Is harm reduction funding in low and middle income countries in crisis?
description
Transcript of Is harm reduction funding in low and middle income countries in crisis?
Is harm reduction funding in low and middle income countries in crisis?Susie McLean, International HIV/AIDS AllianceCatherine Cook, Harm Reduction InternationalJamie Bridge, International Drug Policy Consortium
2
‘Given the severity of the challenge, HIV prevention programming for people who inject drugs is badly under-resourced’ UNAIDS 2013
3
Harm reduction – low coverage
4
Harm reduction – how much money is needed?
5
• Difficult to know• Government reports to
UNAIDS don’t disaggregate• International donors not
making investment information available
• Differences in budget disaggregation
Harm reduction – how much is being spent?
6
National governments
• Domestic investment in HIV is increasing
• BUT investment in harm reduction not reflected in this trend
• Priority countries: less than 5% of HIV investment
Harm reduction – how much is being spent?
7
The political unpopularity of harm reduction
8
Harm reduction – dependent on international donors
9
People who inject drugs and the need for harm reduction – in middle income countries
10
Global Fund investments in harm reduction R1-R10 (2002 – 2010)
11
• 58 countries have received $ for harm reduction previously
• 41% (24) now ineligible or will receive no new $
• Only 10 countries (5 MIC) are eligible for ‘incentive funding’ or funding for ‘critical enablers’
• More than half MICs “over-allocated”
• Downward trend?
Global Fund New Funding Model – bad news for harm reduction?
12
• DFID bilateral funding for harm reduction - reducing dramatically
• Australian Government funding - unknown
• Dutch Government funding – maintaining their commitment
• PEPFAR funding – national ownership and technical support rather than programming
International donor trends – away from harm reduction
13PEPFAR spending on HIV prevention for people who use drugs in 2011. Analysis on PEPFAR spending 2009-2012 conducted by George Washington University in 2013, commissioned by AmfAR (unpublished)
14
1. Keep the Global Fund global
• New indicators to determine allocations – Inequalities– Willingness to pay– Policy barriers– Transitions to domestic
funding
• Fully funded Global Fund no-one left behind
15
International donors- Invest where national
governments won’t/can’t- Responsible exit strategies- Influence national governments
UN agencies- Improve data on harm reduction
need, coverage and investment
2. Invest strategically in harm reduction
16
National governments:
Fund national harm reduction programmes- sustainability
Address stigma related to HIV & drug use - public debate - attitudes of decision makers
3. Increase national harm reduction investment
17
National governments:- Cost effectiveness analyses. Is
drug control value for money?- Estimate resource needs for HIV
and harm reduction and rebalance towards health
International donors:- Work together to define and commit
to an international target for harm reduction investment
Rebalance resources From drug control and criminalisation to health and harm reduction
18
www.ihra.net
http://supportdontpunish.org