Salud por Derecho with the support of more than 40 organizations from around the world launched a new campaign in May denouncing the lack of funding for the fight against the AIDS pandemic in Latin America and the Caribbean. The withdrawal of international aid in middle-income countries, where more than half of people with HIV live, could create a resurgence of the disease as the funding disappears, if funding is not found elsewhere. The most vulnerable populations and civil society organizations that support them will be most affected by the loss of funding.
The NOBODY campaign asks the international donors and organizations, such as the Global Fund, for a change in the resource allocation policies and a protocol for responsible exit, among other requests. At the same time, the campaign asks the governments of Latin America and the Caribbean for:
The 2016 MOPAN 3.0 assessment finds that the Global Fund provides strong global leadership for the response to HIV and AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. While this assessment reveals some areas where performance could be strengthened and improved, the overall conclusion is that the Global Fund fully meets the requirements of an effective multilateral organisation. It is fit for purpose and able to adapt to future needs.
The 2016 Aid Transparency Index demonstrates whether the 2011 commitment to aid transparency has been met. Five years after the first Aid Transparency Index, and five years after the Busan commitment, it shows us how transparent major donors are as we begin the first year of the implementation of the SDGs.
The ‘very good’ category includes the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (UK-DFID), the Global Fund, the World Bank-International Development Association (WB-IDA), the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), the Asian Development Bank (AsDB), the government of Sweden and the African Development Bank (AfDB). These donors should be commended for their efforts in dramatically improving the timeliness and the comprehensiveness of their aid information since 2011.
During the last Replenishment (2013), the United Kingdom issued a multi-lateral aid review that ranked the Global Fund highly and was used by advocates in the UK and elsewhere in their calls for more funding for the Global Fund.
In June, the Dutch Government issued a report and “scorecard” of 31 multilateral organizations that assessed such things as “strategy and focus”, “anti-corruption” and “results control”. The Global Fund tied for highest marks with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) by gaining the highest score possible in 5 of the 8 categories.
GFAN has included some key points about this multilateral aid review in recent communications, however we have also translated the documents into English and can now share them in their entirety.
Summary Scorecard Multilaterals
Scorecard Global Fund
Publisher: Center for Strategic & International Studies
The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria’s current five-year strategy “Investing for Impact” has guided a massive shift in its operational approach, leaving behind the more passive competitive rounds in favor of an allocation-based system that includes substantial back and forth with countries to increase impact. This change has been widely welcomed, but its success has been challenged by lack of data to guide smart investment decisions. As the Global Fund develops its next strategy, there is considerable energy behind a greater emphasis on strengthening the capacity of countries to obtain data, interpret them, and use them to monitor programs and guide strategies.
STOPAIDS’ report highlights how lessons learnt from effective HIV programming, including increasing work at the community level, the involvement of people living with HIV in decision making, and integration of services could lead to dramatic improvements across all health and wider development outcomes, including DFID priority areas like women and girls.
But the report also sounds a warning. It includes new data from UNAIDS showing, that despite huge advances large gaps still remain in HIV programme coverage in many countries around the world.
