Europeans on PEPFAR
Some interesting (though wholly unsurprising) comments on PEPFAR from European aid groups.
It should be noted that the folks quoted in that post are largely criticizing the "abstinence earmark" in PEPFAR. This required 1/3rd of all prevention funding under PEPFAR be spent on programs to encourage abstinence and fidelity. This requirement was not included in the new law passed last month to extend the program for 5 more years. Instead, the Global AIDS Coordinator (the federal official in charge of all global HIV/AIDS activities) must now submit a justification to Congress for any country that spends less than 50% of its sexual prevention funds on programs to encourage abstinence and fidelity. The term "sexual prevention" excludes programs that prevent transmission of HIV from mother-to-child, blood and injection safety programs, and male circumcision.
The practical effect for the moment is unclear; the lifting of the restriction gives individual countries and the administration in D.C. more flexibility on how to spend funds. However, a new president could come to office next year, and through his appointees he could still require funds be spent a certain way. The only "hard" earmarks in the new law require 50% of all funding be spend on care and treatment, and 10% of funding be spent on orphans and vulnerable children infected/affected by HIV/AIDS. The other 40% is, more or less, able to be spent at the President's and GAC's discretion.
It should be noted that the folks quoted in that post are largely criticizing the "abstinence earmark" in PEPFAR. This required 1/3rd of all prevention funding under PEPFAR be spent on programs to encourage abstinence and fidelity. This requirement was not included in the new law passed last month to extend the program for 5 more years. Instead, the Global AIDS Coordinator (the federal official in charge of all global HIV/AIDS activities) must now submit a justification to Congress for any country that spends less than 50% of its sexual prevention funds on programs to encourage abstinence and fidelity. The term "sexual prevention" excludes programs that prevent transmission of HIV from mother-to-child, blood and injection safety programs, and male circumcision.
The practical effect for the moment is unclear; the lifting of the restriction gives individual countries and the administration in D.C. more flexibility on how to spend funds. However, a new president could come to office next year, and through his appointees he could still require funds be spent a certain way. The only "hard" earmarks in the new law require 50% of all funding be spend on care and treatment, and 10% of funding be spent on orphans and vulnerable children infected/affected by HIV/AIDS. The other 40% is, more or less, able to be spent at the President's and GAC's discretion.