Written in conjunction with Bono, my fellow founder of product (RED)
We think this week's AP story about The Global Fund is the best possible news.
Here's why.
When we formed (RED), we wanted the Fund to administer the money because we knew the Fund was set up to find the bad guys early. Many other international organizations do not have the aggressive tools used by the Fund. Others find bad guys late in the game.
But we knew the Fund would find them and shut them down immediately. We also knew they would publicize their findings, putting more pressure on other bad guys.
So this story is exactly what we knew would happen. We are thrilled.
We also know that the idea of zero corruption is a naïve, impossible standard. It does not exist in Africa. And it does not exist anywhere else in the world. Take a look at the banking crisis in the developed world. Does anyone think the 1st world's banks have less corruption that the Fund? And does anyone think those same banks brought their problems to public via the AP?
Not a chance.
We are thrilled that their system has worked. The Global Fund discovered fraud in a fractional portion of their disbursements (less than 3/10ths of 1% of the total money -- and NO (RED) money whatsoever) and took immediate action
We applaud The Global Fund for this innovative and entrepreneurial best-practice.
The recent Associated Press article highlights this best practice in action and, further, underscores the transparency with which The Global Fund conducts its business (the source for the story was The Global Fund's own Inspector General's report).
By implementing stringent standards and by being diligent in quickly addressing issues such as those raised in the IG's report, the Global Fund has made tremendous progress in the fight against AIDS. In just eight years it has saved 6.5 million lives by providing AIDS treatment for 3 million people.
We've started to take the fight to streets, thanks to the Global Fund. But, we have much more to do. Together, we can end mother-to-child transmission of HIV/AIDS by 2015 and create the first AIDS-free generation.
At the core of this is a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation, so here are a few facts:
* All Global Fund grants are audited by accredited agencies according to international standards.
* The Global Fund's inspector general (IG) is a safety check on that system, not the primary auditor of grants. He performs supplementary reviews based on random selections or credible allegations.
* The inspector general is independent of other parts of the Global Fund staff, and reports directly to the board of directors.
Regarding the actual scandal at the base of all this, the IG initiated reviews of four countries -- Mali, Mauritania, Zambia, and Djibouti -- based on concerns expressed by Fund staff or local agents. Significant problems were found. The Global Fund demanded monies back and worked with local law enforcement so that people were brought to justice - some lost jobs, others are in jail.
The Fund has put out $13 billion since its start in 2002. Of that, the Inspector General (which was created in 2005) has looked at $3.5 billion, and found $39 million that was misappropriated. Of that $5 million has already been returned, with $34 million outstanding.
In the end, the Fund is doing a great job helping save lives every day. And it's leading the donor world in making that work transparent, even when problems arise. As Bobby says, that's "best practice" that other donors should emulate.
Todd Summers
ONE Campaign
Way to spin a huge scandal.....