6 Responses

  1. Michelle Imison
    Michelle Imison September 26, 2016 at 10:29 am

    Thanks for the comprehensive wrap-up, Camilla. The other concern with Australia’s pledge is the potential threat to our seat on the Global Fund Board (shared with Canada). While I’m not suggesting that this is likely, or even imminent, it is possible, with the major likely consequence being that without a vigorous Asia-Pacific presence at the table, the focus on the burden of these three diseases in our region may diminish.

  2. Garth Luke
    Garth Luke September 22, 2016 at 5:58 pm

    Thank you for this breakdown Ashlee and Camilla. To add to the perspectives you provided, Australians will be contributing US$2.38 each each year to the Global Fund. Americans will give $4.50 each, Canadians $5.76 and the British $7.44 each. Given that these three diseases result in around 3 million deaths of poor people each year, and the Global Fund is proven to be an effective way of cutting these deaths, I am concerned at the low priority DFAT gives to supporting the Fund.

    1. Ashlee Betteridge
      Ashlee Betteridge September 23, 2016 at 8:59 am

      Thanks for the per capita breakdown Garth, an enlightening comparison. We’ve been reasonably positive on the 10% increase in the post just because of the sheer size of the cuts to Australian aid – but I agree we should be doing more. Unfortunately it’s pretty hard to do more when we’ve decimated the aid budget so badly – this is just another example of the consequences. Though as the numbers above show, more of the aid budget will be spent on the Global Fund over the next three years as a percentage – so I feel that’s a sign of some support for the Fund from government, but within our constrained ability to contribute due to the shrinking aid budget.

Leave a Reply