National responses to the epidemic: factors that make a differencethan 5 million new infections annually. Furthermore, increases in donor <strong>support</strong> hadbegun to level off between 1996 <strong>and</strong> 1998, <strong>and</strong> it remains less than just 1% of donorcountries’ total annual ODA budgets. Against the backdrop of soaring infection rates,this trend is of critical concern.However, recent indications from donors are encouraging. For example, funding bythe United States <strong>for</strong> global <strong>HIV</strong>/<strong>AIDS</strong> activities increased by US$ 65 million in 2000<strong>and</strong> is set to increase by as much as an additional US$ 100 million in 2001. The donorresponse to the International Partnership Against <strong>AIDS</strong> in Africa has also been positive.This important new initiative – the objectives of which are to curtail the spreadof <strong>HIV</strong>, reduce its impact on human suffering <strong>and</strong> halt the reversal of social <strong>and</strong> economicdevelopment in Africa – includes donors as one of its five key constituencies.Representatives of donor countries are participating in all phases of its development,<strong>and</strong> their greater underst<strong>and</strong>ing of, <strong>and</strong> involvement in, national planning processesare paying off in increased <strong>support</strong>.In addition, there is increasing recognition that <strong>HIV</strong>/<strong>AIDS</strong> is not only a major threat todevelopment, but also a threat to peace-building <strong>and</strong> human security in Africa. Thishas resulted in higher levels of political awareness <strong>and</strong> more substantial financial commitments.An additional US$ 180 million in donor funding <strong>for</strong> activities in Africa wasannounced at the historic Security Council meeting in January 2000. The challenge isto ensure that this growing enthusiasm results in a steady increase in concrete <strong>support</strong>to national <strong>HIV</strong>/<strong>AIDS</strong> prevention <strong>and</strong> control programmes – in Africa <strong>and</strong> elsewhere.To do this, emphasis must be placed on building partnerships between donors<strong>and</strong> the most-affected countries. In this way a sense of shared responsibility can becreated both <strong>for</strong> improving prevention <strong>and</strong> care as well as <strong>for</strong> addressing the <strong>for</strong>midable,multifaceted development challenges this epidemic presents.9. Adequate resourcesThe reassignment of national priorities must be reflected in a reallocation of budgets.There are success stories in developing countries where government budgets<strong>for</strong> <strong>AIDS</strong> have been increased significantly; <strong>for</strong> example in Brazil, China, India <strong>and</strong>Thail<strong>and</strong>. At the same time, however, it is a fallacy to assume that because designated<strong>AIDS</strong> funding is limited, so must <strong>AIDS</strong> action be. Effective programmes identifyopportunities to involve partners <strong>with</strong> similar goals <strong>and</strong> objectives, <strong>and</strong> capitalizeon synergies between <strong>AIDS</strong> <strong>and</strong> other programmes. If the action needed <strong>for</strong> riskreduction<strong>and</strong> vulnerability-reduction becomes part of the mainstream of nationallife, direct costs will be less, the benefits will have many spin-offs, <strong>and</strong> programmesare more likely to be sustainable. For example, including in<strong>for</strong>mation on <strong>HIV</strong>/STDs<strong>and</strong> life skills in a school curriculum has only marginal costs, but the resulting decision-making<strong>and</strong> negotiation skills may bring about extra benefits such as declinesin STDs, unwanted pregnancies <strong>and</strong> drug use. Similarly, boosting the educational113
Report on the global <strong>HIV</strong>/<strong>AIDS</strong> epidemic – June 2000<strong>and</strong> economic opportunities of young girls in rural areas not only reduces <strong>HIV</strong> transmissionby providing alternatives to commercial sex, but also contributes to sustainablerural development <strong>and</strong> an improvement in the status of women.Redirecting to <strong>AIDS</strong> existing project resources already programmed <strong>for</strong> social funds,education <strong>and</strong> health projects, infrastructure <strong>and</strong> rural development is fully justified,as the <strong>AIDS</strong> epidemic is undermining the very goals of these other investments.Even though international financial assistance is not always necessary, internationalassistance is crucial in many poor countries <strong>with</strong> limited public budgets.Box 22. Debt reliefSome 95% of <strong>HIV</strong>-infected <strong>people</strong> live in developing countries, most of them in sub-Saharan Africa. And of the 39 so-called heavily indebted poor countries identified bythe World Bank, 32 are in Africa. Together they owe more than US$ 2.2 trillion indebt.Lack of funds <strong>for</strong> an exp<strong>and</strong>ed response to <strong>AIDS</strong> has been worsened by these highlevels of <strong>for</strong>eign indebtedness. Across Africa, national governments pay out fourtimes more in debt service than they spend on health <strong>and</strong> education.In order to mount effective national <strong>AIDS</strong> prevention programmes, countries in Africa willneed to spend at least US$ 1–2 billion a year, far more than is currently being invested.Sources that might be tapped <strong>for</strong> these additional resources include increased donationsfrom the private sector <strong>and</strong> foundations, expansion <strong>and</strong> redirection of developmentassistance, <strong>and</strong> reallocations <strong>with</strong>in countries’ own public budgets.Relieving countries’ debt burden is one of the more promising new approaches thatcould increase the funds flowing into programmes to roll back the <strong>AIDS</strong> epidemic inAfrica. By relieving debt in the poorest countries – which, often, are the ones <strong>with</strong> thehighest <strong>HIV</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>AIDS</strong> figures – money now exported to service debt could be reinvestedinto <strong>AIDS</strong> prevention <strong>and</strong> care.A major initiative to reduce debt over the next few years will take place under theHighly Indebted Poor Country initiative (HIPC), <strong>support</strong>ed by all the major creditorgovernments from the OECD countries <strong>and</strong> implemented by the World Bank <strong>and</strong>International Monetary Fund.In a typical debt relief agreement, portions of a country’s debt will be cancelled inexchange <strong>for</strong> the debtor government’s commitment to mobilize domestic resources<strong>for</strong> specific purposes, such as a poverty eradication scheme or an intensified national<strong>AIDS</strong> ef<strong>for</strong>t.Such transactions have succeeded since the 1980s in the field of environmental conservation,<strong>for</strong> instance, by protecting rain<strong>for</strong>ests from logging.–––>114