PRESS CONFERENCE BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS OF UNAIDS, GLOBAL FUND

The high-level review of progress toward the targets set out in the 2001 Declaration on HIV/AIDS was a turning point that would turn out to be either just more talk or would make the great difference in global response to the epidemic, the Executive Director of UNAIDS, Peter Piot, said this afternoon at a Headquarters press conference.

Also taking part was Richard Feachum, Executive Director of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

Continuing, Dr. Piot said the impact of the 2001 special session had been palpable.  After adoption of the commitment, funding for the campaign against the spread of the disease had gone up, as had the political commitment, with 40 Heads of State returning home to personally take charge of implementing action plans.  A concrete course of action had been laid out and had opened the door for massive civil society participation.

Now, five years later, he said the attitude to hold, with regard to the high-level review, was that the response since the commitment was “good, but not good enough” to reach the goal of universal access by the year 2010.  To bring the response up to par at this turning point, participants must recognize that HIV/AIDS was not a short-term crisis.  The outcome document, to be adopted at the conclusion of the event, should set out a clear financial commitment and a clear set of the next goals.  It should reaffirm the commitment to “universal access”.

Mr. Feachum said the special session had proved that commitment was important, but not enough.  The scope of the crisis required massive amounts of funding.  The Secretary-General had envisioned a “war chest” the Assembly had called on the world community to fill, including by UNAIDS, the World Health Organization (WHO) and other sister institutions.  The Fund had started four years ago with nothing.  It was scaling up every year.  The budget was now $3 billion, and was climbing towards a “cruising altitude” of up to $10 million to carry out its activities.  During its existence, $5 billion had been distributed to 130 countries around the world, through a funding programme that ensured the money was targeted to make the greatest impact against the spread of the disease.  The Fund was now making a real difference.

In the past six months, he explained, the Fund had supported the antiretroviral treatment of 544,000 people around the world, which was a 40 per cent increase over the number receiving it before, and meant 10 to 20 years in the life span of those receiving treatment.  It had also had an impact on the situation of orphans, since the aim of treatment was to keep parents alive.  With the Fund’s resources, 4 million people had received counselling or treatment for AIDS.  Another 1.4 million had been treated for tuberculosis, a disease associated with AIDS.

Citing successful Fund activities in Lesotho, Rwanda and the United Republic of Tanzania, he said the antiretroviral medication being distributed was an Indian-made generic drug that was easily taken twice a day and cost $140 per person, per year, to control the virus and prolong life.  All that was needed to keep up the present momentum on combating the disease was for wealthy countries to make a 10-year commitment to the Fund and its targets for “prevention, testing and treatment” efforts.

He said a sustained reliable financial structure for Fund activities was key to achieving the Declaration targets.  The planning allowed by the year-to-year nature of donations to the Fund at present were not enough to effectively “scale up” the programmes that were working.  Donations had to be both bigger and longer term to carry the Fund through the 2015 target date.  Round VI in the funding of grants was about to begin, with a $900 million shortfall in the $3 billion annual budget, which was enough to continue working, but not enough to scale up programmes.

Noting the shortfall in contributions relative to what was needed, a correspondent asked whether the system of voluntary contributions was failing.   Should a funding system based on burden sharing be introduced? he asked.  Dr. Piot said the estimate of costs for a year included a scaling-up factor for successful projects, such as had been funded in the Russian Federation, China and South Africa.  The source of contributions to the Fund was also used as an indicator of effectiveness.  Last year, for example, one third of the contributions to the Fund had come from developing countries, which was an indication of their ownership in addressing the situation.  Also showing ownership for finding a solution were the civil society investors.

In response to questions about Fund efficacy and reported mismanagement in some countries, Mr. Feachum said grants were awarded by the Fund according to the highest standards of accounting practice, based on two criteria.  The first was performance; if a project was not having an impact, the grant money was reallocated.  The second was related to measures against funds being misappropriated for corrupt purposes.  Funding had been terminated in Ukraine and Uganda, upon the finding of corruption, and in Myanmar and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, where financial accountability could not be ascertained.  Finding ways to enforce accountability was part of the scaling-up aspect of distributing Fund grants.

Dr. Piot added that the termination of funding to a country sent shockwaves throughout the region, as neighbours realized they would suffer from the action.  Administering the Fund in a manner consistent with the highest accountability was not easy in post-conflict countries.  A basket fund had been set up to help non-governmental organizations in countries where accountability could not be ensured overall.

Was the target year of 2010 for universal access a real goal or just a concrete number to provide incentive for the effort? a correspondent asked.  Dr. Piot clarified that the term “universal access” was a broader term, not meant to suggest that each person, at every location, would be treated by then.  Also, the testing and treatment parts of the target were easier to achieve than prevention, where progress would be slower for political reasons.  Finally, progress toward the target varied from one country to another, with enough progress in places like Latin America to consider it being almost “there”, while Uganda was 60 per cent “there”.  Russia and China were expending a lot of their own taxpayers’ money on the effort.

Also, Mr. Feachum added, progress to this point indicated that some countries, like Russia, Lesotho and Rwanda, would certainly meet the target, while Tanzania would need additional support to do so.  Adequate and sustained financing to scale up activities that were already succeeding was one key to making the difference.  Another was the continued commitment of civil society to the effort, including through innovative financing measures.  That included an airline levy to be launched soon by France.  The International Finance Facility being discussed, under the leadership of Great Britain’s Exchequer, was another.  Finally, the increased participation of the private sector was an important source of funding.  A “red campaign” had been launched on behalf of the Global Fund.  A red American Express card was already available in the United Kingdom, as were a pair of red Armani sunglasses.  Those not only contributed a portion of profits to the effort, but also showed solidarity with others involved in it.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record