GLOBAL FUND OBSERVER (GFO) - Issue 141: 7 March 2011

[Guest guest]

GLOBAL FUND OBSERVER (GFO), an

independent newsletter about the Global Fund provided by Aidspan to over 8,000

subscribers in 170 countries.

Issue 141: 7 March 2011. (For formatted web,

Word and PDF versions of this and other issues, see www.aidspan.org/gfo.)

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

+ + +

CONTENTS

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

1. NEWS: Global

Fund Announces New Measures to Fight Corruption

The establishment of a

panel of international experts to review the Global Fund's financial management

systems is one of the new measures announced by the Fund to address the issue

of corruption on the part of organisations implementing grants.

2. NEWS: Another

Grant to Mali Is Suspended

The Global Fund has

suspended a third grant to Mali, an HIV grant, due to evidence provided by the

Fund's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) that grant funds have been

misused. In December 2010, two malaria grants were suspended, and a TB grant

was terminated, for the same reasons.

3. COMMENTARY: The

Global Fund's Next Steps in Responding to Corruption

" A

speedy response by the Global Fund that is influenced more by the media scandal

and knee-jerk responses from donors, rather than by the facts and conditions on

the ground, runs the risk of being counter-productive, " writes

McCoy.

4. EXCERPTS:

Reaction to Findings of Corruption

This article contains excerpts

from editorials and columns commenting on the corruption by some recipients of

Global Fund grants, and the reaction to that corruption by some media and

donors.

5. NEWS: U.K. Will

Increase Contribution to Global Fund

Citing the Global Fund's

" excellent track record for delivering results, " the U.K. government

says that it will increase its contribution to the Fund.

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS:

Board Seat; Newsletter

(a) The Developed

Country NGO Delegation is soliciting applications for the position of Global

Fund Board member. ( " International Health Policies in the News " is

a weekly newsletter that focuses on global health initiatives.

+ + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

1. NEWS: Global Fund Announces New Measures to

Fight Corruption

Panel of experts will review the Fund's

financial management systems

Grant money will be used to strengthen financial

controls in country

As many readers will

have learned from articles in the mainstream media, the Global Fund is setting

up a high-profile panel of international experts to review its financial

management systems and approaches to fraud prevention.

This is one of the new

measures announced by the Global Fund on 4 February 2011 in response to media

coverage - starting with an article by the Associated Press (AP) on 23 January

2011 - of corruption unearthed by the Fund's Office of the Inspector General

(OIG) and announcements from some donor countries that contributions to the

Fund will be delayed or possibly reduced.

The other new measures

announced on 4 February involved (a) ensuring that a portion of each grant is

used to assess and strengthen financial controls at country level; and (

increasing the number of the Fund's staff responsible for financial management.

These measures are in

addition to measures agreed before the AP story appeared, but after the OIG had

reported on the misuse of Global Fund money in a few countries in sub-Saharan Africa. These earlier measures included the following:

1. expanding the mandate of local fund agents (LFAs);

2. providing a 2011 budget for the OIG that is double its 2010

budget;

3. terminating one grant and suspending two others in Mali;

4. implementing additional safeguards in a few countries where funds

were considered vulnerable to misuse because of weak financial management

systems;

5. imposing extra security measures in five countries to prevent drug

theft;

6. imposing a freeze on training activities in all Global Fund grants

until detailed training plans could be approved; and

7. strengthening the role of country coordinating mechanisms (CCMs)

in grant oversight.

Some of these measures

(e.g., 2 and 3) have already been implemented. Others are being implemented

now. The Global Fund said that all of the measures should be in place by June

2011. (The report from the panel of experts is expected to be provided to the

Global Fund Board in May 2011.)

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Chair of the Global

Fund Board and Minister of Health of Ethiopia, said that

" transparency and accountability are core principles of the Global Fund

because they are essential to ensuring that every donor dollar is spent

effectively and that the interest of our beneficiaries are protected. I am

confident that the measures [we have] announced will further enhance the

financial integrity and life-saving work of the world's main multilateral

health financing institution. "

UNDP announcement

Separately, also on 4 February 2011, the United

Nations Development Programme (UNDP) announced measures of its own to guard

against fraud and corruption. The measures include the recruitment of a

dedicated and specialised full-time investigator to respond to credible

allegations of fraud or corruption in UNDP-managed Global Fund grants; and the

development of formal capacity development initiatives in all countries where

the UNDP manages Global Fund grants, with specific attention to long-term

anti-corruption, governance and accountability systems.

The UNDP is a principal recipient (PR) for

approximately 12 percent of the Global Fund's overall portfolio, often working

in challenging environments, such as in countries emerging from natural

disasters, conflicts or political crises.

Statement by Chair and

Vice-Chair

On 8 February 2011, the Chair and the Vice-Chair

of the Global Fund Board (Dr Ernest Loevinsohn) took the unusual step of

issuing a joint statement, which appeared prominently on the Global Fund's

website.

In the statement, the Chair and Vice-Chair

expressed their " full confidence in the Global Fund as a vital and

effective instrument for fighting AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria around the

world, " and said that the Board " remains firm in its commitment to

ensuring that resources invested in the Global Fund reach people in need and

that all its grants are managed effectively and made subject to rigorous

oversight and financial controls. "

The Chair and Vice-Chair went on to say that

" it is important that we do all we can to mitigate against the negative

impacts that the recent media coverage can have on the vast majority of

well-performing grants in the Global Fund's portfolio. Most Global

Fund-supported programs are achieving dramatic results by broadening access to

services and saving lives on an unprecedented scale. It is vital that all the

steps we take to address cases of misappropriation be as well-targeted and

specific as they are vigorous. Global Fund donors should recognize that

withholding their contributions would unduly penalize well-performing

programs. "

Finally, the Chair and Vice-Chair said that

" the Global Fund is widely known for its probity, transparency and

effectiveness. The Global fund itself identified these latest findings, shared

them widely, and has responded vigorously to them. This strengthens - rather

than diminishes - the Global Fund's hard-earned and well-deserved

reputation. "

Editor's Note: The Global Fund

recently suspended another grant to Mali because of evidence of

corruption (see next article).

Some of the information for

this article was taken from " The Global Fund

Announces Measures to Enhance Financial Safeguards and Strengthen Fraud

Prevention, " Global Fund press release, 4 February 2011;

" UNDP Joins Global

Fund in Announcing Enhanced Financial Safeguards, " UNDP

press release, 4 February 2011; and " Statement by the

Board Chair and Vice-Chair, " Global Fund, 8 February

2011. The 23 January AP story is available here.

+ + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

2. NEWS: Another Grant to Mali Is Suspended

Evidence

that grant money has been misused

The Global Fund has suspended another grant to Mali because of

evidence that grant money has been misused. The exact amount of grant funds

which remain unaccounted for has not yet been determined. The principal

recipient, Groupe Pivot Santé Population, an NGO, will be replaced.

The $13.9 million Round 8 HIV grant is the third

Mali

grant to be suspended as a result of irregularities discovered by the Global

Fund's Office of the Inspector General (OIG). (Two malaria grants were

suspended in December 2010; at the same time, a TB grant was terminated.)

Groupe Pivot Santé Population was also PR for one of the suspended malaria

grants.

The Global Fund has grant agreements with Mali totalling

$123 million, of which $79 million has been disbursed.

The suspended HIV grant provides for prevention

programmes, including condom distribution, voluntary counselling and testing,

and support for children who have been orphaned or made vulnerable by the AIDS

epidemic. The grant suspension does not affect any of the 22,500 patients

currently on antiretroviral treatment in Mali. They are financed by another

grant which is not affected by this decision.

So far, 16 people have been arrested in

connection with the misuse of Global Fund resources in Mali.

Information for this article

was taken from " The Global

Fund Suspends AIDS Grant in Mali, " Global Fund press release, 2 March 2011.

+ + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

3. COMMENTARY: The Global Fund's Next Steps in Responding to Corruption

" The

Global Fund is being unfairly singled out. "

by McCoy

The corruption unearthed among grant recipients

by the Global Fund's Office of the Inspector General (OIG), and the media storm

that erupted following a

January 23 Associated Press (AP) story, have created something of a crisis not

only for the Fund, but also, by extension, for millions of people affected by

HIV, TB and malaria. According to a recent article in theEconomist, politicians may " use the

scandal to justify cutting back on commitments, not just to the Global Fund,

but to aid in general. "

In responding to this situation, the Global

Fund, governments and health activists need to think and act carefully. In

doing so, here are five things to remember:

Note the facts; challenge the

media hype.

Beware the counter-productive

consequences of a quick and over-zealous reaction.

Recognise that corruption in

the health sector is not limited to Global Fund grants or to poor

countries.

Pay attention to other forms of

corruption that need greater attention as part of the fight against

HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria

Address systemic problems with

systemic solutions.

1. Note the facts; challenge

the media hype

Subsequent to the OIG's audits and

investigations in 25 countries, the Global Fund is demanding the return of

approximately $39 million. This is significant money; but the figure needs to

be understood in the context of two additional facts.

First, the $39 million is made up of three

separate components: (1) proven or suspected theft and fraud; (2) expenditure that is unaccounted for, some of

which no doubt involves fraud and the rest of which involves sub-standard, lazy

or incompetent accounting practices; and (3) expenditure for programmatic

activities that do not involve fraud but were not included in the agreed

programme budget. To date, the Fund has not given a breakdown,

country-by-country or collectively, of these three components. It should.

Secondly, in terms of scale, the $39 million

represents 0.8% of the $4.8 billion that the countries investigated by the OIG

have received from the Global Fund. We don't know what the figure might be

across the entire grant portfolio, but it is clear that we are not talking

about theft and fraud on a grand scale. The vast majority of grant money

channelled by the Global Fund appears to have been used legitimately to support

health care delivery.

These two facts have been frequently ignored in

mainstream media reports and conveniently forgotten by opponents and

ideological critics of the Global Fund. This must be challenged.

2. Beware the

counter-productive consequences of a quick and over-zealous reaction.

A speedy response by the Global Fund that is

influenced more by the media scandal and knee-jerk responses from donors,

rather than by the facts and conditions on the ground, runs the risk of being

counter-productive.

For example, the Fund might be tempted to

institute a new and stricter accounting regime, with " bean counters "

placed at every step in the flow of money from Geneva to hundreds of thousands of service

delivery points around the world. While this may tighten financial controls, it

would choke up the system with red tape and result in administrative costs that

might exceed the amount of money at risk of fraud.

Furthermore, if new financial management

procedures are implemented in a way that is overly aggressive, this could cause

principal recipients (PRs) and sub-recipients (SRs) to become resentful and less transparent (out of fear that small, unintended or accidental

transgressions may provoke a disproportionate sanction). This in turn would

only undermine the future ability of the OIG to promote a culture of trust and

probity, and the development of sustainable and effective financial management

systems.

3. Recognise that corruption in

the health sector is not limited to Global Fund grants or to poor countries.

The kind of fraud described by the OIG is not

limited to Global Fund grants; nor is it a feature only of health systems in

low income countries. As noted by Transparency

International, a

growing body of evidence shows that the scale of corruption is vast in the

health sectors of both rich and poor countries. For example, on 24 January, the day after the AP ran its story

about the Global Fund, the US

government reported (with

almost zero media interest) that last year it recovered more than $4 billion

that had been stolen from government-financed domestic health care programmes.

This does not mean that we should excuse the

fraud detected by the OIG. But the Global Fund is being unfairly singled out.

Even Bate of the

American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (who has previously

been critical of the Global Fund) said: " If the Global Fund is punished

simply because it has been more transparent than other multilateral agencies,

transparency efforts will be thrown back by a decade [or] more, and this crisis

will be tragically wasted. "

It is also important to note that the Global

Fund is one of the few health funding agencies in the world that have adopted

an explicit strategy to seek out evidence of corruption. For this, the Global

Fund should receive praise.

4. Pay attention to other forms

of corruption that need greater attention as part of the fight against

HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria

There are other forms of corruption that

contribute to the high rates of poverty, premature mortality and disease in low

and middle income countries. But these forms of corruption rarely get the media

attention they deserve in spite of the fact that they are considerably more

significant.

According to Global Financial

Integrity, $500 billion a year is lost from developing and

transitional economies through illicit outflows of money. Of this amount,

approximately 60-65% is lost through commercial tax-evasion (driven primarily

through falsified pricing in imports and exports), often involving multinational

corporations, banks, accountancy firms and tax havens. It is

further estimated that for every $1 poor nations receive in foreign aid, about

$10 in " dirty money " flows illicitly abroad.

While it's important to constantly improve the

use and impact of international aid to poor countries, the global health community

needs to speak out much more about the systemic causes of poverty that arise

from illicit outflows of finance, tax havens and deficient tax regimes. See here for more

information.

5. Address systemic problems

with systemic solutions.

The obvious temptation for the Global Fund, in

light of the OIG's discoveries, is to create for itself a stronger system of

Global Fund-specific financial controls. But in line with the Global Fund's

commitment towards harmonised health systems strengthening, it would be better

for the Fund to work systemically and in concert with other agencies and

national governments to strengthen country-based systems of financial

management and fraud-prevention.

It's worth noting that the widespread use of

training allowances, per diems and other non-salaried forms of payment to

health workers in low income countries provides an obvious opportunity for

fraud, as the OIG has pointed out. Such allowances can also create perverse

effects such as health workers shutting down clinics in order to attend

training workshops.

But, again, we need to look at the context. The

frequent use of allowances and per diems in many countries has arisen partly as

a consequence of the deterioration of health worker salaries. Thus, while it is

important to minimise the abuse and corruption associated with allowances and

per diems, the more sustainable solution is to fix the systemic problems

associated with inadequate pay and remuneration. See here and here for

more about the issue of health worker salaries.

Lack of bookkeeping skills, limited availability

of accounting software, broken or non-existent printers and photocopiers, and

even unreliable electricity - these are also examples of systemic deficiencies

that make it difficult to implement robust accounting procedures.

Recommendations

The response from the Global Fund to the

corruption issue should be proportionate and sensible. Here are some suggested

next steps.

LFAs: Some of the fraud

identified by the OIG was first spotted by local fund agents (LFAs), who

" blew the whistle " in an appropriate manner. But LFAs apparently

missed the rest of the fraud. Before expanding the mandate of LFAs, the

Global Fund needs to clearly determine how that happened.

CCMs: Before rushing to

strengthen the role of CCMs in grant oversight, the Global Fund should

think hard about whether this is the best way to go, and if so, how it

could be done effectively. Remember, CCMs are committees made up of

volunteers, many of whom have major conflicts of interest; and CCMs have

few resources at their disposal to perform this kind of work. A worthwhile

initial step might be to ask CCMs to comment on the fraud uncovered by the

OIG and to suggest how the Global Fund, working with other agencies, can

help reduce fraud and graft.

Bureaucracy: The Global Fund

should seek input from other donors, and from independent health-sector

and non-health sector experts, on how best to strengthen fraud detection

systems without creating an administrative nightmare.

Systems: The Global Fund should

seek to use the current scandal to leverage systemic improvements in

financial management across the health sector as a whole; and not just

seek to strengthen its own " vertical " financial management and

audit systems.

Cost-benefit: The Fund should

conduct a cost-benefit analysis regarding corruption-related measures.

There is a real danger that imposing additional financial controls will

increase the cost of doing business, but not increase the extent of health

care coverage.

But in order for the Global Fund to be able to

respond proportionately and sensibly, it will be necessary also for donor

governments to act proportionately and sensibly; and for ministries of health

in recipient countries to show their commitment towards improved systems of

financial management. Meanwhile, the broader global health community needs to

remind itself and the world that the Global Fund and its grant-making programme

are largely a force for good and that there are other more harmful forms of

corruption that deserve much greater attention.

McCoy (d.mccoy@...),

a Malaysian medical doctor and public health specialist, is about to join

Aidspan as its Research and Policy Director.

+ + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

4. EXCERPTS: Reaction to Findings of Corruption

" An

overreaction to corruption can cost lives. "

" Reputation

of the Global Fund has been unfairly tarnished. "

The following are excerpts

from editorials and columns commenting on the corruption by some recipients of

Global Fund grants, and the reaction to that corruption by some media and

donors.

" Corruption occurs in all countries, rich

and poor, but thrives in environments where checks on those entrusted with

power are loose, civil society is poorly represented, poverty is entrenched,

and inequalities are vast. Germany

should engage in debates about how to tackle these problems rather than taking

measures that seem tough on corruption but will ultimately cost lives. "

Source:

The Lancet, 5 February 2011 (www.lancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2811%2960143-8/fulltext)

" The reputation of the fund - which by its

own estimates saved more than 4.9 million lives by 2009 - has been unfairly

tarnished, and its fund-raising efforts perhaps hampered at a time when the

economic crisis is already making donors reconsider the size of their

contributions. When it comes to being transparent over problems of corruption

in recipient countries the Global Fund has been far better than most aid donors

or agencies. It has openly tackled corruption - with a " zero

tolerance " policy, suspending grants at the first whiff of wrong-doing,

and working with recipient countries to bring fraudsters to justice and recover

what misdirected money it can. Could it do more? Yes: for example, by

strengthening oversight further. But it is already well down the road to

effectively tackling corruption. The same cannot be said for many of the

alphabet-soup of aid agencies, which choose not to publicise their own uncovered

fraud cases, perhaps out of fear of damaging their image, and losing

donors. "

Source:

Nature, 2 February 2011 (www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7332/full/470006a.html)

" The $34 million in fraud that has been

exposed represents about three-tenths of 1 percent of the money the fund has

distributed. The targeting of these particular cases was not random; they were

the most obviously problematic, not the most typical. One might as well judge

every member of [the U.S.]

Congress by the cases currently before the ethics committee. The irony here is

thick. These cases of corruption were not exposed by an enterprising

journalist. They were revealed by the fund itself. The inspector general's

office reviewed 59,000 documents in the case of Mali alone, then provided the

findings to prosecutors in that country. Fifteen officials in Mali have been

arrested and imprisoned. The outrage at corruption in foreign aid is justified.

But this is what accountability and transparency in foreign aid look like. The

true scandal is decades of assistance in which such corruption was assumed

instead of investigated and exposed. In a scandal, the first response is anger.

In global health, corruption kills. The most important response, however, is to

make sure the right people get punished - not an African child who needs a bed

net, or the victim of a cruel and wasting disease. They had no part in the

controversies surrounding the Global Fund, but depend, unknowingly, on their

outcome. An overreaction to corruption can also cost lives. "

Source:

Gerson, (President W. Bush's chief speechwriter

from 2001-2006), Washington Post, 4 February 2011 (www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/03/AR2011020305176.html)

" The misuse of small fractions of Global

Fund grants, while extremely serious, must be put into perspective and examined

within the context of the complex challenges and emergencies that all

international organizations face when dispersing large amounts of resources.

Withdrawing donations and freezing funding to the Global Fund will not only

condemn millions of people who are not involved in the corruption to terrible

fates, but will also send the dangerous message that organizations aiming to

achieve best practice in transparency and accountability will be punished. The

Global Fund should be supported and empowered to continue its work, not

condemned for its efforts to root out corruption and improve its results. "

Source:

Elly Katabira, President, International AIDS Society, quoted in Medical News

Today, 9 February 2011 (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/215941.php)

" With luck, the changes [announced by the

Global Fund] will reassure the critics and start the money flowing again. The

Global Fund sits on a big pile of credibility after more than meeting

expectations in previous years. Sceptics may quibble with its claim to have

saved at least 7m lives, and exactly how many more millions of lives it has

improved, but mortality rates in the diseases it targets have dropped sharply.

Until the latest storm broke, the aid world was abuzz with talk about expanding

the fund's remit to include maternal and child health. It would be odd if that

plan stalls as a result of the corruption worries and if the money went instead

to other international agencies. These tend to be less efficient and more prone

to fraud. Though they may also be less likely to claim corruption as a sign of

probity. "

Source:

The Economist, 17 February 2011 (www.economist.com/node/18176062?story_id=18176062)

+ + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

5. NEWS: U.K.

Will Increase Contribution to Global Fund

Fund's

" excellent track record " cited

The government of the United Kingdom has announced that

it will increase its contribution to the Global Fund because the Fund has

" an excellent track record for delivering results. "

In a statement made in the U.K. House of Commons

on 1 March 2011, , the U.K.

development minister, said that an in-depth review of 43 multilateral

organisations conducted by the Department for International Development (DFID)

found that nine of the organisations, including the Global Fund, were assessed

as giving " very good value to the UK taxpayer. "

According to the review, the Global Fund

" is a results-focussed organisation; the quality and depth of reporting is

very high, and allows donors to hold the Fund to account. Standards for

financial management and audit are very high. "

The review also gave the Global Fund high marks

for transparency and accountability, saying that the " Fund's decision to

publish/require recipients to publish procurement data has been a major driver

for a range of innovations in transparency. "

The announcement was welcome news for the Global

Fund because three countries - Sweden,

Ireland and Germany - had

recently announced that they were putting their contributions on hold because

of concerns about corruption on the part of organisations implementing Global

Fund grants.

The DFID review found that the Global Fund plays

a critical role in delivering health-related Millennium Development Goals

(MDGs) and is likely to remain a key financier of existing and new approaches

to tackling AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. The review said that " Global

Fund support has catalysed and supported important and innovative policies and

programmes in many countries. "

According to the review, reforms under way at

the Global Fund to simplify procedures and improve the effectiveness of its

work with countries and partners " should reduce transaction costs, shorten

grant processes, align reporting and shift from project to programme-type

funding. "

Not everything in the review was complimentary

of the Global Fund. The review said that the Global Fund needs to do more to

guard against misuse of funds. As well, according to the review:

There are clear weaknesses and

bottlenecks in the business model which impede faster progress and even

more impressive results.

The time between grant approval

and first disbursement is not quick enough.

The Fund's policies and

practices are not sufficiently flexible or responsive to fragile contexts,

given the high share of fragile states financing in the portfolio.

Although the Global Fund

carries out a thorough assessment of gender relevance of all proposals,

the quality of proposals in terms of addressing gender issues has been

poor.

The Fund places heavy burdens

on countries and partners and, despite its focus on a country-led

approach, its own systems and requirements often take precedence.

In his statement in the House of Commons,

said, " Of course, there is always room for improvement and we

will still require strong commitments to continued reform and even better

performance. "

Information for this article

was taken from the following sources: " Multilateral

Aid Review - Ensuring Maximum Value for Money for UK Aid Through Multilateral

Organisations, " DFID, March 2011; " UK Minister

Says Global Fund Has 'Excellent Track Record' and Will Receive Increased

Funding, " Global Fund press release, 1 March 2011; and a statement in the House of Commons by , the

U.K. development minister, 1 March 2011. Some of the quotes used in this article, and in the Global

Fund's press release, were taken from a 4-page summary assessment of the Global

Fund prepared by the DFID reviewers; this document is not available on the DFID

or Global Fund websites.

+ + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

6. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Board Seat; Newsletter

Call for applications for

Global Fund Board member representing developed country NGOs

Closing date for applications: 21 March 2011.

The position will only become available in July

2011. but in order to provide for a transition period, the incoming Board

member will be invited to join the delegation for the upcoming 23rd Global

Fund Board meeting (11-12 May), and for delegation pre-meetings.

Applicants need to work for an NGO from the

constituency, comprising Western Europe, the U.S.,

Canada, Japan, Australia

and New Zealand.

Contact Wittebrood, International

Civil Society Support (ICSS): jw@... to

obtain the position's terms of reference and additional information.

Weekly Newsletter on

International Health Policies

" International Health Policies in the

News " is a weekly newsletter that provides articles from the journal

" The Lancet " and other

sources related to international health policies in low and middle income

countries. Published every Friday, IHP News focuses on global health

initiatives, global public goods, aid effectiveness in the health sector, and

also ground-breaking articles in specific domains like AIDS and Malaria.

IHP News is published as a blog at www.itg.be/ihp. Readers can also

subscribe to the newsletter by sending an email toihpnetwork@....

Readers can choose to receive the English version, as well as a digest in

French (published several days after the English version).

The 4 March 2011 edition of IHP News contains

articles on (among other things) U.S. funding for the Global Health Initiative;

the " benefits of recession " ; and the Multilateral AID Review by the

(U.K.) Department for International Development (also covered in this issue of GFO - see previous article).

IHP News is published by the Institute of

Tropical Medicine (ITM) in Antwerp,

Belgium. The

newsletter is part of a larger effort to get people from the South involved in

global health discussions and decision-making processes.

" Reproduced from the Global Fund

Observer Newsletter (www.aidspan.org/gfo), a service of Aidspan. "

Forwarded by:

---------------------------

Yours in Global Concern,

A.SANKAR

Executive

Director- EMPOWER INDIA - Professional Civil Society Organisation

Founder and General Secretary - Confederation of

Indian Civil Society Organisation’s (CICSO)

National Convener- National Alliance for Health,

Environment and Rights ( NAFHER)

107J

/ 133E, puram

TUTICORIN-628

008, TN, INDIA

Telefax:

91 461 2310151; Mobile: 91 94431 48599: www.empowerindia.org

·

You are invited to join an E

FORUM AIDS-TN. To join this free E Forum kindly send an e mail

to AIDS-TN-subscribe

·

This e Forum moderated by EMPOWER, a Non-profit,

Non-Political, Voluntary and Professional Civil Society Organisation.

P

Please don't print this

e-mail unless you really need to.

S.v.p. ne pas imprimer ce courriel à moins

d’en avoir vraiment besoin.