Bernard RiversArticle Type:
Article Number: 9
ABSTRACT Quotes from Forum posts: "I have the impression that, in general, the amounts requested [from the Fund] are exaggerated." "I believe the GFATM should focus more on accountability and less on accounting."
Following are brief excerpts from contributions to the first three Postings of the GFO Discussion Forum. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of GFO or Aidspan.
- “Having assisted a few countries in the development of their submission to the GFATM, I have the impression that, in general, the amounts requested are exaggerated, and go often beyond the absorptive capacity of the organizations involved (public sector as well as civil society).”
- “Drug Abuse and unprotected sex are key drivers of HIV/AIDS and other diseases in many regions of the world… The Global Fund should be a main recipient of confiscated assets from these criminal trades.”
- “My impression [is] that the GFATM is going to go through the motions of accounting and accountability, but is not going to introduce the sort of accounting and transparency that is possible when modern technology and old fashioned accounting [are] put together.”
- “I believe the GFATM should focus more on accountability and less on accounting… If the GF demands lots of detailed financial reports it will get them. After decades of ODA, production of financial reports is one skill that has been well developed. But is this where we want the limited number of people available to oversee and guide the implementation of GF activities to put their time and effort?”
- “I would like to share information and strategies with other people trying to [raise funds for the Global Fund] in Australia or other countries that could afford to do more.”
- “Should [the Fund] advocate regime change, when the result could be improved response to global AIDS? Should the Fund avoid countries with corrupt or unfriendly regimes – even if these are the countries with (perhaps as a result) the biggest AIDS problems?”
- “Many who are involved in the GFATM process have a very good inside view and have comments to make, but do not want in any way to jeopardize the proposals of the countries involved by being, even indirectly, critical of them… For many working in the organizations that have supported the GF’s creation it is difficult to be openly critical of it. I suspect more people would contribute constructive criticism if they could do so anonymously.”
[See below for how to subscribe to the Discussion Forum.]