Is harm reduction funding in low and middle income countries in crisis? Susie McLean, International HIV/AIDS Alliance Catherine Cook, Harm Reduction International.

Is harm reduction funding in low and middle income countries in crisis?

Susie McLean, International HIV/AIDS Alliance

Catherine 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 Analysis on PEPFAR spending 2009-2012 conducted by George Washington University in 2013, commissioned by AmfAR (unpublished)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