Eric Goosby, U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator. Photo by: CSIS / CC BY-NC-SA |
A leading global AIDS
program lacks a clear long-term strategy to help countries build the capacity
to tackle the epidemic themselves, an independent report prepared for U.S.
Congress suggests.
The report by the
National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine enumerates a number of
factors that have hampered the progress of programs supported by the U.S.
President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which has
been widely praised for helping transform AIDS from a
death sentence to a manageable chronic disease for millions.
This year, PEPFAR
celebrates its 10th anniversary. And throughout the years, it has poured in
billions of dollars into AIDS prevention, treatment and
care programs.
“The over-reliance on external donor
funding in partner countries creates funding fragility and the possibility that
the HIV response would be critically disrupted if
funding were to be discontinued or severely reduced,” the report says.
Stumbling blocks
There were instances, according to the
report, when multiple partners were doing the same service — antiretroviral
treatment and capacity building — because they were funded to do so. In some
partner countries, for instance, there are more than 100 prime partners and at
least the same number of subpartners.
Projects take a long while to finish,
according to the report, and between 2004 and 2011, at least $1.46 billion was
unspent. Releasing money in steady and timely manner was also found to be
difficult at times, leading to gaps between partner contracts in countries.
Differing priorities between partner
country governments and PEPFAR were also noted in the
report.
“PEPFAR mission teams described struggling
to collaborate with partner country governments with competing priorities or
those that did not view the HIV and AIDS
response as a priority,” the report notes.
Sometimes, PEPFAR
has also funded relatively richer countries with fairly low rates of HIV prevalence. For instance, the Dominican Republic, a
lower-middle-income country with low HIV prevalence,
received $173 million, according to the report.
Another stumbling block is poor data
recording.
“The lack of accessible data on actual
annual expenditures, regardless of the year in which the money was appropriated
or obligated, represents a significant data gap for PEPFAR,”
the report note.
The report discloses that Office of
the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator has been unable to track and assess how funds
have moved from Congress to OGAC to implementing
agencies to prime partners to subcontractors, “since implementing agencies were
not required to report on expenditures at all levels of the program.”
Responding to the report’s findings,
Ambassador Eric Goosby has attributed the problems to inefficient
bureaucracies, delays due to extended negotiations on realigning programs with
recipient country priorities, and a slowdown in few countries because the AIDS problem was much smaller than originally estimated.
What’s next?
To better support partner countries, PEPFAR — which in late 2012 released
its blueprint for an AIDS-free generation — needs
to invest in strengthening academic institutions, degree programs and training
courses. This is one way to improve local capacity, which is key to retaining
clinical, nonclinical and management professionals, the report argues.
Apart from improved data reporting to
document progress and effectiveness, PEPFAR should
create a knowledge management framework that would assess PEPFAR’s models of
implementation and contribution to sustainable management of the HIV response in partner countries.
“PEPFAR would benefit from the
collection and reporting of financial data that serve not just an accounting
purpose but are also more closely aligned with programmatic data and program
implementation,” the report says.
No comments:
Post a Comment