PartnersGF -2005-03-31 

Of Transparency and Management Information
Re: Response to Richard Feachem's letter (3)
****************

[Mods Note: Please find Peter Burgess’ comments on management information in organizations such as the Global Fund posted earlier today by clicking here: http://eforums.healthdev.org/read/messages?id=4887.]
**************************

Blanket condemnations of entire "communities", as in this case of what
Peter Burgess refers to as the "official relief and development assistance (ORDA) community", are rarely accurate or very helpful. This one is certainly rather pompous.

Nevertheless, I believe his sense of outrage is justified and his call for urgent action should be acted upon.

As he says "the GFATM had a chance to be different". Unless some corrective action is taken urgently it may well turn out to be very different, but not in the ways the GFATM and its funders and board had intended. It is not too late, but the GFATM Secretariat and Board need to listen to those on the ground who are grappling with this "monster" on a daily basis. Change it now, before it is too late.

As one of those who has devoted their working life to the much maligned "ORDA community" I can say that many of us working in what Peter Burgess obviously considers to be incompetent and inefficient (if not frankly corrupt) organizations are spending a huge amount of time trying to do precisely what he calls for, ensure that the GFATM funds are used effectively and accounted for transparently. We are, despite the absurdities of the GFATM system, struggling to make it work, on the ground.

Unfortunately, the same disdain for the "ORDA community" shown by Peter
Burgess has been shown by the GFATM from the start and is one of the reasons it is in its current state. It is one thing to want to be different, it is quite another to believe that one can create something new by ignoring what has been learned to date and not talking to those who might know.

The GFATM Secretariat and Board should urgently convene a no-holds-barred brainstorming session with the people on the ground who have been trying to make the GFATM work, especially those who have had the confidence to be critical. There could be defined ground rules for the discussions and they could, if it helps to achieve frankness, be behind closed doors. But the GFATM must get some input from the field that is provided by people other than its portfolio managers, fly-in/fly-out evaluators and the GFATM beneficiaries. Beneficiaries from resource deprived countries, especially their governments, are not going to "bite the hand that feeds them". Let's be honest with ourselves about that and not pretend that their compliments about the GFATM constitute an objective view. To have a meeting where people are hand-picked to attend would probably not be in contradiction with the way the GFATM has operated until now. Only this time why not choose those who might be brutally frank, but constructive, in their criticism.
The portfolio managers probably know who they are.

Please GFATM, provide a special forum for those engaged in the GFATM on the ground to provide ideas for its reform. We can help to make the GFATM really different, in the right way.

Anonymous