Allegations Surface Regarding SIRF Fund Allocations: Public Calls for Transparency
Recent allegations have surfaced concerning the allocation of loans from the Sustainable Island Resource Framework (SIRF) Fund, administered by the Department of Environment (DOE).
These allegations have prompted a wave of public questions aimed at uncovering potential conflicts of interest and improper distribution of funds.
Key Allegations:
Several pointed questions have been directed at the DOE and its Director, Mrs. Diann Black-Layne, focusing on the following issues:
- Did the Director receive a loan of $150,000 through the SIRF Fund?
- Did the Director’s brother receive a loan of $200,000 through the SIRF Fund?
- Did the Director’s sister receive a loan of $100,000 through the SIRF Fund?
- Did the Director’s permanent secretary receive a loan of $75,000 through the SIRF Fund?
- Did any other member of the Project Management Committee (PMC), besides the Permanent Secretary who chairs the PMC, receive a loan of $100,000 through the SIRF Fund?
- Did the Director of Audit receive a loan of $50,000 through the SIRF Fund?
- Did the Director’s housekeeper receive two loans totaling $98,327 and $40,000 through the SIRF Fund?
- Were there other individuals who received more than one loan through the SIRF Fund?
- Were there individuals who received loans without meeting the requirements based on the risk assessment criteria?
- What did the evaluators discover and recommend regarding the allocation of SIRF Fund loans?
- Who is the administrator, and who are the Board members of the SIRF Fund?
- When was the last audit of the DOE and the SIRF Fund conducted by the Director of Audit?
- Have there been any internal audits of the SIRF Fund? If so, when and by whom were they conducted?
- Have there been any fraud investigations at the DOE concerning the SIRF Fund?
- When will the financial statements, including financial position, cash flow, and income for the period ending December 31, 2023, be made available to the public?
DOE’s Response:
In response to these allegations, the DOE has issued a statement emphasizing its commitment to confidentiality and privacy for all loan applicants.
According to the DOE, disclosing details about individual loans without consent would breach confidentiality agreements and could lead to legal repercussions.
Loan Eligibility and Oversight:
The DOE clarified that the SIRF Fund loans are available to DOE management and staff, as well as other government agencies considered first responders.
This eligibility framework is established through an agreement between the Government and the Donor, with oversight provided by the SIRF Fund Board and operationalized by the DOE.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATS APP GROUP
The SIRF Fund is overseen by an Internal Auditor funded by donors, who reviews all loans before they are presented to the Board. Additionally, an external auditor (BDO) and several consultants advise the Board Chair and the Director.
Loan Compliance and Risk Assessment:
The DOE stated that a stringent risk assessment tool is employed to ensure that all loan applicants meet financial, environmental, gender, and social risk criteria.
Applications are anonymized and evaluated by the SIRF Fund team before being reviewed by the Internal Auditor and presented to the Board.
Despite these measures, an internal audit identified a small percentage of applications (about 2%) that did not meet all necessary criteria. These cases were reported to the Board and the Green Climate Fund (GCF).
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATS APP GROUP
Evaluation and Recommendations:
An external evaluation revealed concerns about value for money post-COVID-19, particularly regarding building supplies and renewable energy costs.
Evaluators recommended additional support for low-income applicants, which is being assessed for implementation in the next program phase. The evaluation report is publicly available on the DOE’s website.
Governance and Auditing:
The Fund is currently administered by Ms. Gwendolyn Carter-Joseph, following Ms. Carol Mason’s retirement. The Board members include Rasona Davis-Crump (Chair), Ms. Ena Henry (Deputy Chair), Diann Black-Layne (Director), Frederick Southwell, and Carolyn Charles-Tonge, with Mr. Whitfield Harris advising the Chair. Audits by BDO are current through 2021, with internal audits conducted by Keith Brown of ACM.
Financial Statements:
Unaudited financial statements for the period ending December 31, 2023, are available upon request. Interested parties can email the Chair, Rasona Davis-Crump, for access.
The DOE reaffirmed its commitment to transparency and accountability while maintaining the confidentiality and privacy of loan recipients. They encouraged any further inquiries to be directed to the individuals who have received funding from the SIRF Fund.
The public eagerly awaits more detailed responses to these pressing questions to ensure that the SIRF Fund operates with integrity and fairness.
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATS APP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATS APP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATS APP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATS APP GROUP
CLICK HERE TO JOIN OUR WHATS APP GROUP
Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]
Unaudited statement, if there are questions being asked, why would you you put out unaudited statement unless you trying to misguide the public, you are not going to get to the bottom of thus shit until there is a change of government, I now have to wonder why there was a resignation from the DOE
This place is so rife with corruption it is unbelievable. As the say the fish stinks from the head.
BDO advised the board?? Rubbish! Why didn’t they say that the SIRF Fund team is advised by the Director Diann Black-Layne. She’s trying to make it seem like there is separation of interest but there is none. Where is the link to the evaluation report? In the last media post the Director said the financial statements were online and not up to now can we find them.
I knew this selfish act would come to light for u all thought it would not
I filled out applications 3 times ,they came to my house twice, and I never got a dime
They took ppl information used it for others ,some got monies twice
Ppl that didn’t need it got, all now no confirmation weather u approved or not
Some ppl jus wicked rich get richer poor stay poor
I know cause I wrk there I saw the act
They should jail someone to long now these things happens no one get punished
Way the monies gone take their house and car let them feel war we poor ppl feel
FIRST RESPONDERS INCLUDING “NODS,” WAS MENTIONED as a priority recipient.
NOD’S PERVIOUS DIRECTOR denied to his staff that they had access to the funds.
ONE THING IS SURE… IF PRESSURE MAKES WATER GO UP A HILL, IT IS CERTAIN IT WILL FLOW DOWN AGAIN!
Well Director, all those people listed in the article got loans. Plus you are the SIRF Fund administrator and you knew all those persons who got loans. A couple got two loans luke your maid. Your maid also likes to run her mouth so all the business out on the streets. You must stop tell lies. The SIRF Fund is compromised because your thumb in on it.
Exerpts from the Evaluation of the SIRFF
The lack of clear guidance and standards does not promote coherence – in particularly in the loan process. According to the evaluative evidence, the staff does not apply the loan process the same way, discretions were reported on the application of the vulnerability criteria which affects the loan approval and can lead to funding not reaching the targeted beneficiaries.
Key lessons learned from the programme
Targeting vulnerability
1. To effectively reach more vulnerable groups, a coordinated on-the-ground, grassroots communications strategy needs to be deployed to raise awareness and educate the target population on the cost benefits of investing in resiliency measures.
2. To ensure that the funding goes to the targeted beneficiaries, the screening process must include measures to determine applicant disqualification based on vulnerability criteria, ensuring that resources are only directed towards those with the greatest needs.
3. While it is crucial to strike a balance between low- and high-risk borrowers, it is equally important to prioritize the most vulnerable individuals when allocating funding. Finding the right balance between risk management and ensuring support for those facing the greatest climate change impacts is a key consideration for future program implementation.
OPERATIONS : Enhance operational efficiency
The DOE should conduct an independent audit to identify the causes of high employee turnover. The RLP has experienced a high level of employee turnover, which poses a considerable risk to the operations. An independent internal audit would serve to identify the causes leading to the departure of employees and provide guidance to structure an employee retention plan to mitigate operational risks.
By December 2022, 36% of the beneficiaries (71 homeowners) had not fully repaid their monthly payments, resulting in an average delinquency period of approximately four months (124 days). On average, each delinquent beneficiary owed EC$3,283, with the lowest delinquent amount being EC$184 and the highest being EC$17,000. The total value of missed payments amounted to EC$236,392, which represents 1.4% of the total approved amount in the RLP portfolio.
Director come clean about the SIRF Fund and the actual percentage of those who would not have qualified as vulnerable.
Hmmm….I got conflcting info with every deadline I rushed to meet. So it now makes sense.
In the end, I said these ppl don’t know what they are about ….when in fact they actually DIDKNOW. Friends and Company come get your money at 2% and pretend that you qualify to receive the funds. NO BODY WILL KNOW.
There is no mechanism in place to enforce repayment. No collateral at all. So might as well call it a grant. Very few will payback. Free money to family and friends.
Bla bla bla dem tief the money…nothing new….everyone with power tief money. Stop complaining and wait ur turn. Just get in power and tief money duhhhhhh…,tired of all these unnecessary chatter. Yall talk like yall gonna do something about it when ur not.
The applications are anonymised before being decided on? Why? Perhaps that is meant to ensure fair treatment but it seems to open the door for abuse of the system by people in the know who can just get their applications approved anonymously?
Yall don’t think the government knows about black-layne’s (for a lack of a better word). They know. They all know. She just put her black mark on everything, now this Fund spoil.
Comments are closed.