<br><br>FYI--<br><br><br><div>The Global Fund Should Take Transparency to Another Level</div>
<div style="width:100%;font-weight:normal;border-bottom:1px solid #eeeeee;margin-bottom:5px">
<div>
<div>
<div>
Robert Bourgoing </div>
</div>
</div>
<span style="float:right"> 18 Apr 2013 </span>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p>When I joined the Global Fund in 2003, my main
responsibility, as the Manager of Online Communications, was to help the
organisation deliver on its commitment to transparency. One of the
conditions set forth by donors was the ability to trace every granted
dollar to make aid recipients accountable for how it would be spent.
This meant, among other things, developing and maintaining a website
that quickly became a central repository of all Global Fund data and
information. We were praised for the unprecedented level of openness
that this made possible. But over time, I realised that something was
(and still is) missing.</p>
<p>If you Google <a href="https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=%22global+fund%22+aids&oq=%22global+fund%22+aids" target="_blank">“Global Fund” + AIDS</a>
for news stories, the overwhelming majority of results are articles
that are reactive (i.e. based on official announcements, press releases
and conferences) or that make reference to the Fund only indirectly or
anecdotally.</p>
<p>Apart from experts in donor governments and a handful of technical
partners, Aidspan and the likes, very few local organisations or people
take advantage of Global Fund transparency to trigger open and
well-informed discussions on aid effectiveness. How can this be when all
the data and documents are “just a mouse click away”? Close to $20
billion were disbursed in a few years. Where did it all go? Who got it?
To do what? With what success?</p>
<p>The Fund’s website should be an extraordinary tool to get the facts
right on those questions. It should be a gold mine of stories for local
journalists, civil society organisations (CSOs), activists and
parliamentarians in recipient countries. But, for the most part, they
aren’t panning for this gold. What is transparency all about if it
doesn’t translate into increased accountability at country level, and if
people and communities for whom the Global Fund was created don’t use
it to keep pressure on grantees, to voice their concerns and claim their
rights?</p>
<p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><b>The flip side of transparency</b></span></span></p>
<p>The reality is that using Global Fund data to make recipients
accountable is out of reach to most concerned people because they lack
access to the Internet, because they don’t have enough time or the
technical skills – and because there are obstacles to freedom of
information and speech<b>.</b></p>
<p>Global Fund transparency, as it is practised today, is more of a
barrier to journalists and in-country activists than anything else:
intimidating piles of reports filled with obscure language, countless
files and downloadable materials that reassure technocrats in donor
capitals but that don’t say much about the reality of what happens to
the funds when they hit the ground. Understanding, processing and making
use of this information requires learning about technical jargon,
Global Fund internal processes, and the roles and responsibilities of
different local partners. One needs to be familiar with web searching
techniques and data processing methods, and to have some basic
communication skills to translate often indigestible data into a plain,
common language that non-technical audiences can understand.</p>
<p>Last, but not least, trying to make the powerful accountable in
countries with no such tradition is a risky game for the few activists
and concerned citizens who dare to do so. With the rise of the “Open
Government” and “Open Data” movements in Africa and elsewhere, people
may fear less for their lives than they used to, but threats and
intimidation are still very much a daily reality for local watchdogs.</p>
<p>This leads to a strange paradox. As I heard recently: “<i>That is
almost the flip side of transparency. It’s very easy to use transparency
if actually you want to drown people in information. I know it’s a
tactic for lawyers: just give too much information to people, and it
will be difficult for them to really figure out what is important.</i>”
Certainly, the Global Fund did not create this complexity consciously
and voluntarily, but the result is the same: mountains of data and files
that have the effect of shielding grantees and the Fund’s bureaucracy
from too much scrutiny.</p>
<p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><b>From technical transparency to local oversight and accountability</b></span></span></p>
<p>Today, in the wake of the Global Fund, a growing number of
international organizations have committed to making their information
on aid spending easier to find, use and compare. More than 120 UN
agencies, multilateral banks, bilateral donors and NGOs have already
endorsed the IATI (the International Aid Transparency Initiative) and
have agreed to convert their data into a common standard. While this is a
major step in the right direction, a simple lesson should be drawn from
the Global Fund’s experience: Opening up databases is not enough for
change to occur in the way local accountability happens. Rather, change
requires a real commitment to accompany those for whom this data is made
available as they make their first steps in the maze of aid
transparency.</p>
<p>Here is what I think needs to happen.</p>
<p><b>Build capacity to use Global Fund data. </b>Local
watchdogs need help to stay afloat in the aid data deluge, to learn how
to use the tools of transparency to have impact. While their work may
not require the same level of technical sophistication as global
watchdogs, they need training. They need to be able to understand who
does what and where to find the information. They need to acquire
watchdogging skills, using real-life case studies and guidance based on
local needs. Watchdogs usually don’t focus on one single aid provider;
no organisation would be justified in developing such a programme in
isolation. Therefore, the capacity building should be a shared
responsibility, and a combined and coordinated effort, by all concerned
parties, such as the IATI signatories and some global or regional
players in the field of transparency. The Global Fund has the
credibility to take the lead on this. It should sit down with IATI
partners to explore how a step-by-step, scalable, replicable and
carefully targeted capacity-building programme could be implemented. As a
critical side effect, such an initiative could provide some recognition
to participating local aid monitors, thus breaking their isolation and
protecting them in the exercise of their democratic rights.</p>
<p><b>Declare war on gobbledygook. </b>Besides data,
transparency is first and foremost about communicating in plain
language. How much sense does it make for thousands of people, including
the Secretariat’s own staff, to have to turn to a newsletter like the
GFO to understand the rules of the game of a multi-billion dollar
transparent organisation? The Global Fund should elevate proper
communications with implementers (and others) to a top priority. The
Fund should stop relying on technical staff to draft documents that are
meant for wide distribution. It should reinforce the capacity of its
Communication Department by adding writers who can translate complex
policies and procedures into plain language.</p>
<p><span style="font-size:11pt"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><b>Conclusion</b></span></span></p>
<p>If the Global Fund were to support and encourage local watchdogs,
this would constitute a valuable early warning system for the Fund – one
that complements the work of the local fund agents and the Office of
the Inspector General. Building the capacity of local watchdogs to use
transparency could greatly reinforce the Fund’s own risk management and
fraud prevention efforts, at little cost. The Global Fund should also
tackle its poor communications with implementing countries by addressing
the Secretariat’s capacity issues in this field. With the 2015 MDG
deadline on the horizon and the development community bracing for what
comes next, with pressure on the Fund to improve its oversight
mechanisms, and with the need for the Fund to position itself for a
possible redefinition of its mandate, these measures could reassure
donors about its capacity to be a truly different business model in
international development.</p>
<p>The Global Fund should renew its commitment to transparency and take
bold steps to promote wide use of its transparency in recipient
countries. Information is power. It’s time to give power to those for
whom the Global Fund was created so that transparency can fully achieve
what it is meant for.</p>
<p><i>Robert Bourgoing (</i><i><a href="mailto:robert@bourgoing.com" target="_blank"><i>email</i></a></i><i>)</i> <i>joined
the Global Fund in its early days, in 2003, and was a senior member of
its communications team until last year. He is a trained lawyer and an
experienced journalist, and currently works as an independent
consultant.</i></p>
</div>
</div>
</div><br>