Report on the Global HIV/AIDS epidemic

National responses to the epidemic: factors that make a difference

om donors are encouraging. For example, funding by
AI V/AIDS activities increased by US$ 65 million in 2000
ch as an additional US$ 100 million in 2001. The donor
'artnership Against AIDS in Africa has also been posiive - the objectives of which are to curtail the spread
uman suffering and halt the reversal of social and eco- includes donors as one of its five key constituencies.
itries are participating in all phases of its development,
ig of, and involvement in, national planning processes

In addition, there is increasing recognition that HIV/AIDS is not only a major threat to
development, but also a threat to peace-building and human security in Africa. This
has resulted in higher levels of political awareness and more substantial financial commitments. An additional US$ 180 million in donor funding for activities in Africa was
announced at the historic Security Council meeting in January 2000. The challenge is
to ensure that this growing enthusiasm results in a steady increase in concrete support to national HIV/AIDS prevention and control programmes - in Africa and elsewhere. To do this, emphasis must be placed on building partnerships between donors
and the most-affected countries. In this way a sense of shared responsibility can be
created both for improving prevention and care as well as for addressing the formidable, multifaceted development challenges this epidemic presents.
9. Adequate resources
The reassignment of national priorities must be reflected in a reallocation of budgets. There are success stories in developing countries where government budgets
for AIDS have been increased significantly; for example in Brazil, China, India and
Thailand. At the same time, however, it is a fallacy to assume that because designated AIDS funding is limited, so must AIDS action be. Effective programmes identify opportunities to involve partners with similar goals and objectives, and capitalize on synergies between AIDS and other programmes. If the action needed for riskreduction and vulnerability-reduction becomes part of the mainstream of national
life, direct costs will be less, the benefits will have many spin-offs, and programmes
are more likely to be sustainable. For example, including information on HIV/STDs
and life skills in a school curriculum has only marginal costs, but the resulting decision-making and negotiation skills may bring about extra benefits such as declines
in STDs, unwanted pregnancies and drug use. Similarly, boosting the educational

113