises countries with low incomes and high disease burdens. Importantly the GF is guided by the principles of accountability and transparency. It focuses explicitly on results and has an outstanding track record for delivering real impacts on the ground.
At the end of 2010 the GF has approved funding of $22 billion for more than 600 programs in 150 countries. Because it has such clear monitoring mechanisms the Fund states that it has distributed 190 million insecticide treated nets to treat malaria, provided TB treatment for 8.2 million people and provided antiretroviral drugs and holistic care for some 3.2 million people, saving 7.7 million lives.
How funding works: the replenishment process
The fund is predominantly bankrolled by contributions from the governments of developed nations. Since it was created in 2002, 95% of pledges have been from these governments (totalling $28.3bn), with the other 5% coming from private sector and philanthropic givers like the Gates Foundation. From 2001-2010 by far the largest contributor to the fund has been the USA, followed by France, Japan, Germany and the UK. In terms of giving as per cent of GNI, Sweden gives the largest proportion, followed by France, Norway, Holland and Spain.
After the initial funding it received for 2002-2004 the GF has gone through a replenishment cycle every three years, with the last of these events taking place in 2010 in New York. The GF went into the New York conference seeking $20 billion to fully fund the fight against the three diseases. Whilst this represented a doubling of contributions from the 2007 replenishment, it was considered as absolutely vital to avoid losing ground to the diseases. Unfortunately, pledges and projections at the conference only ended up totalling $11.68 billion. The result was that the GF needed to seek new funding, could not fund certain high cost programs and had to slow the pace of scale up.
The UK contribution
The UK government has been a strong historic supporter of the Fund. In 2001 the Labour government made a pledge to give £1.36 billion between 2001-2015 and has delivered £1.06bn thus far. After coming to power the new coalition undertook a review of all UK giving to multilaterals and the Fund came out very well, rated in the highest category as providing ‘Very Good’ value for money, which was only given to 9 organisations. In giving the Global Fund a top score, the Multilateral Aid Review (MAR) found its “quality and depth of reporting” were very high, and reported that “standards for financial management and audit” were very high as well. Overall it found the Global Fund to be critically important in the delivery of the MDGs.
As such, the new government has committed to continued giving to the fund at the same levels as the previous administration. The UK has not made a new pledge recently, however, our historically strong stance puts us ahead of many European countries. Civil society organisations across the UK and Europe have been calling on the UK to make a contribution of £840 million between 2011-2013, a figure that would represent a ‘fair share’ of the $20 billion that the GF requested to fill financing needs of partner countries.
What went wrong?
There have been several competing factors that have led to countries withdrawing or withholding their payments to the Global Fund.
1. The financial crisis: The global economic downturn of 2008 has severely hit the GF. With aid budgets being squeezed more tightly than ever before, many countries have chosen to hold back or renege on their commitments to the Fund, citing a variety of causes. As the crisis has continued the ratio of pledges to money actually delivered has steadily worsened, with countries including Spain, Holland, Denmark, Italy, Belgium and the US seriously behind on their commitments. Countries are finding the crisis a convenient excuse not to meet their commitments.
2. Global Fund Corruption: In January this year, corruption in GF programmes was inaccurately and sensationally reported by the Associated Press. Citing losses of $34 million dollars across several countries, the media created a situation in which Germany, Ireland, the European Commission and Sweden all announced that they were withholding funding until investigations into the causes of the losses and how they occurred were carried out.
3. A victim of its own success: Ironically, the Fund’s success up until 2010 has partly led to these problems. The Fund introduced new paradigms in the global health and international development arenas. It established a mechanism which channels resources to fund demand through the submission of evidence based, technically sound TB/Malaria/HIV proposals, and as a result has regularly met and exceeded its targets. As such, scale up in demand has been steep, leaving the Fund needing increasingly more and more funding. When global economics were good, this was a curve that could continue. Now this is clearly no longer the case.
The issue of corruption
Stories began to circulate in January 2011 about money going missing from GF supported programs in nine different countries. The total sums that were misappropriated or unaccounted for totalled around $34 million dollars. As a reaction, Germany, Ireland, Sweden and the E.C all stated that they were withholding money to support pledges. They all cited slightly different reasons – and had slightly different motivations – but all called for the Fund to conduct an investigation into its activities.
The media reports of corruption have been very damaging to the Fund, but it’s important to look at this in detail and put the figures into perspective. All of the evidence of fraud that was cited in the press was uncovered by the Fund itself after it undertook investigations. Corruption was found in 9 out of 33 investigated programs (of 145 the fund administers). In Mali, the country with the greatest losses, the Fund has reclaimed a large amount of that money and secured the convictions of nine civil servants involved in its theft. The Office of the Inspectorate General (OIG) is a completely independent body within the Fund that carries out these investigations. What’s more, the Fund had publicly announced these findings as they were uncovered. There was never any duplicity or attempts to cover up the losses. Joe Liden, a spokesman for the Fund stated that they felt they had been “treated very badly by the media.”
Within the whole of the Fund’s portfolio, the $34 million represents 0.03% of the Fund’s whole portfolio (although only 33 countries were investigated). However, these 9 programs were investigated for the very reason that they were some of the riskiest grants the Global Fund provided. Looking at the most recent set of reviews from the OIG, which analysed over $1b of grants, indicates that across the whole portfolio, no more than 1% of funds have been lost to fraud. This is substantially less than is lost by the UK’s DWP every year.2 However, the sensationalist language used by the media has stuck and the Fund’s reputation as been damaged. The Fund has been through a process of self-evaluation and produced a High Level panel report discussing the problems it faced around fiscal accountability, auditing and investigation practices and has addressed many of the criticisms made by concerned donors.
OUR COMMENT: The ethics of the European Community need to be called into question. It appears that they have held the Global Fund to a higher standard than they themselves could meet, especially given the evidence of everything from bank fraud to gross mismanagement of national finances in several of their own members (Ireland is one of the countries that have reneged on their GF commitments, but isnt this also one of the so-called “PIGS” that have exhibited financial mismanagement?), leading to the current crisis in the Euro. At least one should expect Europe to be honest about this and not play “bully in the pulpit”. Why not lay the blame for reneging on commitments on their own mismanagement, and by extension accept responsibility for any reversals that will result from funding shortfalls in global efforts to combat these diseases over the next 3 years?
We wish all readers the very best for the Holiday Season, and a Happy New Year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
