|
The need to act
now: HIV/AIDS and development
/22.11.02
A
Christian Aid position paper
'We
don't have the dollars
what is literally killing the women and men and
children of Africa is the lack of resources.'
Stephen Lewis, UN Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, October 2002
Over 8,000 people die from HIV-related illness every day worldwide,
most of them in developing countries.0
The UN is calling for annual global spending of at least US$10 billion
on HIV/AIDS in developing countries. This is less than one eightieth of
global military spending.1
If the UK contributed £750 million a year to this, it would be less
than the amount we currently spend on breakfast cereals.2
HIV/AIDS and poverty - a vicious circle
|
How widespread is HIV/AIDS? |
|
In 2001 over 8,000 people worldwide died of HIV-related illness
every day 3
Worldwide, 40 million people are HIV positive. Around 29 million
of them live in Africa, six million in Asia and two million in Latin
America and the Caribbean4
In nine African countries, 15 per cent or more of the adult
population is HIV positive5
In India, the number of people living with HIV is projected to
rise at least fivefold to 20 million by 2010. Projections show that
Nigeria, Ethiopia, Russia and China are expected to experience
similar magnitudes of increase. However in India, Russia and China
less than one per cent of the adult population is currently HIV
positive.6 |
With around 95 per cent of the people affected by HIV living in
developing countries, poverty and HIV/AIDS are inextricably linked.
Poverty makes people more vulnerable to HIV infection, and HIV/AIDS
makes poor people poorer.
How
does poverty makes people more vulnerable to HIV? Infection is more
likely, for example, if you can't attend school and learn about HIV, if
you cannot afford condoms, if you are forced by economic necessity to do
sex work, or if you cannot gain access to testing facilities.
How
does HIV/AIDS make poor people poorer? Young adults - the parents or
money-earners of the family - are most likely to be affected. Becoming
ill means the most basic of tasks, such as putting food on the table,
become almost impossible. Lack of food reduces your ability to fight
HIV-related disease. You may take your children (probably your
daughters) out of school to care for you. You won't be able to afford
the medicines, or the healthcare, you need. And you will be worried
about your children's futures. A total of 14 million children have
already lost one or both parents to AIDS.
More and more, people are learning how to live with HIV. The vast
majority of HIV/AIDS prevention and care is being done by poor people in
their own communities. Their efforts, however, are being hampered by
poverty and by lack of access to the nutrition, services and medicines
that we take for granted.
HIV/AIDS and development
The same vicious cycle operates on a social and economic level as well.
Some countries, or groups within countries, are impoverished by global
or national economic forces - such as unpayable debt or unfair trade
rules - over which they have no control. The resulting poverty
inevitably increases the spread of HIV.
The
impact of HIV/AIDS on societies with advanced epidemics, most of which
are in Africa, is enormous. Health and education systems - often already
weak - are losing skilled teachers and health workers faster than they
can be replaced. In southern African capitals there is a massive rise in
the number of children living on the streets. And economic growth is
being reduced by the epidemic, jeopardising long-term poverty reduction.
|
Impacts of HIV/AIDS |
|
Average life expectancy in sub-Saharan Africa is now 47 years.
Without HIV/AIDS it would be 62 years
Even as HIV/AIDS increases the demand on health services, Malawi
and Zambia are experiencing five-fold increases in health-worker
sickness and death rates
In the Central African Republic and Swaziland, school enrolment
has fallen by between a fifth and a third due to HIV/AIDS, with
girls most affected
By 2010 South Africa will have an economic output 17 per cent
lower than it would have been without HIV/AIDS
'The HIV/AIDS epidemic poses a major threat to food security in
sub-Saharan Africa, and has served to contribute to and greatly
exacerbate southern Africa's growing famine', Clare Short,
Parliamentary Answer, 22 October 2002.
Sources: UNAIDS Report 2002; Hansard |
In
countries where the epidemic is less advanced, it is equally urgent and
important to pay attention to HIV/AIDS, to prevent the impacts being
seen in parts of Africa. The US National Intelligence Council recently
identified Russia, India and China, as well as Ethiopia and Nigeria, as
the countries poised for the 'next wave' of HIV/AIDS, and said 'It will
be difficult for any of the five countries to check their epidemics by
2010 without a dramatic shift in priorities.'7
HIV/AIDS is urgent and needs special attention
While there are many areas in which poverty needs to be tackled,
HIV/AIDS is particularly urgent and important. The HIV/AIDS epidemic is
unique, for several reasons:
HIV/AIDS is a condition that affects young adults, who are key to
society's economic, social and family structures. Thus HIV/AIDS has
extremely far-reaching social and economic impacts. These impacts are
different from those of other diseases such as malaria, which have their
greatest impact on the physically vulnerable - children and the elderly
Unlike many diseases of poverty such as malaria and TB, HIV/AIDS is
incurable, and treatment is expensive
It is a relatively new, rapidly-spreading and unpredicted phenomenon
There is a period of several years, and sometimes over a decade,
between HIV infection and the appearance of sickness. This means that
avoiding HIV can be a low priority for people, especially when poverty
means they have to deal with more immediate threats to their survival.
Also, it means there is a long period when people are unaware that they
are infected and that they could infect others
HIV-positive people are often stigmatised and discriminated against
due to HIV's sexually-transmitted nature. This is compounded by the fact
that early epidemics within countries are often among groups of people
who are already stigmatised, such as sex workers, drug users or men who
have sex with men.
These characteristics produce some unique dynamics:
HIV/AIDS is actually reversing improvements in development indicators,
such as life expectancy, in high-prevalence countries. The extent to
which HIV could reverse development gains made over the past two decades
is almost unprecedented, especially in southern Africa
The time lag between infection and sickness, and the stigmatisation
involved, mean that dealing with the epidemic is often not a priority
until its impact becomes impossible to ignore. This applies both to
populations and to politicians*
Once the impact becomes so great that it is impossible to ignore, it
is overwhelming, governments may not have the means to respond, and may
therefore deny the magnitude of the problem.
|
*
[There are, of course, exceptions to this where there has been early
political leadership and large expenditure, for example in Uganda
and Thailand.] |
Christian Aid believes that the unique nature of the HIV/AIDS epidemic
means that it merits particular priority in development policy-making.
What should be done about the HIV/AIDS epidemic?
HIV/AIDS needs to be tackled in two ways: through increased and
sustained actions aimed directly at the epidemic, and by addressing the
underlying causes of vulnerability that are holding back these efforts.
Both need to be stepped up dramatically and immediately, and both need
funding. The following recommendations do not comprise a comprehensive
'solution', but a list of areas that Christian Aid believes require
priority attention.
Tackling the epidemic directly - more aid
'At
present the global resources committed to tackling HIV/AIDS are woefully
inadequate.'
DFID HIV/AIDS Strategy, May 2001
In
many of the worst-affected countries, funding is simply not adequate to
tackle the epidemic. For example, in Tanzania, India and Haiti, where
HIV/AIDS is a major problem, gross national income is around US$500 per
person per year or less. The UK's national income is nearly 50 times
that amount.8 The governments of such countries
clearly cannot pay for HIV prevention and care themselves, and are
forced to make impossible choices in their spending. Some other
governments, with more money available, find it politically impossible
to prioritise HIV, because of the very high levels of stigma attached to
it in their countries. And civil society organisations tackling HIV/AIDS
in these countries also need external funding.
How much is needed?
The UN has estimated that a minimum of just over US$10 billion a year
(from all sources) is needed for HIV/AIDS prevention, care and orphan
care in developing countries by 2005.9 This is less
than one eightieth of global military spending. After 2005, the required
amount will increase steadily.10 The funding target
of US$7-10 billion a year was agreed at the UN General Assembly Special
Session on HIV/AIDS in 2001; this estimate has already been revised
upwards.
Christian Aid estimates that the UK should contribute a minimum of £750
million a year towards this target. This follows calls in 2001 by the UN
Secretary General, Kofi Annan, for a five-fold HIV/AIDS spending
increase. A fivefold increase on the UK 2000/01 spending level (which
was £150 million) would mean an annual expenditure of £750 million. The
Stop AIDS Campaign, a coalition of 22 leading UK-based HIV/AIDS and
development groups is calling commensurately for the UK to contribute
US$1 billion a year.
Current global spending on HIV/AIDS from all sources is around US$3
billion a year in total.11 UK spending levels are
increasing. In 2001/02 the UK spent £200 million12
on HIV/AIDS in developing countries.* But this does
not begin to address the enormity of the task at hand - more is needed,
faster. It is also vital that future increased spending on HIV/AIDS is
additional to the current aid budget, and does not divert money from
other international development areas.
|
*
[More was also spent on international work and research. This is
very difficult to disaggregate to arrive at an annual figure.] |
How would the money be spent?
Priorities for tackling the epidemic directly include the following. In
all cases, money can sometimes be invested directly, but often a
proportion needs to be invested to increase the capacity of the
recipients to carry out the work. The money should be spent on:
work to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, for example through
discussions and other HIV prevention work in schools and villages;
through making condoms widely available, through the treatment of other
sexually transmitted diseases, and through drugs to prevent babies
getting HIV from their mothers during birth
care and treatment of people who are HIV positive, for example
by expanding the availability of voluntary HIV testing and counselling
through schemes, often run by churches, using home-care volunteers. More
medicines should also be made available
care of orphans, for example by looking after street children,
and by supporting families who have taken in orphaned children, to
ensure they have access to education, food, health care and emotional
support
tackling stigma, by supporting groups set up by and for people
living with HIV/AIDS, and by supporting civil society groups, working to
make HIV/AIDS a political priority in their countries.
Developing countries are best placed to determine their own
priorities, which differ dramatically from country to country. For
example, countries with lots of people already infected will need to put
a higher proportion of their resources into care; countries at an early
stage in the epidemic will probably focus on prevention, for example,
from sex workers to the wider population, through promoting condom use.
Key
to success is the people most affected identifying their own needs.
Developing country governments need to develop their own national plans
and priorities according to how HIV is affecting their people. All
sectors of society, especially people living with HIV/AIDS, should be
involved in planning, implementing and evaluating national strategies
with governments, including through Poverty Reduction Strategy
Processes.
How would the money be channelled?
Governments usually have the greatest capacity to respond to HIV/AIDS,
and are in a position to integrate HIV/AIDS responses with other
services and processes in their countries. Thus they should and will
continue to receive the majority of aid. However, in many countries aid
also needs to be available to civil society organisations. This
is because:
One of the most effective ways of tacking the sensitive,
stigmatising aspects of HIV/AIDS is by working at a personal level,
through enabling discussions between people who already know and trust
each other (as compared, for example, with mass billboard campaigns -
although these also have their place). Often community organisations,
especially those which involve people living with HIV, are best placed
to do this kind of work.
In many of the poorest countries the current reality is that
HIV/AIDS-related work is often run by non-government and faith-based
organisations. Faith-based organisations have extensive grassroots
networks making them ideally placed to carry out such work.
Civil society organisations may be the sole prevention and care
providers in countries in conflict, in post-conflict situations,*
and without a functioning government.
Civil society organisations may be able to lobby their governments to
give HIV/AIDS a higher political priority.
|
*
[Where responding to HIV is often particularly urgent.] |
While the majority of aid needs to be targeted on the poorest countries
facing the epidemic, the civil society organisations of some
middle-income countries, which are unable to prioritise HIV/AIDS for
political reasons, should also receive aid. Due to the urgency of the
situation immediate investment is needed, alongside work to build
political will on the issue.
The
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria should receive a proportion of
the funds available, but the majority should continue to be channelled
through existing bilateral mechanisms. Christian Aid's 2002 briefing
Fighting HIV/AIDS with Peanuts - A Year
in the Life of the Global Fund outlines Christian Aid's
position on the Fund.13
Tackling vulnerability to HIV/AIDS in the longer-term
Building social systems
The estimated required annual funding for HIV/AIDS-specific
interventions of US$10 billion assumes current infrastructure. It does
not include funding to strengthen and expand the social systems crucial
for the delivery of many of the interventions. Many countries' health
and education systems are extremely weak, sometimes following cuts in
social spending due to conditions attached to loans from international
donors.14 A particular priority in many countries is
the need to invest in human resources - in staff salaries and training.
Strengthening health and education systems is not simply a matter of
increased finance - capacity building and reform are often important
too. But capacity building and reform also require significant
resources, as the failure of some under-resourced health-sector reforms
during the 1990s demonstrated.15 Finance for system
building is thus needed in addition to the minimum of £750 million
required for HIV/AIDS interventions.
Many other aspects of development are also key to tackling the
underlying causes of HIV vulnerability - such as programmes to empower
women so that they are more able to negotiate safer sex - and to tackle
the impact of HIV/AIDS - such as programmes which increase the
opportunities for livelihoods. HIV/AIDS should be an integral part of
national poverty-reduction and development programmes.
As
with HIV/AIDS-specific programmes, developing countries, in consultation
with civil society groups and those most affected, should determine
their own poverty-reduction priorities and formulate national
poverty-reduction processes.
Thus, increased funding for HIV/AIDS must be seen in the context of
increased aid for all developing countries' needs, and as part of
meeting the 30-year-old UN target that developed countries set aside 0.7
per cent of their national wealth for aid to developing countries.
Currently the UK gives a total of 0.32 per cent of GNP in aid; by 2006
this will increase to 0.4 per cent. Christian Aid is calling on the UK
to continue increasing aid year-on-year, and commit to a timetable for
achieving the 0.7 per cent target. Other countries have done this, for
example Ireland is committed to achieving 0.7% by 2007.
In
addition, Christian Aid is calling for a new deal on debt cancellation,
in which debt relief would be calculated in terms of the money poor
countries need to reach poverty-reduction targets. Currently, 13 out of
the 26 countries receiving debt relief are still spending more on debt
than on public health.16
The Church and HIV/AIDS
'As the pandemic has unfolded, it has exposed fault lines that reach to
the heart of our theology, our ethics, our liturgy and our practice of
ministry.'
World Council of Churches, 2001
The
Christian Church is in a pivotal position to have a massive positive
impact on the HIV/AIDS epidemic. In Africa, where the epidemic is most
advanced, the Church forms probably the most extensive grassroots civil
society network, with great potential for prevention and care. The
Church is already doing a lot of HIV/AIDS work, particularly home-based
care and orphan support. Indeed in some countries the Church runs as
much as half of available health care. In Asia and Latin America the
Churches are also developing HIV/AIDS responses. Moreover, there is also
now a global Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance doing HIV/AIDS advocacy work.
However, the Church response has been patchy, particularly in the areas
of HIV prevention, tackling stigma and denial, and accepting people
living with HIV/AIDS, because HIV/AIDS raises challenging issues for
Churches. For example, the preamble to the 2001 document Plan of
Action: Ecumenical Response to HIV/AIDS in Africa states that:
'Today, Churches are being obliged to acknowledge that we have - however
unwittingly - contributed both actively and passively to the spread of
the virus. Our difficulty in addressing issues of sex and sexuality has
often made it painful for us to engage, in any honest and realistic way,
with issues of sex education and HIV prevention. Our tendency to exclude
others, our interpretation of the scriptures and theology of sin have
all combined to promote the stigmatisation, exclusion and suffering of
people with HIV or AIDS.'17 And a Christian Aid
report states that: 'For almost all African churches "condomisation" has
become a burning political and moral issue.'18
However, the Ecumenical Plan of Action document continues by saying
that: 'The Churches have strengths, they have credibility and they are
grounded in communities. This offers them the opportunity to make a real
difference in combating HIV/AIDS. To respond to this challenge the
Churches must be transformed in the face of the HIV/AIDS crisis, in
order that they may become a force for transformation.' It continues to
outline a tangible, wide-ranging action plan. As well as offering
practical action, the Plan includes the commitment that: 'We will
condemn discrimination and stigmatisation of people living with HIV/AIDS
as a sin and contrary to the will of God.' This positive process needs
to continue and accelerate, in all regions, to ensure that the actions
outlined in the document are implemented.
Tackling poverty
Much
of the global discussion on HIV/AIDS focuses on what individuals can do
to reduce their own risk of becoming HIV positive, and on the medical
interventions that can mitigate the impact of being HIV positive. While
a necessary part of the response, this approach is far from sufficient.
Vulnerability to HIV is also increased by poverty, and poverty is caused
and maintained by global social and economic processes. These links need
far more attention. More research into their exact nature is needed, to
enable countries and international institutions to take the HIV/AIDS
situation into account when formulating economic policy.
While HIV/AIDS should be recognised as affecting all aspects of national
life in epidemic-hit countries, rather than boxed solely into the health
sector, the impact of global economic policy-making on the epidemic also
needs consideration. And HIV/AIDS policy-makers also need to broaden
their thinking beyond the medical and beyond individual behaviour
change.
Ultimately, to tackle HIV/AIDS we need to tackle poverty. This is both
the most important aspect of HIV/AIDS responses, and the most far
sighted. All Christian Aid's poverty-eradication programmes and
recommendations - for example the current Trade for Life campaign to
change unfair trade rules - are also relevant to tackling HIV/AIDS.
Christian Aid's recommendations
To tackle HIV/AIDS directly:
The UK government should contribute at least £750 million a year
to the annual US$10 billion needed globally for HIV/AIDS
prevention, care, orphan care and advocacy in developing countries. This
money should be used to help build the capacity of the affected
communities and governments to cope with the epidemic, as well as for
programmes and commodities. The UK's current contribution is around £200
million a year.
The majority of this money should be channelled through existing
bilateral programmes. Some should also be channelled through the
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, and through civil
society channels. Civil society channels are particularly important
in countries in conflict or post-conflict.
Because of the unique nature of HIV/AIDS, and the urgency of the
situation, donors need to think innovatively about how and where they
use their money. For example, while the poorest countries should be
given priority, it may be necessary to fund civil society work in some
middle-income countries that may not normally receive this aid.
This applies particularly where HIV/AIDS primarily affects marginalised
groups and is not currently a political priority.
To tackle the underlying causes of vulnerability to HIV/AIDS
The
UK government should urgently, on a sustainable basis, increase support
and funding to strengthen health and education systems (including
capacity building), and other poverty-reduction programmes. Thus, the
government should:
-
continue to increase aid year-on-year, and commit to a timetable for
achieving 0.7 per cent of GNP as aid.
-
champion a new deal on debt cancellation, in which debt relief would
be calculated in terms of the money needed for countries to reach
poverty reduction targets.
All actors - including the HIV/AIDS, academic and NGO communities -
should place greater emphasis on the links between poverty and the
spread of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. They should highlight the role of
international economic policy, rather than focussing solely on
changing the behaviour of individuals.
The church should continue and accelerate the process of
expanding its role in HIV/AIDS prevention and care, and in challenging
stigma and discrimination.
0
UNAIDS Report 2002
1
Schwartlander, B etc al (2002), Resource Needs for HIV/AIDS, Science Vol
292, Issue 5526, 2,434-2,436, 29 June 2001; SIPRI Yearbook 2002
2
www.euromonitor.com - Breakfast
Cereals in the UK, July 2002
3
UNAIDS Report 2002
4
UNAIDS Report 2002
5
UNAIDS Report 2002
6
The Next Wave of HIV/AIDS: Nigeria, Ethiopia, Russia, India and China,
US National Intelligence Council ICA 2002-04D, September 2002; UNAIDS
Report 2002
7
The Next Wave of HIV/AIDS: Nigeria, Ethiopia, Russia, India and China,
US National Intelligence Council ICA 2002-04D, September 2002
8
World Development Indicators, World Bank 2002
9
Schwartlander, B etc al (2002), Resource Needs for HIV/AIDS, Science Vol
292, Issue 5,526, 2,434-2,436, 29 June 2001
10
UNAIDS press release, New Figures Show AIDS Fight Underresourced, 10
October 2002
11
UNAIDS press release, New Figures Show AIDS Fight Underresourced, 10
October 2002
12
Parliamentary statement by Sally Keeble, Under-Secretary of State for
International Development, 28 October 2002
13
www.christian-aid.org.uk
14
Christian Aid (2000), Millennium Lottery - Who Lives, Who Dies in an Age
of Third World Debt?; Save the Children/Medact (2001), The Bitterest
Pill of All - The Collapse of Africa's Health Systems
15
Save the Children/Medact (2001), The Bitterest Pill of All - The
Collapse of Africa's Health Systems
16
CAFOD, Oxfam, EURODAD, Christian Aid (2002) - A Joint Submission to the
World Bank and IMF Review of HIPC and Debt Sustainability, August 2002
17
Plan of Action: The Ecumenical Response to HIV/AIDS in Africa - Global
Consultation on the Ecumenical Response to
17
HIV/AIDS in Africa, Kenya 2001
18
Christian Aid (2001), AIDS and the African Churches: Exploring the
challenges
Email:

|