Conclusions and recommendations
1. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is an invaluable international finance mechanism. It has been highly effective over the past decade in tackling three of the world's most devastating diseases. Good progress has been made but there is still much work to do to eradicate these diseases in developing countries as far as possible. We are therefore concerned about the Global Fund's recent funding problems and the cancellation of all new grants until 2014. Given the nature of these diseases, we fear that many gains achieved will be lost if the Global Fund does not overcome its recent difficulties and return to full operation as soon as possible.
(Paragraph 10)
2. We are concerned at the diametrically opposed views expressed in our evidence about the potential impact of the cancellation of Round 11. If mistaken, the NGOs views are alarmist; similarly, if mistaken, the Secretary of State's view is complacent. We do not have sufficient evidence (including from those developing countries affected) to come to a conclusion about the full impact of the cancellation. But robust data of this kind will be necessary. An independent impact-assessment of the cancellation of Round 11endorsed by the Global Fund, the Department for International Development, other key donors and leading NGOsneeds to be undertaken to help inform future policy and programming. We urge DFID to work with international partners and NGOs to agree the scope of such a study.
(Paragraph 11)
3. The Global Fund is in need of structural and management reform. We are concerned about the findings of fraud by some Global Fund grant implementers, but recognise that the Global Fund's welcome commitment to transparency and anti-corruption helped to identify these malpractices. We are impressed by the new General Manager of the Global Fund and our evidence suggests that the Global Fund is making good progress in reforming its management structures and monitoring of financial risk. We believe that a speedy appointment of a permanent Executive Director is important to instil confidence amongst donors.
(Paragraph 12)
4. DFID is a key donor and reliable partner to the Global Fund whose commitment could unlock other funds. While we strongly support the Secretary of State's commitment to increase the UK's contribution significantly to the Global Fund, subject to reform, we are concerned at the continuing delay in providing these funds. A further delay until 2013, as indicated by the Secretary of State, may put the lives of people in developing countries at risk. We strongly urge the Department to do all possible to commit funds earlier by prioritising its assessment of the Global Fund ahead of, and separately from, its broader update of the Multilateral Aid Review.
(Paragraph 13)
5. It cannot be reliant on DFID to support the Global Fund while a number of other donors who have considerable resources are not doing likewise. Other donors need to commit new funds if the Global Fund is to return to full operation speedily. DFID should announce its additional funding at a time which raises the most amount of money from other donors. The G20 meeting in Mexico presents a good opportunity to do so, provided the Department's conditions are met and UK taxpayers' money is adequately safeguarded.
(Paragraph 14)
|