Press Conference on Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria

Referring to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria as one of the “bright lights” among worldwide efforts launched over the past five years to combat the three deadly diseases, a panel of health experts and United Nations officials today pleaded with donors -- particularly the “Group of Eight” most industrialized countries -- to live up to their promises and provide the necessary resources to keep that vital mechanism going.

Briefing the press on the Fund’s precarious financial state, the panellists stressed that with nearly 400 grants approved to combat HIV and AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, Global Fund-financed programmes were proving that where money was invested, treatment and prevention efforts were working.  With the Fund’s proven and expanding track record as affirmation, they questioned the resolve of those countries that had pledged to support the mechanism, which now faced a resource gap for years 2006 and 2007 that threatened to curtail the momentum of funded programs, as well as funding for new rounds of grants.

Richard Burzynski, Executive Director, International Council of AIDS Service Organizations, introduced the panel and moderated the discussion, which was held as part of the General Assembly’s special three-day High-Level Meeting on AIDS, which wraps up tomorrow.  During the High-Level Meeting –- a review of promises made in 2001 at the Assembly’s twenty-sixth special session, which put forth the first comprehensive plan for combating the disease -- Government officials would seek to craft a document charting a course to provide universal access for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment by 2010.

Javier Hourcade Bellocq, Senior Programme Officer, LAC Team International HIV/AIDS Alliance, said that since the Assembly’s 2001 special session, the Fund had become one of the key mechanisms through which the international community was meeting the priority objectives set out by Member States at that conference; to scale up prevention, treatment, care and support for affected societies.

He said that today, the Fund covered one third of HIV/AIDS treatment, and two thirds of tuberculosis and malaria treatment was covered by Global Fund resources.  Approximately 40 per cent of the Fund’s budget went towards the purchase of medication, through 350 programmes in 131 developing countries.  And there was a unique accountability mechanism in place that assured mandatory participation of communities in the country coordinating mechanisms.

But the Fund’s secretariat and its board spent an enormous amount of time and energy in a yearly “begging exercise” trying to convince donors to live up to their commitments.  And even that wasn’t enough, since currently the Fund was facing the risk of falling short of resources to fund its “round 6” proposal, which the board needed to approve in November.  The next round of funding would be critical for scaling up prevention, treatment and care programmes and for renewing the Fund’s first set of grants, which were coming to an end.

Currently, the Fund supported more than 500,000 people on HIV/AIDS treatment and could, over the next year and a half, scale up to 1.8 million.  But funding round 6 and a new round each year would be the only way to keep the global response on track to achieve the global target of universal access by 2010.  “The need is immediate and it is real”, he said.

Before the Fund, communities hardest hit by AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis only saw “a dark tunnel ahead of them with no light at the end”, said Elizabeth Mataka, Executive Director, Zambia National AIDS Network.  “But we have seen the difference the mechanism has made”, she said, stressing that the numbers of children left without parents had been decreasing because of improvements in survival rates and enhanced quality of life, due to better access to treatment.  Also, people were remaining employed and, therefore, contributing to their countries’ development processes.  In addition, millions of youths had been reached in terms of prevention and marginalized groups such as sex workers were supported by resources from the Fund.

The Fund played a critical role for the hardest hit countries, where rural communities had for the first time been able to put in place programmes that specifically addressed their needs.  “I’d hate to even begin to imagine what would happen the day the Fund failed to meet its commitments”, she said.  The Fund’s continued existence was critical for the survival of the hardest hit communities.  The world had made a commitment.  Momentum had been gained towards universal access and that entire process was at a crossroads if round 6 was not funded this coming November.  Her passionate plea on behalf of millions with no other hope was that the international community keep its promise and keep the Fund going.

The Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, Stephen Lewis, recalled that the Secretary-General and the Executive Director of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) had made the point that the financial shortfalls around the global response to AIDS were ever more significant and calamitous.  “We are facing a $5 billion shortfall for this year, $8 billion next year, $10 billion in 2008, and an overall minimum gap of $23 billion, which, at this time, quite frankly is a scandalous betrayal of the commitments which the G-8 made at Gleneagles last July.”  The test for their commitment and willingness to honour the pledges lay with the Fund, which had become the absolute response to AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria and, as such, must be sustained.

It was almost beyond belief that at this time in 2006, when the Fund had proved itself a thousand times over, the panellists would have to come begging “cap in hand” to say to the media and the world’s most industrialized countries:  “For heaven’s sake, live up to your commitments.”  It had been surprising that the 2005 replenishing conference had failed to meet its target.  Even though everybody thought that the momentum from Gleneagles would wash over that conference, the replenishing conference had fallen short of expectations, generating just over $3 billion in pledges –- far short of the $7 billion goal set by the Secretary-General.

What was happening here?  Where was the sense of crisis?  Why were the major countries of the world still passive and insensitive to the vehicle that was absolutely the most vital response to the pandemic? he asked.  At stake was scaling up by 2010 capacities in countries ravaged by the diseases; the effort to achieve universal access; response to the orphans who were now a torrent in country after country, and response to children living with the virus, only 5 per cent of whom were in treatment among those requiring treatment.  “It is unthinkable that the Fund should even have to make an appeal and a sad commentary on the behaviour of the G-8”, he declared.

Responding to several questions concerning reports that the United States was resisting setting targets in the Meeting’s outcome document, set to be adopted tomorrow, Mr. Lewis said he did not have any sympathy for the United States or any country resisting targets.  Targets were the benchmarks against which progress could be measured.  And without them, “everything was a miasma of abstraction and what use was that?”

“I don’t understand how nations could get a report of the kind UNAIDS had put before them yesterday and still deal with [this crisis] as if it was an endless negotiating process”, he said.

Ms. Mataka said that targets were a necessity chiefly because they were the basis for all financial planning.  The United States and any country that was in sympathy with the effort to curtail targets were simply shying away from their original pledges and commitments to humanity.  “We need every push to influence a change in that kind of thinking”, she said, adding, “We need to know where we stand and where we’re going.  I would really condemn this behaviour.  Any country shying away from targets is not doing justice to the Declaration.”

* *** *

For information media • not an official record