Policy News

10 Years of Lives Saved Through the Global Fund

Jan 26th, 2012 5:04 PM UTC
By Erin Hohlfelder

In celebration of the Global Fund’s 10th anniversary, ONE Global Health Policy Manager Erin Hohlfelder reflects on the organization’s accomplishments over the years.

When I was ten, I was busy doing important things like mastering long division, practicing softball and rocking the plastic glasses/bowl cut combo. While I’m proud of those accomplishments, I have to say I’m even more proud today to honor all the incredible things that the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria has achieved in its first ten years of existence. To understand the Global Fund’s impact, it’s important to remember just how bad things were before it existed: Fewer than 50,000 Africans had access to AIDS treatment. Malaria was killing nearly 1 million people annually. Treating TB was considered too expensive for most of the developing world.

In late January of 2002, leaders came together in Switzerland to launch the Global Fund. Built to be what Kofi Annan called a “war chest” to respond to these global health emergencies, it had the backing of donors, public health officials, developing country leaders and NGOs. Intentionally, it was designed to be different than other aid models; it was rooted in having local stakeholders (rather than donors) say what they wanted to do to fight AIDS, TB or malaria, and how much money it would take to get the job done.

Though no aid model is perfect, the Global Fund has clearly been doing something right, because it has delivered incredible results over the last decade:

Policy roundtable: What will 2012 bring for Africa?

Jan 18th, 2012 6:03 PM UTC
By Lauren Pfeifer

It’s January 2012, and as we make new year’s resolutions for ourselves, the international development community is focusing on what the new year will bring for Africa. In keeping with this spirit, we asked Alan Hudson, Erin Hohlfelder and Johanna Stratmann of ONE’s policy team to outline their views on what will shape global development in the coming months in a roundtable discussion. Here’s what they had to say:

Alan Hudson: In 2012, the development agenda will — while recognizing the continuing importance of aid for a number of countries and in particular for addressing humanitarian crises — continue to evolve to focus not only on aid and the availability of financial resources, but also on other resources (ex. oil revenues and taxes) and most importantly on the ways in which resources are used.

Citizen demands for transparent, accountable, responsive and legitimate governance across the world — as demonstrated in the Arab Spring and the global Occupy protests — will be translated into demands that public resources are used effectively to meet people’s needs, rather than being squandered or siphoned away for personal gain.

And the voices of “development experts” from the global North will increasingly and rightly become more marginal as the real experts — those who know the ins and outs of surviving and thriving in precarious circumstances — increasingly come to the fore.

And my early-January optimism will not be disappointed

Erin Hohlfelder: For global health, I think 2012 will be a year in which donors once again reevaluate their priorities and resource allocation models. Most donors are faced with the dichotomy of domestic fiscal constraints on one hand, and the feasibility of achieving inspirational health milestones on the other hand.

I think renewed momentum generated in 2011 for bending the curve on the AIDS pandemic will allow the US (particularly through its hosting of the IAC) to pressure other governments to articulate how they too will contribute to “the beginning of the end of AIDS” in a measurable way.

I think we’ll hear the phrase “the US can’t go it alone” more often, and see new pressure on emerging donors and recipient governments to fill financial and programmatic gaps. New funding in 2012 for the Global Fund will be a critical bellwether for sustaining progress toward global health milestones.

I think we’ll also see donors and health mechanisms move away from funding programs in MICs. This will likely be pleasing to domestic constituencies, but with substantial burden of disease in MICs (especially among MARPs), I’m curious to see what the global health landscape looks like a few years out in those countries who have their programs cut. In an ideal world, those countries will pick up a greater share of the financial burden as they are increasingly equipped to do so, but I’m concerned that this may not happen evenly across the board.

Finally, to build on what a number of other commenters have suggested re: Twaweza, I think we’ll see an even greater emphasis on improved budget transparency and accountability for services as drivers for improved health outcomes.

Johanna Stratmann: Europe will negotiate all through 2012 a multi-annual budget for the European Union worth 1 trillion euro, in a complex decision-making process involving all 27 Member States and no less than 751 elected Members of the European Parliament.

Why is that important for global development? Because the EU Member States channel considerable amounts of development aid through the European Union, making it the second biggest aid donor in the world after the United States. Because around 110 billion euro have been proposed for external spending under the budget 2014 to 2020, and because the EU has a legal obligation to put poverty reduction and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals at the heart of all its global action.

I believe that 2012 will be a determining year for European development cooperation, and a testing moment for European leaders as citizens will hold them accountable to the promises they made to the world’s poor. Especially in these times of austerity measures, Euro crisis and budgetary cuts at home, governments will realize that channeling aid through the EU budget will help them keep their commitments on spending 0.7 percent of their GNI on development.

For more information and key results achieved by EU aid, click here. For ONE’s analysis of the proposals for development financing under the EU budget 2014 to 2020, click here.

Now we want to hear from you: What do you think will shape global development in 2012?

India celebrates one year polio-free

Jan 13th, 2012 12:02 PM UTC
By Erin Hohlfelder

Friday the 13^th is a day known for superstition, fear, and bad luck.  But today, the global health community in India attained a milestone that will ensure that we remember this Friday the 13^th as a day of progress and hope.  As of today, India has gone an entire year without a case of polio. In technical-speak, this means that India has officially interrupted transmission of the virus and is no longer considered an endemic country, leaving only three countries (Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Nigeria) remaining in the world with endemic status.

Experts have long considered India to be one of the toughest places in the world to fight and eradicate polio.  After all, India is neither a small nor homogenous place, and just two years ago, India had 741 cases of polio—the most in the world.  How did they achieve this milestone?

• They immunized, and they immunized again: India held two National Immunization Days (NIDs) in 2011, and during each NID, an amazing 2.5 million vaccinators delivered polio vaccines to more than 172 million children.  For children who weren’t reached by the NIDs, India organized 7 Sub-National Immunization Days to focus in on more remote and high-risk areas.
• They innovated: Indians didn’t just rely on traditional vaccine education and delivery methods.  They met parents and children where they were—at bus stops, in construction sites, on motorbikes.  They also fostered pressure and incentives for their health care workers, ensuring accountability and consistency in their delivery program.
• They fought stigma and misconception: Particularly in Muslim sections of India where concerns about vaccines were more common, polio eradication programs engaged religious leaders at all levels to build trust among parents for this safe, effective health intervention.
• They led from within: Though the role of groups including the GPEI partners and the Gates Foundation can’t be overstated, India is a success story because Indians have also stepped up.  Since the National Polio Surveillance Project was established in 1997 by the Indian Government and the WHO, the program has grown, become more effective and targeted, and has built a platform that now allows for greater progress on other diseases. Local stakeholders including teachers, religious leaders, and health workers have been on the front lines of the fight. And critically, the Indian government has financed the vast majority of the eradication effort with its own resources—an example for other emerging economies to follow.

And why, as an Africa-focused organization, should we pay so much attention to this achievement?  For many in the global health community who often feel like the challenges are endless, this shows that real progress is possible—and not just in the “easy” places.  This milestone should rejuvenate global efforts to eradicate polio, including from the last remaining endemic country in Africa (Nigeria) as well as other countries which had once eliminated the disease but have seen a resurgence in recent years (including Angola, Chad, and the DRC).  At a time when vaccination rates are on the decline in some regions, each successful immunization campaign—and the press generated around it—also helps to reinforce the safety and value of vaccines for parents around the world.  The tactics India used to achieve this goal should also serve as a lesson for other countries and other global health challenges; persistence, innovation, and country ownership are fundamental to effective development programs, and will remain so long after polio is eradicated.

Please join me in congratulating the millions of people who have dedicated time, resources, and political will toward making this a momentous—and happy—Friday the 13^th!

Denmark assumes EU presidency – what’s in it for the world’s poor?

Jan 6th, 2012 5:55 PM UTC
By Isabelle De Lichtervelde

Today, Denmark marked the start of their 6 month EU Presidency by presenting its proposed work programme in Copenhagen. Holding the Presidency means Denmark will be a key player during a difficult economic period in Europe when decisions will be taken on crucial development issues including the EU Budget and transparency in the oil, mining and gas industries.

The Budget won’t be finalised until the end of 2012 but the Danes aim to advance the negotiations as far as possible by the end of their Presidency in June. ONE will be working with Danish NGOs and across Europe to ensure the Commission’€57bn budget proposal for development cooperation in poor countries isn’t cut by EU Member States.

On transparency, Denmark is keen to get EU legislation passed by June obliging oil, mining and gas companies to publish all payments they make to governments in countries where they operate. If the EU gets the detail of these proposals right it should enable civil society in developing countries to hold their governments accountable and fight corruption.

Denmark has also prioritised agricultural and fisheries policy in its Presidency, working to reduce agricultural subsidies in the EU in a way that benefits access to markets for developing countries. Denmark also aims to ensure the reform of EU fisheries policy in order to guarantee that the world’s fish resources are used sustainably for the benefit of the communities that depend on fishing.

On EU trade policy Denmark wants to ensure closer political dialogue with partner developing countries through commercial relations and reciprocal market access, and wants to ensure that these trade relations are sustainable and contribute to poverty reduction.

Since the Lisbon Treaty was signed all EU policies have to be consistent and coherent with its development policy. Denmark has promised to work towards creating a better coherence between EU policies in all the areas that affect developing countries. In terms of development policy itself, they admit that linking humanitarian aid and long-term development aid will be a major task, and commit to focusing on getting results and being transparent.

Finally, the Danish government will lead the EU in the fight for the establishment of a global tax on financial transactions. Such a tax could be used to finance development cooperation and help developing countries to combat climate change.

Protecting Canada’s Aid Budget

Dec 21st, 2011 11:14 AM UTC
By ONE Partners

Guest post by James Haga from Engineers without Borders Canada.

Canadian foreign aid can be truly transformational when used in a smart way – it can save lives, help put children through school, and create the opportunities needed for millions of people to lift themselves out of poverty.

Consider, for example, the impact of Canada’s leadership at the 2010 G8 Summit. By drawing the attention of world leaders and shining a spotlight on the critical and under-served issue of maternal, newborn and child health, over $7 billion in new funding has been secured for these programs, resulting in a healthier, more productive future for millions of people. To help ensure international donors follow through on their commitments to developing countries and maximize value for money, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper serves as co-chair of the UN Commission on Accountability and Transparency.

In recent years, Canada’s premier development agency CIDA has committed to important measures to make Canada’s foreign aid more efficient, focused and accountable. Most recently, the Minister of International Cooperation, the Honourable Bev Oda, announced that Canada has joined the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI), a commendable move that will strengthen the transparency of information on Canadian aid.

While these concrete steps have resulted in Canada accomplishing more with its existing aid, it’s currently unclear what effect the global economic uncertainty will have on future aid spending. In view of the Government of Canada’s commitment to reigning in their deficit, the 2012-2013 foreign aid budget runs the risk of being sharply reduced.

This is why ONE and Engineers Without Borders Canada (EWB) have teamed up to ask that Canada’s effective foreign aid spending be spared from looming cuts. In advance of the final budget being presented in early March, 2012, we’ll be working with our members across the country to ask that Canada fulfill its responsibility to the world’s poor by maintaining its current aid spending.

- James Haga

Africa’s renewable energy opportunity

Dec 12th, 2011 3:57 PM UTC
By Tom Wallace

Last week, I attended the launch of the “Momentum for Change” initiative launched in Durban, South Africa on in the sidelines of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’s COP17 with support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The initiative highlights examples of how public private partnerships can help alleviate poverty and also bring about sustainable development. Alleviating poverty and sustainable development are not exclusive aims but often complimentary –- particularly in Africa. The Momentum for Change initiative provides some small examples of where the public and private sector can work together to achieve sustainable development and poverty reduction, but in Africa the potential for this is monumental.

Africa has a huge renewable energy potential. Only 7 percent of its hydropower capacity has been exploited and the continent is abundant in solar, wind and geothermal energy. These natural resources in many people’s view are Africa’s greatest source of wealth. They provide Africa with a never-ending clean source of energy that can supply electricity and heating to everyone on the continent — including the poorest who desperately need energy to escape from poverty.

The fact that most of Africa’s future infrastructure is not yet built is now become a huge opportunity for the continent. Africa is not yet locked into the inefficient, oft-polluting infrastructure that many Western countries have. With modern efficient technologies, the continent has the opportunity to build the infrastructure that could bypass the inefficient energy infrastructure systems of the developed world.
Africa has done this before. The huge expansion of mobile phones is just one example of how Africa can leapfrog traditional stages of development. Current monetary transfer systems in Kenya using mobile phones (as created by M-PESA) is a world leading technology which is not yet seen in areas of Europe or the US. Africa has leapfrogged developed countries in implementing this new technology and Africa can do this again with its energy infrastructure.

In the sidelines of the UNFCCC negotiations at COP17, there are a large number of side events that have looked at how Africa can realize its energy potential. During these discussions, it is clear a number of groups will be essential in this process. African government will have to create the correct policy environment for investors, private companies will need to be educated on Africa’s sustainable energy potential and donors may have to provide some initial capital to get some projects of the ground. But the key point coming from all these meetings is that the experts think this can be done, and it can be done in a way that stimulates sustainable poverty reduction on the continent.

The Minister of Energy for Mali and the head of the African Coalition of Energy Ministers, Mr. Habib Ouane, said that this wasn’t a choice between poverty reduction and providing renewable energy. Due to the huge renewable energy potential on the continent, it is often the most appropriate and cost-effective technology to develop (particularly in rural areas) which has the added benefit of increasing many regions energy security. Developing this abundant and clean potential makes sense. Governments must now get the policies and plans in place to seize this opportunity and donors and private companies must support them in this as best they can through financial and technical support.

Africa is an opportunity particularly in the area of renewable energy and it is time to realize it, but we believe it should be developed in line with environmental and social safeguards.

Beyond aid to open development

Dec 7th, 2011 1:37 PM UTC
By Alan Hudson

I came away from Busan feeling a bit queasy. Not because of the week-long jet lag and lack of sleep, or because Busan has been desperately disappointing for aid effectiveness. It has not, although it remains to be seen whether it will be remembered as the last whimper of the aid effectiveness agenda or the first hurrah of a global partnership for effective development cooperation.

Neither is my queasiness about donors not being held to account for their failure to meet previous commitments, nor about the fact that the aid effectiveness agenda remains somewhat poorly linked to evidence about development outcomes. Nor is it about the fact that there’s little honest discussion of the risks that are involved when investing in development, particularly in places with challenging governance environments. The queasiness comes from the fact that there remains a sense that “we” -– aid industry insiders, with money and power -– know best; as if having money and power necessarily means that one has relevant expertise. However, an antidote to my queasiness may be at hand.

Discussions at Busan briefly highlighted the Open Government Partnership (OGP) and its role in pushing forward greater transparency and accountability among both developed and developing countries. At a joint Busan event with Tony Blair’s Africa Governance Initiative, USAID played the opening video from the OGP event in September. By making the link between OGP and the aid effectiveness agenda -– a link noted by Owen Barder, too -– USAID made clear that making development cooperation more effective is not just about providing better services and vaccinating more children, but is also about providing people in developing countries with the information that they need to make good choices and to hold their governments to account.

So, while I left Busan feeling queasy, I also have a sense of optimism. Beyond aid, through open governance, there is the promise of open development -– a democratic development where people, not “experts,” have the power. As Rakesh Rajani puts it, “The purpose of development should not be to create and apply expert solutions, but rather to help enrich the conditions in which people can do more of what they already do well — by making it easier for people to get, compare and share information; to learn from each other and outsiders about how they have made things work; to search, experiment with and craft solutions; and to team up to get things done” (World Bank, Open Development report, September 2011).

ONE on the UK Chancellor’s Autumn Statement

Nov 29th, 2011 5:20 PM UTC
By Michael Healy

In response to the autumn statement from the UK Chancellor, George Osborne, ONE’s Europe Director Adrian Lovett said today:

“George Osborne’s confirmation that Britain will invest 0.7% of national income in overseas aid is good news. Our aid is saving lives and building livelihoods – and it is in Britain’s long-term interest as we seek new global opportunities for UK business.

“We’re obviously disappointed at the reduction in the scale of the aid increase, which is a painful side-effect of Britain’s economic performance. This government made a pledge not to balance the books on the backs of the poor. DFID’s current plans were expected to put 16 million children in school and vaccinate over 90 million in the next 4 years. We urge Andrew Mitchell to ensure that today’s news does not put these plans in jeopardy.

“The 0.7% aid target is a minimum, not a maximum, and we call on the Chancellor to confirm that just as aid may fall when Britain’s income goes down, so it must rise when income goes up. The government should now deliver on its promise to put the 0.7% minimum aid figure into law, so that as the UK economy picks up the world’s poorest also benefit.”

How donors measure up on transparency

Nov 18th, 2011 9:30 AM UTC
By Malulie Tongprasert

Publish What You Fund (PWYF)—the global campaign for aid transparency—has recently launched their pilot project: the Aid Transparency Index. By tracking aid information that has been published by 58 bilateral donors and multilateral organizations, PWYF has ranked them based on their level of aid transparency. And here’s what it said:

The results

Looking across 58 aid agencies, PWYF categorized them either as Good, Fair, Moderate, Poor or Very Poor based on their percentage ranking. The sad truth: none of the agencies ranked qualified for the “Good” category. The top 5 scorers on this index (and ranked as “Fair”) included the World Bank, the Global Fund, the African Development Bank, the Netherlands’ Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the UK’s Department for International Development.

The Conclusions

1. Most information about aid is not published and many countries surveyed did not have a systematic method of providing aid information.
2. If information is produced, it is not always made available and/or difficult to access
3. Aid transparency is achievable and other organizations should follow suit

What does this mean?

Reports like PWYF’s Aid Transparency Index underscores the clear lack of information available about development aid. Without being transparent about how much aid is available, accountability becomes an issue as countries that are aid recipients cannot budget and allocate resources effectively, and citizens cannot hold governments to account for promised resources. Both recipients and donors must be more forthcoming about the resources available and where they are going because aid effectiveness cannot be achieved without transparency underpinning it.

In addition, with the 4^th High Level Forum of Aid Effectiveness coming up in Busan in only 2 weeks, this new index comes at an opportune time. Commitments to aid effectiveness have been piling up since the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness in 2005. Action must be taken and Busan provides a key forum to secure commitments to delivering and using aid in a transparent and accountable way and focusing on actionable results, to improve the effectiveness of development aid.

How can you help?

Sign the Make Aid Transparent petition today.

Infrastructure: no excuses for the G20, concrete solutions do exist

Nov 14th, 2011 12:23 PM UTC
By Tom Wallace

The month at the G20 in Cannes a High Level Panel of investment and infrastructure experts – including ONE board member Mo Ibrahim – submitted its report on increasing infrastructure financing in developing countries.

The G20 has made infrastructure one of its priorities this year, and this for good reasons: Recent estimates by the African Development Bank (AfDB) put the annual infrastructure deficit in Sub Sarharan Africa at over $45 billion. A lack of decent infrastructure on the continent means poor people too often pay heavily in time and money to access essential services such as healthcare and education – tying achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.  In Sub-Saharan Africa, 70% of the population has no access to electricity and the majority of rural population has no reliable roads to get to the nearest markets or healthcare. In some countries this lack of infrastructure also reduces economic output by 40%.

According to work by Afrobarometer African citizens and businesses repeatedly place access to reliable infrastructure near the top of their development wish lists. It was for this reason that ONE made a submission to the Panel and the G20. Our key asks were:

• An increase in private and public sector infrastructure investment to address Africa’s infrastructure deficit, especially in sectors such as rural roads which are essential for pro-poor economic growth
• The use of transparent and pro-poor, sustainable, investment criteria such as the UN Ruggie Principles, the Construction Sector Transparency Initiative principles and the OECD principles on infrastructure for poverty reduction.

The Panel’s report, which was chaired by former Ivorian Minister and current head of Prudential Insurance Tidjane Thiam, highlights how investing in infrastructure should be part of a global growth and development strategy.  They propose concrete recommendations to the G20 on how public funds can be used as a catalyst to raise even greater amounts of private investment for infrastructure in Africa, such as through the Sokoni initiative, which should hopefully allow for greater availability of future public funds to be used for specific pro-poor infrastructure projects.  In addition, even though the mandate of the High Level Panel Report was not to look at pro-poor infrastructure or safeguards, it is encouraging that the report repeatedly stresses the importance of transparency and building local capacity. The G20 should now take forward the recommendations of the panel, and in addition, address the need for investment safeguards such as environmental and social impact assessments to ensure infrastructure projects do not undermine but rather increase poverty reduction.

In response to the report ONE’s Europe Director Adrian Lovett said:

“In the middle of a growth and debt crisis what the G20 needs is concrete ideas to kick-start the global economy. Tidjane Thiam’s report on infrastructure shows how Africa can be part of the solution in driving global growth while addressing some of the constraints to poverty reduction on the continent. Africa is the new frontier for investment and Thiam has shown how public money can be used to leverage significant extra sums from the private sector to address Africa’s Infrastructure deficit.”

“For many people in Africa a lack of infrastructure is not an inconvenience, it is a daily hardship that means reduced access to healthcare, education and jobs. Thiam’s report should kick-start a G20 focus on infrastructure that results in concrete results by the time of the Mexico summit.”