The Irrawaddy made an error in the second paragraph of this first announcement of the 3D Fund. It is AusAID not USAID. The [him] moderator agrees with the Johns Hopkins researcher who wonders how the Fund will avoid the same mistakes made by the Global Fund.

EC Confirms New Humanitarian Program for Burma
Irrawaddy
June 16, 2006
Clive Parker

The European Commission on Friday confirmed that it would go ahead with a new program to tackle HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria in Burma.

It said its own funds would reach Burma by the beginning of 2007, while its partners—including USAID and the British Department for International Development—were likely to release their funds before the end of this year. The exact amount of aid has not yet been announced.

The new initiative, the 3D Fund, is seen by Europe and aid agencies working in Burma as a replacement for the Global Fund, which announced it would withdraw its money from the country in August 2005 citing obstacles to “effective program implementation.” Global Fund money is due to run out in Burma around October.

The EC’s office in Bangkok confirmed its project would go ahead after its representatives received written assurances last Friday that the EC would be offered a certain, undisclosed level of access to the general population and would not be subject to political interference.

“We are willing to cooperate with the [Burmese] government, but we do not want to have interferences from anybody that is not technically linked to the program,” said Jean-Francois Cautain, the head of the political section of the EC’s Bangkok office.

The Burmese government in February published a set of new guidelines for international aid agencies which said that all workers in the field would be accompanied by a government-sponsored official.

Another controversial inclusion in the new guidelines said that all aid funds would have to be deposited in the government-owned Myanmar Foreign Trade Bank, and withdrawn in foreign exchange certificates, a practice that would effectively allow the government to make financial profit from international humanitarian funding. The EC says it has not discussed with the government whether this point will be enforced.

The issue of the EC’s entry into Burma as a replacement for Global Fund has prompted the continuation of a fierce debate between those that say such projects are inconceivable in the face of a government imposing impractical restrictions and which is benefiting politically from foreign aid delivery, among other criticisms, and those that say the main priority is the delivery of humanitarian aid.

When Global Fund withdrew, accusations circulated that it had come under pressure from elements in the US, including Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell and the Washington-based Institute for Asian Democracy. Supporters deny the claims. At the time of Global Fund’s withdrawal, McConnell was unavailable for comment and the director of IAD, Michelle Bohanna, declined to speak to The Irrawaddy.

In consultations designed to incorporate the views of all sides of the argument, the EC has met with the Burma’s opposition National League for Democracy both in and outside the country, UN agencies and non-governmental organizations in Burma and exile groups in Thailand.

At a meeting in Chiang Mai on June 1, Cautain and his Bangkok-based colleague Andrew Jacobs were bombarded by questions from the Burmese exile media, independent health researchers and NGOs working along the border demanding the EC specify exactly how it will operate in Burma. Critics attending the session say the EC was unable to provide concrete details of how it was going to implement its project or on the discussions it was having with the Burmese government.

A copy of the EC’s strategy paper for the project obtained by The Irrawaddy which has been updated up to the end of April is equally vague on issues critics say are key to the success of the project, namely how funds would be delivered, the populations that would have access to the program and whether the EC would be assured unhindered access in Burma and be able to import vital supplies. The final version of the paper will be made available in September, the EC has said.

Despite criticisms, Cautain said the 3D Fund represented a positive development: “It’s very good news for the population in Myanmar [Burma],” he said.

“It’s nice to see that there is more international attention on the three priority diseases in Burma,” said a public researcher and author of the recent Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health report on HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria in Burma who declined to be named. “But I think the key question…that remains unanswered is ‘what have they [the EC] learnt from the Global Fund pullout and how are they going to avoid the same pitfalls?’ And especially in light of a situation that has deteriorated in many respects, how do they think they can do better than the Global Fund?”

http://www.irrawaddy.org/aviewer.asp?a=5887&print=yes&c=e