Despite limitations of global fund programs, dangers of cutting funding are worse

In this Financial Times opinion piece, journalist Andrew Jack examines how, "[a]fter a period of fast expansion, and strong progress in tackling AIDS, [tuberculosis (TB)] and malaria alike," the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria "has become a target in the era of austerity. With a shift in power between the world's traditional and emerging economies, and donors seeking ways to cut support, billions of dollars and millions of lives are at stake." Jack recaps a brief history of the Fund in the 10 years since its inception; highlights a number of ways in which the Fund has been distinctive from other organizations; and notes several issues that have led to calls for reform within the Fund.

"While Global Fund programs may have limitations, they can have positive results beyond their immediate remit. ... For all the Fund's faults, moreover, the danger is that the alternatives are worse," he writes, concluding, "This week, it approved the appointment of a new top manager and a more professionalized board. Simon Bland, the U.K. government's director who has recently taken over as chairman, says: 'We do need to do a course correction. That's clearly been taken on board by the executive. The need to change is no longer in dispute'" (11/24).