Development & Aid, Europe, Global, Global Geopolitics, Headlines, Health, Poverty & SDGs

G8: 'Investment In Health Is Effective Aid'

Interview with Jon Lidén of the Global Fund To Fight AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis

GENEVA, Jul 3 2008 (IPS) - Japan wants next week's summit of seven major western industrial nations and Russia (G8) to urge the international community to push towards combating HIV/AIDS. It sees this as a critical objective of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that are meant to be achieved by 2015.

Jon Lidén Credit:

Jon Lidén Credit:

Health, water and education will draw the focus of the G8 countries (Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Japan, Canada and the United States) "but the health issue which is considered to be the most off track of the eight MDGs" will top in that context, a senior Japanese foreign ministry official said Thursday.

Eight years ago, at the G8 summit in Okinawa, Japan placed HIV/AIDS on the global agenda, paving the road to the establishment of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis in January 2002.

IPS European director Ramesh Jaura talked to Jon Lidén, Director Communications of the Fund last week in Geneva.

Some excerpts from the interview:

IPS: Where does the Global Fund stand on the threshold of the G8 summit in Hokkaido Toyako? And, where does Japan stand with its contributions?


Jon Lidén (JN): Let me first point out that the Global Fund has committed 10.7 billion dollars in 136 countries to support aggressive interventions against all three diseases. The Fund provides some 20 percent of international resources to fight AIDS, as well as two-thirds of international funding to fight tuberculosis, and three-quarters of international funding to fight malaria.

Now Japan. In May this year, the Japanese government pledged 560 million dollars to the Global Fund, in addition to 184 million dollars that it has already contributed to the Fund in 2008. It is not insignificant amounts of money. Given that the Japanese official development assistance (ODA) generally has either been stagnant or reduced over the past years, we see it as a very encouraging sign. In that sense we are very pleased. But if we look at the global needs they are much higher. Japan is a very strong player in world economy, and Japan could do more. But this is a very academic discussion. What we are looking at is what is realistic for Japan, given its domestic political restraints.

IPS: What about the others in G8? Are they providing the amount of contributions you would expect them to?

JL: It varies a bit. The United States is of course in the process of re-authorising the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The 50 billion dollars portfolio will have a substantial contribution to the Global Fund. The U.S. will be living up to its commitments, if they manage to re-authorise, which I am sure they will.

IPS: What about the European countries?

JL: There has been a relative shift towards health that has been proportionally bigger than the growth in ODA (official development assistance) in the past decade. A lot of that has been channelled through the Global Fund. I think we can take credit for some of that increase. Because had the Global Fund not been there, there would not have been such an increase. Because we have shown that investments in health is effective ODA. You are aware of the debate about the effectiveness of aid all these years. When it comes to health, the answer is an unequivocal yes, and certainly the way it is invested through the Global Fund.

IPS: Has this increase been commensurate with the needs?

JL: Certainly it has not been commensurate with the needs. But a lot of these investments came as a result of personal commitments of leaders of European democracies. Tony Blair (former British prime minister) and (Jacques) Chirac (former French president), for example, were committed to fight AIDS. (Silvio) Berlusconi (Italian Prime Minister) jumped on the bandwagon and Italy has been a strong investor. Spain provided the largest increase in its contribution to the Global Fund last year…There is a great challenge for us to encourage the European governments to maintain the level of investment in health. Particularly in view of what is coming up: global warming, food crisis, petrol crisis…The short answer is: No. Nobody is doing enough. But there has been a trend towards the positive and we need to maintain that.

IPS: Where does Germany stand?

JL: Up to a few years ago, Germany was very low key. But last year it hosted the replenishment conference of donors of the Global Fund; Germany turned around to become one of the biggest donors of the Global Fund. Its increase in health spending also went to the Global Fund. Germany also took a very innovative step last month by way of a debt swap initiative called 'Debt2Health' to the benefit of initiative.

Debt2Health is a new financing instrument which helps increase domestic spending on health in Indonesia by 25 million euros (some 39.6 million dollars). It functions similar to a debt swap: Germany has agreed to cancel 50 million euros (some 79 million dollars) of Indonesian debt while the latter has agreed to invest half of that amount in public health programs in Indonesia supported by the Global Fund.

So we do feel that we have a strong ally in Germany. But, then again, it is a question of personal commitments of politicians. So there is nothing we can take for given.

IPS: Is something similar to that in the case of Indonesia in the pipeline?

JL: We are discussing with Australia and several other countries for Debt2Helath initiatives, and we expect announcements. Countries such as Pakistan and Peru might benefit from that.

IPS: But isn't that some kind of a trick to raise the ODA level, ODA as percentage of the Gross National Income (GNI)?

JL: I wouldn't say it is a trick because first of all this is debt that is serviced. You have to find countries that have debts to a public sector lender. Such debts have to be substantial. If you cancel an un-serviced debt, it is just a paper transaction. Nobody pays, nobody gains. This is money that would go from the Indonesian government back to Germany had it not been for this deal where money goes from Indonesia back into the Indonesian health programme. So that is a net gain.

IPS: Was it Germany's own idea?

JL: No. It was a Global Fund idea – with the help of the Gates Foundation. But the concept itself originated in the Global Fund. Debt conversions are not new. What is new is to use an international institution as a middleman in converting debt.

 
Republish | | Print |


sonu bedi