“Britain’s National Audit Office (NAO), akin to the US Government Accountability Office or GAO, is applauding the Department for International Development’s Multilateral Aid Review,” Sarah Jane Staats, director of the Rethinking U.S. Foreign Assistance Program at the Center for Global Development (CGD), writes in this post in the center’s “Rethinking U.S. Foreign Assistance Blog.” She continues, “The United States would be wise to follow Britain’s lead and conduct its own multilateral (or even bilateral) aid review to inform tough budget decisions ahead,” adding, “Until the United States conducts its own review, the U.K. experience affirms that the Unites States should — at a minimum — keep pushing for better aid data, including reporting to the U.S. Foreign Assistance Dashboard and the International Aid Transparency Initiative’s (IATI) standards” (9/24).
Programs, Funding & Financing
“During these tough budget times, citizens across the world rightfully question the effectiveness of government spending, including funds spent on foreign assistance,” Daniel Yohannes, chief executive officer of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), writes in this Foreign Policy opinion piece. “At the Millennium Challenge Corporation, an independent U.S. foreign aid agency with a global investment portfolio of more than $9.3 billion, we believe our assistance should be earned,” he writes. “MCC is an integral part of the administration’s comprehensive efforts to modernize U.S. development policies and programs, placing us at the forefront of foreign aid reform,” he continues, adding, “And one of the most effective tools we have to carry out this mission is the ability to say ‘no.'”
“The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria has released initial details on its new funding model, … [b]ut as the fund works to finalize the model before next year, civil society is criticizing the process for being untransparent and rushed,” IRIN reports in an article examining the draft model and reaction to it. Some groups have expressed concern over the fund’s decision to “base funding allocations for each diseases on previously used levels for up to one year,” while “many African civil society organizations have expressed dissatisfaction with the speed and transparency of the process,” IRIN writes. “The Global Fund board is expected to make a final decision on the model at its November board meeting,” the news service notes (9/25).
“President Obama and his Republican rival, Mitt Romney, appeared within hours of each other Tuesday at [the Clinton Global Initiative,] a global charitable gathering hosted by former president Bill Clinton, each focusing on how the United States can better promote prosperity and human rights abroad and at home,” the Washington Post reports (Rucker/Wilson, 9/25). Saying “that decades of foreign aid have not extinguished ‘the suffering and hardship,’ Romney called for big changes in the approach to foreign assistance,” the Associated Press/Fox News writes (9/25). According to Foreign Policy, Romney “pledged … to shift foreign aid toward the private sector and deprioritize humanitarian aid in favor of promoting free enterprise and business development around the world” and “then said he would lower the priority of foreign aid as a means to address humanitarian needs, such as health, as well as foreign aid as a means to promote U.S. strategic interests” (Rogin, 9/25). “His plan, which he called ‘Prosperity Pacts,’ calls for tying development money to requirements that countries allow U.S. investment and remove trade barriers,” the AP adds (9/25).
On Monday in Maputo, Mozambique, U.S. Ambassador Douglas Griffiths signed funding agreements with 29 community-based organizations that will receive a total of $1.4 million through PEPFAR’s small grants program “to strengthen health systems, boost professional training and implement income generating activities for people living with or affected by HIV/AIDS,” the Mozambique News Agency/AllAfrica.com reports. “Because of your local knowledge, we can reach the most affected communities and spread messages about preventing HIV, treatment, and the available care and support,” Griffiths said, according to the news service, which notes the money “from the U.S. embassy for the fight against HIV/AIDS is not new” (9/24).
Forbes features an interview with Deborah Derrick, president of Friends of the Global Fight Against AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, in which she “discusse[s] her motivations for pursuing a career in international affairs and social change, her experience as a senior program officer at the [Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation], what lessons she learned during her time at Gates that are most applicable in her new executive role at Friends of the Global Fight, the current landscape of challenges and solutions, and the role of technology in accelerating progress.” In the interview, Derrick said, “The mobilization to defeat these diseases in the past decade has been stunningly successful. … But there is so much more that needs to be done. If we don’t muster the resources to keep up the fight, and all commit to doing our part in a time of constrained resources, we risk backsliding on the progress we’ve already invested in” (Kanani, 9/21).
Following the XIX International AIDS Conference (AIDS 2012) in July, “delegates left Washington with a clear focus on achieving an AIDS-free generation,” Chip Lyons, president and CEO of the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, writes in the Huffington Post’s “The Big Push” blog. “But in the weeks following, HIV/AIDS and global health have largely disappeared from our political dialogue,” he says, because “[n]ational attention is squarely focused on the November elections, and we haven’t seen the ‘post-conference’ bounce that these issues deserve.” He continues, “Although there was mention of support for PEPFAR and the Global Fund [to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria] at this summer’s conventions, this kind of high-level call to action was noticeably absent in Tampa and Charlotte.”
“This week, heads of state, celebrities and CEOs will attend U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s ‘Every Woman, Every Child’ dinner in New York,” an event that “will highlight the amazing contribution of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria to the health of women and children in developing countries,” Lucy Chesire, executive director and secretary to the board of TB ACTION Group, writes in the Huffington Post’s “The Big Push” blog. “Ten years ago, tackling HIV, tuberculosis [TB] and malaria seemed an almost impossible task. Today we can see the beginning of the end of these three killer diseases,” she continues, adding, “But to make these historic achievements possible we need sufficient resources available!”
“[W]hat will the day be like when we finally defeat AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria?” Arianna Huffington, president and editor-in-chief of the Huffington Post Media Group, asks in the Huffington Post’s “The Big Push” blog. “[W]ith the launch today of The Big Push campaign — co-sponsored by the Global Fund [to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria] and the Huffington Post — this might be more than a thought exercise … because the progress that’s been made against these diseases in only the last 10 years has been so staggering that we may actually be in sight of the day when no child is born with HIV, nobody dies of malaria and we stop the spread of tuberculosis,” she continues and provides some statistics.
In the Center for Global Development’s (CGD) “Global Health Policy” blog, Victoria Fan, a CGD research fellow, and Rachel Silverman, a research assistant for the CGD global health team, examine the potential reasons behind “the U.S. government’s apparent lack of support, particularly its legislated ‘opt-in’ stance,” on the Affordable Medicines Facility for Malaria (AMFm), and they note “AMFm’s continued survival [is] all but impossible without an explicit endorsement by the U.S. Global Malaria Coordinator (currently Rear Admiral Tim Ziemer) who leads the U.S. President’s Malaria Initiative (PMI).” Fan and Silverman continue, “The question that the U.S. government must face is not only whether there is compelling evidence of AMFm’s success, but whether the termination of AMFm would be more disastrous than AMFm’s continuation, albeit modified.” They conclude, “Most importantly, personal biases and potential conflicts of interest need to be put aside — if not made transparent — for the benefit of evidence-based debate and decision-making and for the many people and children that would have died without AMFm” (9/21).