The study assessed the experience of sex workers, men who have sex with men, people who use drugs and transgender people in Africa with consultations for the Global Fund, UNAIDS and PEPFAR. An online survey had 99 respondents from 25 African countries, and I spoke with key populations representatives in Cameroon, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Uganda, and Tanzania, as well as a focus group in Malawi. The report was cosponsored and co-authored by AMSHeR, the Africa Sex Workers Alliance, Gender DynamiX, and Transbantu Association Zambia.
42 percent of key populations who responded had been consulted on national HIV strategic plans, 33 percent on Global Fund funding requests, and 19 percent on PEPFAR operational plans
Many complained that consultation was cursory and tokenistic, and few had seen the final plans or budgets to verify whether their input was included
Participation was complex, time-consuming, and unfunded — it often involved taking time off from day jobs, or travel at the respondent’s own expense
Some described retaliation or threats from key actors in their countries if they criticized performance of existing programmes
Despite the challenges, most expressed determination to continue to engage, in order to press for meaningful change.
As we think about future development of mechanisms to manage funds for the Covid-19 response, what works and what does not, it’s important to hear and reflect on these voices. The report includes recommendations, which the report partners discussed in depth with the Global Fund, UNAIDS and PEPFAR at the time.
More broadly, perhaps we should think about a community HIV archive to save reports like these from vanishing…
The politics that shape data creation and utilisation hold the power to construct visibility in global health. This visibility through data – or lack thereof – not only influences what programmes and populations receive support, but ultimately plays a role in shaping who lives and who dies. This is the message at the heart of The Uncounted, which interrogates how quantitative evidence is developed and implemented in global health. Following from an initial article written under the same title three years ago, Sara Davis examines the global fight against HIV/AIDS to both acknowledge the necessity of data in global health and thoughtfully critique how data are gathered, transformed, and operationalised. The resulting book – intended for both scholars and practitioners – finds new meaning against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has underlined the limitations of data utilization in public health policy.
This fifth episode of the Right On Podcast, recorded for the American Anthropological Association annual conference, brings together co-hosts Meg Davis and Ryan Whitacre with medical anthropologist Prof. Cal Biruk and UN Development Programme policy officer Kenechukwu Esom to explore how human rights and quantification collide in the global HIV response.
For decades, the International AIDS Conference has successfully convened a massive biannual meeting, bringing together a diverse community of scientists, researchers, activists and officials, as well as a smattering of celebrities. At a turning point with a battered global strategy and the devastation caused by a second global pandemic, COVID-19, the global AIDS movement has never been in more urgent need of such frank and diverse conversations. Sadly, the conference which launched online this week has never been more divided: while scientists and UN officials gather in the official meeting, AIDS 2020 Virtual, community activists have broken away to hold a parallel conference, HIV 2020.
As the International AIDS Conference holds its first virtual meeting, it’s time to consider the politics that create gaps in data for the fight against HIV, writes Sara L.M. Davis
This year was supposed to be a celebration – the year we reached the milestones set by the UN General Assembly to end HIV by 2030. But as the International AIDS Conference, the world’s largest meeting of HIV scientists, officials and activists, convenes online, it is clear that the world is far off track. Why? Continue reading →
By Sara L. M. Davis, Kenechukwu Esom, Rico Gustav, Allan Maleche, and Mike Podmore
In 1994, when Health and Human Rights was launched by editor Jonathan Mann, it appeared-in print-in a very different world: one in which the internet had just been created, and could only be accessed through dial-up telephone lines paid for by the minute; cell phones were heavy, clunky, and unaffordable for most. Our thinking about health and human rights, formed before the digital age, must now advance to keep pace with its new risks and opportunities. Continue reading →