Global Fund having a Funding Crisis

Many people around the world depend on the funding from the Global Fund to help in the fight against HIV, TB and malaria. This is mainly down to many countries in places like Africa being reluctant to provide the adequate funding be that due to financial or political reasons. In 2009 alone the Global Fund invested $180 million in harm reduction programs in over 42 countries. At least half of AIDS drugs in developing countries are funded from the Global Fund and 85% the African TB program is funded by the Global fund, this however is all in jeopardy.

Round 11 of funding has been cancelled and that means many people could suffer. This is due to a lack of enthusiasm by the core donators meaning that the potential for a long term funding crisis of the Global Fund is on the table. This poses an immediate and imminent threat to the millions of lives who depend on this funding whom are now set to lose out.

The Global Fund is exactly that it is a global fund which is there to help provide the funding needed to prevent diseases. Its funding stretches from Asia to Africa, Africa to Europe and in the past has been singled out as one of the key fighters against HIV, TB and malaria. The fund is not just about providing critical and vital drugs to those that need it but it also about preventing people from getting infected by HIV.

By funding needle exchanges and methadone substitution programs the Global Fund has done what countries were reluctant to do, they have provided the funding needed to create real change. It is only through tackling the vulnerable groups such as IDU’s from the risks of HIV that an epidemic can be stopped and therefore the crucial role of the Global Fund needs to continue.

In Macedonia for instance the Global Fund is presently providing needle exchanges and methadone substitution programs. The fact that many countries still don’t fund their programs themselves and are totally reliant on the help of the Global Funds is firstly shocking but secondly it speaks volumes about the vital and important role that the Global Fund does in education and prevention work.

The Global Fund funds what a country won’t fund be it due to not having the finances or due to a fear that such a policy wouldn’t be ‘popular’. One place where this can be seen is in Eastern Europe where the majority of the funding for harm reduction comes from foreign donors. Programs like Kyrgyzstan’s prison methadone substitution program would not of happened without the funding from the Global Fund and countries such as Ukraine would be even more lacking when it came to methadone substitution if it wasn’t for the Global Fund.

That makes it even more concerning that this funding is at risk the Global Fund has cancelled round 11 of the funding this was supposed to be the money which was supposed to last till 2013. By cancelling this round of funding all the good work done will be in jeopardy, the HIV epidemic which claims 1.8 million a year will get worse and new infections which currently stands at 2.6 million per year will increase.

So why is the Global Fund cutting the money when such terrible consequences are so dire for so many of the 33.3 million living with HIV. It is all to do with the major donors being unwilling or uncertain to provide the funding needed to help the millions in need of help.  Over the next four years the UK has signalled that it will be cutting back on AIDS spending by almost a third whilst in the US Republicans are aggressively lobbying for cuts to the US contribution.

Other countries have frozen their contributions (Germany and Sweden) because of accusations that there is not enough monitoring about how the money is used and therefore open to financial misuse by recipient countries they cite four countries and have demanded an audit. So until a full audit Germany and Sweden’s contribution is frozen, further increasing the Global Funds problems.

Harm Reduction International has issued three demands which it believes is vital to make sure that the effects of this remain as limited as possible. Firstly the Global Fund should mobilise its resources to provide new funding opportunities in 2012, secondly Global Fund donors should deliver on their commitment and finally the Global Fund should hold “an emergency donor conference and issue a new call for proposals before the International AIDS Conference”. All of this is vital if the fight against these three diseases is maintained, without the help methadone substitution and needle exchanges the risk of an HIV epidemic through the IDU population becomes a reality.

Many epidemics start due to the lack of funding for IDU prevention programs and by having this lack of funding an epidemic is not some farfetched scaremongering idea it is something which could become a reality. The governments and other donors around the world need to realise the dangers and not in hindsight realise the stupidity of  they have done.