Title

Where will resources come from to end AIDS?

Code

TUSY03

Session Type

Symposia Session

Venue

Elicium 1

Date Time

Tuesday 24 July, 11:00 - 12:30

Chair:

Kieran Daly, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, United States

The session will explore the dynamics in funding for AIDS in rapidly shifting international development and domestic resources and political landscapes. The aim of the session will be to give a clear picture of the long-term investment estimates for an effective AIDS response and challenge: where the money comes from, by whom and how it is allocated. The session will bring together the voices and perspective of civil society, donors, implementers, and governments in their efforts to ensure sustainability (including within transitioning contexts). Moreover, when civic space is being challenged in many places, NGO’s social contracting is a vital strategy for delivery of HIV and health services, ensuring adequate resources for civil society, and reaching key populations. The session will explore not only what resources are needed, but also identify barriers and solutions to ensure that the role of civil society is resourced: as advocates, watchdog, and service providers.

11:00 TUSY0301	Welcome and introduction Kieran Daly, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, United States

11:05 TUSY0302	Setting the context for the resource needs and sources to end AIDS Alistair Burt, Minister of State for International Development and Minister of State for the Middle East at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, United Kingdom

11:10 TUSY0303	The international development aid landscape of today (beyond AIDS) Peter Sands, The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, Switzerland

11:18 TUSY0304	If community responses are integral to the AIDS response, where is the money for civil society? Raoul Fransen, International Civil Society Support (ICSS), Netherlands, Netherlands

11:26 TUSY0305	Comprehensive HIV response under sustainable development era, WHO European Region’s perspective Zsuzsanna Jakab, World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe (WHO), Denmark	Slides

11:34 TUSY0306	Domestic funding for AIDS: the pros, cons, risks and opportunities Raminta Stuikyte, Lithuania

11:42 TUSY0307	How to translate the multisectorality of AIDS to a multisectoral budget (at national level) Ines Perea, Federal Ministry of Health, Germany	PDF

11:50 TUSY0308	Role of the private sector in resourcing the AIDS response Paul Stoffels, Johnson & Johnson, Belgium	Slides

11:55 TUSY0309	Moderated discussion with the audience

12:25 TUSY0310	Concluding remarks Kieran Daly, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, United States

AUTHOR

Matthew Quaife

SUMMARY

Arguably the biggest question facing us at AIDS 2018, whether we work in a lab, brothel, or government office, is who pays. This was a panel of ministerial and multilateral funder big-hitters, including Alistair Burt of UK’s DfID, Zsusana Jakob of the WHO, and Peter Sands of the Global Fund.

HIGHLIGHTS

Alistair Burt of DfID noted that the UK is transitioning from bilateral funding, but increasing support for civil society and multilateral investments, with a focus on the poorest countries. Peter Sands of the Global Fund talked on squeezing the most impact of every dollar, and tackling the intertia in ODA allocation to argue for more funding for health over other causes. Zsuzsanna Jakab of the WHO noted Europe’s MDR TB rates and called for integrated care in strong and sustainable health system moving towards UHC. Raminta Stuikyte noted how the Ukraine had reduced spending inefficiencies by 40%, focusing on reducing the prices paid for drugs and kickbacks. Finally, Ines Perea noted that Germany integrated response has included key populations from the start and has seen genuine success, and Paul Stoffels hailed advances in science, calling for investment in R&D to give people products that they can use well.

CRITICAL ASSESSMENT

My takeaway from this session is that it’s not just about money – it’s political issues, including migration and human rights that need tackling too. All speakers mentioned domestic financing – co-financing in particular, but there was not much discussion of the pros and cons of this. There was a real sense from Global Fund and DfID in particular that co-financed programmes are important to continued support (“the power of holding the chequebook”). Finally, it was clear that we need resources to reach key populations, but also mechanisms to transfer funds to those who need to – likely NGOs.