Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (53613)	8/15/2009 6:04:22 PM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217752

It all about MONEY The World Bank’s AIDS Programs: a look at failures of international aid While funding global public health is of course crucial to implementing public health policies, it’s also crucial to ensure that the funding is being used efficiently. Recently, an internal evaluation of the World Bank’s programs revealed that their AIDS programs have failed in effectiveness, particularly in Africa. The World Bank has invested $17 billion in health, nutrition, and population programs since 1997, and will be tripling that investment from $1 billion in 2008 to $3 billion in 2009. Recently, more and more global health agencies, including the World Bank, have focused many of their resources on HIV/AIDS programs. In fact, 60% of the bank’s projects between 1997 and 2006 on communicable diseases were HIV/AIDS programs–but their HIV/AIDS programs in Africa have had only a 25% success rate. 7 of 10 of the bank’s AIDS projects globally, and 8 of 10 of the programs in Africa, have had “unsatisfactory outcomes”, according to the report. This is astoundingly low compared to the 80% success rate of all World Bank programs around the world. This could be due to poor accountability of programs, overly complex programs, and ineffective implementation. For example, from 2000 to 2005, the World Bank provided $26.6 million to fund an HIV/AIDS program in Ghana, which DID NOT target groups at-risk of HIV contraction–a highly inefficient use of funds. To me, what’s most disturbing about this report is the fact that though these HIV/AIDS programs were mostly ineffective, much of the World Bank’s funding was diverted towards those programs–despite the high efficacy of their other health programs. Only 2% of their communicable disease projects were tuberculosis programs, and 3% were malaria programs, even though one malaria campaign in Eritrea reduced malaria mortality by 85%! The report suggests that simplifying projects (so that the governments of the countries are actually able to implement and maintain the programs) could increase the efficiency of these programs, as well as coordinating between numerous donors, nonprofits and government agencies. Naturally, the more organizations that are involved, the more difficult maintaining communication between them, which decreases efficacy–which raises another interesting topic: how can we increase communication between the hundreds of public health organizations working in an area, or field, to decrease overlap, and increase the reach and efficiency of all organizations? But that’s a topic for another day. Anyways, this brings up a difficult dilemma: obviously, HIV/AIDS is a pandemic of disastrous proportions, but is all the funding being funneled towards combating HIV/AIDS useful? Or would it be better to use that money to fund programs known to be efficient? Certainly malaria and TB are not as “popular” causes as HIV/AIDS is, but they are also widespread and incredibly devastating to the large populations exposed to those diseases. So how much funding out to be used to fund perhaps riskier, but potentially very beneficial programs, as opposed to programs known to be effective?

To: carranza2 who wrote (53613)	8/15/2009 6:17:36 PM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 217752

Give you another example of "problem cannot go away else money stops pouring in" I need to get the road certified that there are no mines for people to excavate. Most of the road sides are already de-mined for road improvement. Lots of other areas where of no strategic significance for the warring sides have never had mines planted. Still the demining action keep going. Any airport, quarry, warehouse agricultural area must be demined. There are alwys stories about mines, and explosion and wicked type of mines they put etc. I did like I always do. Study. My conclusion wayo. The bridge heads were mined. That's true and there are some dodgy hills in a pass. Apart form that afew spots that would warrant a quick check. Why the mines never finish? As soon as the mines danger would go away, the money for demining would stop coming in. Am I denying there are no mines? No there are pockets. Most of these has been cleared by the same people who had placed them. What I fear is someone planting a mine just to create a danger for us to call the "saviours" When I travel to the provinces I stop at the deminers camp. Ask what they are doing and ask what they have already demined. They tell me something. When we go to the offices, they tell us another story. Of course a mine can be dangerous and maim people (the exacavation is done by a 20 ton machine an anti-personal would do nothing to it. But the cable is alid by people, warning tape and part of the backfilling is hand work the way we do here. But the reality is only 2%. The ohter 98% is planted by the own brain as fear.