‘Something is rotten in the State of Denmark’ – Shakespeare’s Hamlet
ABC
Anyone who has even a superficial knowledge of HIV/AIDS in Africa will know that Uganda has an almost mythic reputation as a success story in the long war against AIDS. Long before HIV/AIDS became a global issue, years before the international community began trucking in Wells Fargo-loads of cash, encyclopedias of advice and armies of technical advisors, Uganda had embarked upon its own unique national plan.
In 1986 the new Ugandan president, Yoweri Museveni responded to the emerging HIV crisis with the speed and determination that characterized his rise to power and early years as a national ruler. He embarked on a nationwide tour to tell people that avoiding AIDS was a patriotic duty, they should abstain from sex before marriage and then go on to remain faithful to their partners and to use condoms. This message became the underpinning national strategy, known as ABC, Abstinence, Be faithful and use a Condom. The same year, Uganda's Health Minister announced to the World Health Assembly that there was HIV in Uganda, and the first AIDS control program in Uganda was established. It focused on providing safe blood products, and educating people about HIV/AIDS.
Over the next five years the national programme fought an uphill battle against the disease, which had already reached catastrophic levels. Best estimates show that by the early 1990s the national adult prevalence rate peaked at around 15% and exceeded a staggering 30% among pregnant women in the cities. There is no accurate data on mortality rates during this period but they are believed to have been very high. In 1992 the government ramped up its efforts, adopting a multi-sector approach and coordinating the response to it. The strategy appeared to pay off with surprising speed. HIV prevalence in young pregnant women in Uganda began rapidly to decrease. In 1995 Uganda announced what appeared to be declining national trends in HIV prevalence. Over the next five years, the prevalence rates continued to drop. A national program to prevent mother to child transmission, using ARVs was introduced. By 2001 UNAIDS estimated the national prevalence rate to be around 5%.
The government and international agencies attributed this remarkable success to a combination of strong leadership, open national debate and information programs, community-level prevention and treatment programs and a national strategy based on a simple message, ABC. The model and the message has now become the basis of national strategies across sub-Saharan Africa and world-wide.
AB Small c
So where are we today? Put bluntly, the national strategy is in disarray, victim of politics, religious dogma, corruption and public apathy. The crisis began some years ago with a subtle shift in government policy away from ABC towards greater emphasis on ‘A’ – abstinence. Led by President Museveni and his First Lady, government policy and social marketing strategies now stress abstinence as the cornerstone of current HIV/AIDS prevention strategy.
The result is uproar amongst the national and international AIDS activist communities. The rhetoric and action have been neither balanced nor objective. Museveni caused international consternation at the 2004 International AIDS Conference in Bangkok when he argued, policies that promote abstinence and sex within marriage are more effective in preventing AIDS than those which stress condom use. In April 2006 the Ministry of Education issued a directive banning the promotion and distribution of condoms in public schools. Also in 2006 a Human Rights Watch report claimed that information about HIV transmission, safe sex and condom use had been removed from the school curriculum in Uganda and replaced by information emphasizing abstinence.
PEPFAR
The USA is smack in the eye of ‘Hurricane Condom’, specifically the Administration’s pet project the President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (PEPFAR) which aims to provide life-saving drugs to at least two million people with HIV, prevent seven million new infections, and care for the sick and orphaned in 15 countries world-wide. Critics have, from its inception, argued that the initiative is fatally flawed in that it has overtly moral strings attached and is heavily influenced by the views and mores of America’s Christian conservatives. Beneficiaries must emphasize abstinence over condoms and in some cases, condemn prostitution. As one of the first beneficiaries of PEPFAR, Uganda was given $137m for HIV prevention and treatment programmes for 2005 and an additional $170m in 2006. Critics of PEPFAR, both national and international have spent a great deal of energy and resources ensuring the Ugandan media inform the people of this moral agenda.
Matters came to a head in the Fall of 2006 when the Ugandan media launched a string of reports detailing a national shortage of condoms, which they argued had been deliberately precipitated by the government’s nationwide recall of condoms - distributed free in health clinics- on the spurious grounds that they were defective. The debate was further enflamed when the UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, Stephen Lewis, told a world-wide teleconference on AIDS, that Uganda’s policy shift has been influenced by the US government “which is now mainly promoting pro-abstinence programmes and less of condom use”.
The truth is far more complex. The US global AIDS coordinator, Dr. Mark Dybul, has repeatedly stated there is no change in US policy and the current emphasis on abstinence is only to ensure a more balanced ABC strategy, which in the past has mostly focused on condom use. I have no reason to doubt his veracity, but it does not really matter. Perception is reality and there is now widespread belief, in Uganda and elsewhere that the USA is attempting to inject its own moral agenda into the global HIV/AIDS debate. It is using the power of money to do so and its actions threaten to undermine what little progress has been made so far, in mitigating the impact of AIDS in Africa.
Scamming the Global Fund
In October 2006 a team from the Geneva-based Global Fund to Fight Aids, Malaria and Tuberculosis arrived to announce the immediate suspension of all grants to Uganda, after a probe revealed “gross mismanagement of its funds”. A subsequent inquiry, led by a respected Judge, revealed mismanagement and fraud on an epic scale.
The total sum granted by the Fund was $201m over two years. The initial report stated that ‘to date only (my emphasis) $45m had been disbursed’. An initial investigation by outside auditors revealed “financial, procurement, governance and management structure irregularities,” a euphemism for fraud and theft. A few examples illustrate the extent of the mess: about $300,000 was lost by poor management of exchange rates between the dollar and Ugandan shilling and $1m was misdirected from monies meant for the private sector into government departments. “Monies amounting to millions of dollars” were paid to national NGOs and private businesses with little or no record of where the money went or how spent.
Government staff were paid hugely inflated allowances for tasks ranging from out-of-hours photocopying to attending workshops and what are known in local vernacular as ‘trainings’. (I am constantly surprised at how much employees of even small local CBOs know about allowances, the term Per Diem is an essential phrase of Ugandan bureaucratic language.)
My two favorite stories from the inquiry were: One official sent his daughter off to an international program for health education using GF monies. Another official presented a series of suspect receipts for fuel spent on official travel. Such was the level of his incompetence, once receipt was made out to a vehicle whose number plate belonged to a caterpillar tractor.
Whilst I was stunned by the blatant nature of the scamming, I was not surprised by the event. The first time I visited the Ministry of Health Kampala I re-named it the Ministry of Land Cruisers – I counted 56 in the parking lot. At the end of 2006 the MOH failed to organize the purchase of 15m doses of Co-Artem – the new WHO-approved malaria treatment – for which the Global Fund had provided $28m. One national newspaper suggested it was because there was little opportunity for fraud. The Minister of Health and his two deputies were forced to resign but despite public indignation and international irritation, none of the culprits have been brought to book. I have no idea how much if any of the money was ever recovered
Root of All Evil
If there is a moral to these two stories it is the corrosive and corrupting effect of money on people and governments, particularly when it is accompanied by explicit donor agendas and is poured into countries, institutions and communities on a scale which overwhelms existing systems for accounting and distribution. I have heard senior government officials publicly state they believed Uganda would be better off without PEPFAR and Global Fund money, that they did fine before it arrived; they invented ABC without outside help and were controlling the epidemic without huge donor funding. The advent of these two funds alone as spawned over 2,500 local NGOs and CBOs, a new national industry, almost impossible to regulate, which serves more to line the pockets of 'snake- oil' salesmen than tend to the sick and needy.
Shocked, Truly Shocked
Although Ugandans are dismayed at the corruption and mismanagement of HIV/AIDS funds they are equally angry at the donor community. They feel they should be given the money, without strings attached; where there is fraud and waste, they should deal with it. They see more than a little hypocrisy in the international community’s reaction and cite international NGOs dissembling over how they spend donor monies. They have a valid point. I am no expert, but I would guess that if you 'followed the money' from K Street to a Ugandan village, of every dollar that begins its journey, only a few cents arrives. It may not be fraud or waste but it certainly smacks of dysfunctional systems.
But Ugandans reserve their greatest disdain for those ‘aid industry’ experts who express their shock and outrage at local mismanagement and corruption, from the comfort of their luxury offices in Geneva or Washington. On command, they descend in hordes by first class flight to Entebbe, issue injured-sounding rebuttals or scathing criticism from the Sheraton Kampala and jet back to their comfortable homes. Rarely is there an admission that they might be part of the problem. Surely someone in PEPFAR could have predicted the birth of a conspiracy theory over the condom shortage and taken early action? Surely someone in the Global Fund knew at least the rumors surrounding the some of the Ministry of Health staff, particularly the Minister? If not, they only had to read the local newspapers (available online) to get the picture.
Now For Something Completely Different
If, as I have argued, things are so SNAFUd, what is to be done? We cannot keep doing what we have always done and when it shows not to be working simply try harder and throw more money at it. The time has come for original thinking and novel approaches. The key is to reduce the opportunities for misappropriation, get more, of every dollar donated, onto the final target and develop long-term independence by making individual Ugandans responsible for their own health and future.
There are many original thinkers in this part of the world. My favourite is a member of the Ugandan Parliament, the Honourable Mr Madada. He launched a project which offered free university education for virgins. In short, any young women can apply for college education providing she is from Kayunaga District and a virgin, she must prove this by subjecting to a virginity test, the details of which were never made clear. Needless to say the concept failed but at least it was original thinking!
Health Savings Accounts
I offer another ‘out of the box’ idea. Somebody out there give me $1m, no strings attached. I will put it in a Ugandan bank (best exchange rates I can get). I will then advertise for 1,000 volunteers from the class of 2010 at Makrere University. All will be required to undergo an HIV test. The first 1,000 that show negative will have a bank account opened in their name, for the sake of propriety we will call it a ‘health savings account’, containing $900 in Ugandan shillings. The contract will be they remain negative until they graduate. At that time they will be tested again and those still negative will have unrestricted access to their savings account and do whatever they please with both the original sum and the interest accrued. How individuals stay healthy - ABC or any variation thereof - is a personal and private concern. If the project is a success, it will be repeated and widened, dependent on donor interest and funding ( if I had access to the $200m given to Uganda by the Global Fund I could impact on 200,000 people).
I can almost hear the howls of indignation from the politically correct. ‘This concept smacks of bribery, it has no place in respectable social science’. I offer the following for consideration:
Almost certainly more than 1,000 will volunteer; those who are positive will be able to seek treatment and long-term care, the negatives will know their status and adjust their lives accordingly
1,000 ‘at risk’ individuals will be trying to stay out of the ‘risk pool’ for three years (over time, this must have some, albeit mathematically small, impact on infection and prevalence rates)
Money spent on administration will be minimal (much less than the majority of current prevention programs).
Opportunities for mismanagement and misappropriation of funds will be very limited
The capital sum will be available for national investment in the intervening years
On successful completion of the three year term, all monies, the capital sum plus interest accrued, will go directly to the individual, without caveat.
The money saved will most probably be spent or re-invested in-country on an individual basis.
Each individual will be incentivized to make personal decisions regarding their current and future health status. Successful completion of the first period may convince them to maintain healthy behaviour.
Individuals will recognize that they are capable of determining their own future.
I doubt that, at first blush, I have convinced many that this idea is anything more than the crude use of financial reward to manipulate social behaviour. Well, that might be true, but is it any more odious than many current schemes? At least it has no moral strings attached, requires minimum administration and does not lend itself easily to misappropriation. Has anyone out there got a better idea?
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Monday, April 9, 2007
The Elephant in the Sitting Room
Dark Clouds
My search for clues as to how the 20-year conflict in northern Uganda will end, has drawn me back again and again to the IDP camps and the countless children they contain. I have no doubt there will be an end to the LRA and it will be soon. I also think there will be a second and even more chaotic and probably bloody phase as people return to their lands and disputes over ownership lead to community conflict. But that too will eventually be resolved. A far darker and impenetrable cloud looms, not just over the north but the whole of Uganda; one that threatens Uganda’s stated goal, to emerge as a middle-income economy by 2025 and perhaps the very future of the nation: a population growing at a speed that almost beggars the imagination.
It seems counter-intuitive that a country ravaged by war and disease, particularly HIV/AIDS, on the scale that Uganda has suffered for 25 years, would be undergoing a population explosion. It is even less conceivable when viewed against a background of an infant mortality rate of over 70 per 1,000, a maternal mortality rate of almost 500 per 100,000 live births and a life expectancy at birth of around 50 years. But the population is increasing at a rate that should set alarm bells ringing in Kampala - it has doubled in the past 20 years - yet the subject doesn’t figure on the political agenda, academic debate or social discussion. It is the Elephant in the Sitting Room everyone is trying to ignore.
Lampposts
The facts are carefully and unemotionally laid out in a document, Uganda: Population, Reproductive Health and Development: 2005, by the Ugandan Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development. It is a little-known publication, which Google failed to identify in the welter of online articles on youth, gender, HIV and other socio/economic subjects concerning Uganda. I am well aware of the saw, “Statistics is like a lamppost to a drunk. It's there more for support than illumination” but I offer some numbers from the book to underpin my argument.
The Fertility Rate in Uganda (numbers of babies each woman produces in her lifetime) is currently somewhere between 7 and 8, little changed over 30 years. The Replacement Rate (numbers of babies required to sustain a stable population) used in demographic science, is 2.1. All countries in the developed and many in the developing world are close to or below that rate. Neighboring Kenya is about 4 and falling. Nigeria, often cited as a country with a looming population problem is 5.5. The Ugandan population is currently estimated at 29m, if the Fertility Rate continues unchecked the population will double to 60m by 2025. If it halves to 3, the figure will still be a huge 45m by this date. I have found no evidence of a drop in the rate.
Young in a Slum
There is a school of thought that argues population growth on this scale is not all bad and that Africa has traditionally suffered from too small a population to grow a strong internal market. This may be so, but a combination of high birth rates and the ravages of HIV have skewed Uganda’s population. Over 55% of the population is under 16 years, the average age of Uganda is 14 years and a few months. This has short and long-term implications: the child dependency ratio (numbers of child dependents to adults) is 100:100 placing huge strain on working adults and social services, particularly schools and health services. In the long term these children will enter the workplace which currently cannot provide modern-economy jobs for even a fraction of its workforce, estimated as an annual need of 200k. At current predictions there will be a requirement for between 0.5m and 0.75m new jobs a year by 2025, an impossible goal to achieve.
As if this isn’t daunting enough, there is another distortion to the equation, urbanization. The population of the capital, Kampala was 450k in 1980, today its about 1.5m, small by African city standards, but it’s an overcrowded city with over 50% of the population in temporary housing (euphemism for slums). If the present rate of urbanization of 7% continues unchanged (the trend throughout Africa is upwards) at the current rate of population growth, Kampala will be a huge 3.5m by 2025 (and double its current size to 2.8m if this rate halves). Nationwide, the estimated increase in urbanization - to 18.5m by 2025 - will require another 12 “new Kampalas” to be built in less than two decades. Population growth halved will still need 9 “new Kampalas”. It is hard to imagine how the country could develop housing, infrastructure and power for 9 or more new cities in less than 20 years
Contraception and Culture
During my investigations, I discovered amongst all the troubling predictions, a startling fact: in Uganda, research shows 35% of married women currently want to space or limit their births but are not using contraceptives. There is no data on unmarried women who do not want to get pregnant but don’t use contraception but it would be a fair guess that the figure is even higher. The UNFPA estimates the overall ‘contraceptive prevalence’ as less than 20%. Why this unmet need exists is difficult to discern but appears to be a mixture of government complacency - it has not identified high population growth as a critical threat to development, traditional culture – family planning has never been a cultural practice, and the attitudes and moral teaching of religious organizations and faith-based groups, which fundamentally disapprove of contraception or believe that freely available contraceptives - particularly condoms for the unmarried - promotes promiscuity, with increased risk of unwanted pregnancies and HIV.
More recently the Government, led by the President and First Lady, have been overtly manipulating the long-standing A(bstinence) B(e faithful) C(ondoms) approach to HIV prevention by placing greater influence on AB and less on condom use. The result has included a nation-wide shortage of condoms, which must have impacted upon their availability for contraceptive use.
Marketplace Morality
There has been much talk about the undue influence of the US in this domestic turmoil, particularly condom availability. Matters came to a head when the UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, Stephen Lewis, told a world-wide teleconference on AIDS, Uganda’s policy shift has been influenced by the US government “which is now mainly promoting pro-abstinence programmes and less of condom use”. Dr. Mark Dybul, the US global AIDS co-coordinator, rebutted the charge, stating there was no change in US policy, current emphasis on abstinence is only to ensure a more balanced ABC strategy.
Research suggests Dr Dybul is being economical with the truth. USAID policy and procurement regulations for contraceptives, including condoms for HIV prevention, for foreign aid projects can be found at ADS 312.5.3d of the organization’s procurement manual. The key words amongst all the jargon are: “Source/Origin and Nationality - Contraceptive products shall meet the requirements for U.S. source, origin and nationality”. In other words recipients of US funding for both reproductive health and HIV prevention programs must buy American. Maybe the US government indeed has no hidden moral agenda for shaping Ugandan reproductive health policy, unless you count the morality of the marketplace. But the effect of such blatant trade protectionism can only be to limit availability of reproductive health resources to Uganda and elsewhere, by denying access to cheaper, equally high-standard generic contraceptives on the global market.
Rearranging the Deckchairs
Whereas Uganda, as a sovereign state, does not welcome overt outside interference in domestic policies, the very disturbing scenario I have described for Uganda’s population and development must surely impact upon national and, in turn, regional security. Given that the USA, as one of Uganda’s largest aid donors, has much influence on national issues, it seems sensible foreign policy for the US government to offer guidance and resources to help Uganda limit the worst effects of its rapid population growth. To do otherwise is to do no more than help the Ugandans rearrange the deckchairs on their personal Titanic.
My search for clues as to how the 20-year conflict in northern Uganda will end, has drawn me back again and again to the IDP camps and the countless children they contain. I have no doubt there will be an end to the LRA and it will be soon. I also think there will be a second and even more chaotic and probably bloody phase as people return to their lands and disputes over ownership lead to community conflict. But that too will eventually be resolved. A far darker and impenetrable cloud looms, not just over the north but the whole of Uganda; one that threatens Uganda’s stated goal, to emerge as a middle-income economy by 2025 and perhaps the very future of the nation: a population growing at a speed that almost beggars the imagination.
It seems counter-intuitive that a country ravaged by war and disease, particularly HIV/AIDS, on the scale that Uganda has suffered for 25 years, would be undergoing a population explosion. It is even less conceivable when viewed against a background of an infant mortality rate of over 70 per 1,000, a maternal mortality rate of almost 500 per 100,000 live births and a life expectancy at birth of around 50 years. But the population is increasing at a rate that should set alarm bells ringing in Kampala - it has doubled in the past 20 years - yet the subject doesn’t figure on the political agenda, academic debate or social discussion. It is the Elephant in the Sitting Room everyone is trying to ignore.
Lampposts
The facts are carefully and unemotionally laid out in a document, Uganda: Population, Reproductive Health and Development: 2005, by the Ugandan Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development. It is a little-known publication, which Google failed to identify in the welter of online articles on youth, gender, HIV and other socio/economic subjects concerning Uganda. I am well aware of the saw, “Statistics is like a lamppost to a drunk. It's there more for support than illumination” but I offer some numbers from the book to underpin my argument.
The Fertility Rate in Uganda (numbers of babies each woman produces in her lifetime) is currently somewhere between 7 and 8, little changed over 30 years. The Replacement Rate (numbers of babies required to sustain a stable population) used in demographic science, is 2.1. All countries in the developed and many in the developing world are close to or below that rate. Neighboring Kenya is about 4 and falling. Nigeria, often cited as a country with a looming population problem is 5.5. The Ugandan population is currently estimated at 29m, if the Fertility Rate continues unchecked the population will double to 60m by 2025. If it halves to 3, the figure will still be a huge 45m by this date. I have found no evidence of a drop in the rate.
Young in a Slum
There is a school of thought that argues population growth on this scale is not all bad and that Africa has traditionally suffered from too small a population to grow a strong internal market. This may be so, but a combination of high birth rates and the ravages of HIV have skewed Uganda’s population. Over 55% of the population is under 16 years, the average age of Uganda is 14 years and a few months. This has short and long-term implications: the child dependency ratio (numbers of child dependents to adults) is 100:100 placing huge strain on working adults and social services, particularly schools and health services. In the long term these children will enter the workplace which currently cannot provide modern-economy jobs for even a fraction of its workforce, estimated as an annual need of 200k. At current predictions there will be a requirement for between 0.5m and 0.75m new jobs a year by 2025, an impossible goal to achieve.
As if this isn’t daunting enough, there is another distortion to the equation, urbanization. The population of the capital, Kampala was 450k in 1980, today its about 1.5m, small by African city standards, but it’s an overcrowded city with over 50% of the population in temporary housing (euphemism for slums). If the present rate of urbanization of 7% continues unchanged (the trend throughout Africa is upwards) at the current rate of population growth, Kampala will be a huge 3.5m by 2025 (and double its current size to 2.8m if this rate halves). Nationwide, the estimated increase in urbanization - to 18.5m by 2025 - will require another 12 “new Kampalas” to be built in less than two decades. Population growth halved will still need 9 “new Kampalas”. It is hard to imagine how the country could develop housing, infrastructure and power for 9 or more new cities in less than 20 years
Contraception and Culture
During my investigations, I discovered amongst all the troubling predictions, a startling fact: in Uganda, research shows 35% of married women currently want to space or limit their births but are not using contraceptives. There is no data on unmarried women who do not want to get pregnant but don’t use contraception but it would be a fair guess that the figure is even higher. The UNFPA estimates the overall ‘contraceptive prevalence’ as less than 20%. Why this unmet need exists is difficult to discern but appears to be a mixture of government complacency - it has not identified high population growth as a critical threat to development, traditional culture – family planning has never been a cultural practice, and the attitudes and moral teaching of religious organizations and faith-based groups, which fundamentally disapprove of contraception or believe that freely available contraceptives - particularly condoms for the unmarried - promotes promiscuity, with increased risk of unwanted pregnancies and HIV.
More recently the Government, led by the President and First Lady, have been overtly manipulating the long-standing A(bstinence) B(e faithful) C(ondoms) approach to HIV prevention by placing greater influence on AB and less on condom use. The result has included a nation-wide shortage of condoms, which must have impacted upon their availability for contraceptive use.
Marketplace Morality
There has been much talk about the undue influence of the US in this domestic turmoil, particularly condom availability. Matters came to a head when the UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, Stephen Lewis, told a world-wide teleconference on AIDS, Uganda’s policy shift has been influenced by the US government “which is now mainly promoting pro-abstinence programmes and less of condom use”. Dr. Mark Dybul, the US global AIDS co-coordinator, rebutted the charge, stating there was no change in US policy, current emphasis on abstinence is only to ensure a more balanced ABC strategy.
Research suggests Dr Dybul is being economical with the truth. USAID policy and procurement regulations for contraceptives, including condoms for HIV prevention, for foreign aid projects can be found at ADS 312.5.3d of the organization’s procurement manual. The key words amongst all the jargon are: “Source/Origin and Nationality - Contraceptive products shall meet the requirements for U.S. source, origin and nationality”. In other words recipients of US funding for both reproductive health and HIV prevention programs must buy American. Maybe the US government indeed has no hidden moral agenda for shaping Ugandan reproductive health policy, unless you count the morality of the marketplace. But the effect of such blatant trade protectionism can only be to limit availability of reproductive health resources to Uganda and elsewhere, by denying access to cheaper, equally high-standard generic contraceptives on the global market.
Rearranging the Deckchairs
Whereas Uganda, as a sovereign state, does not welcome overt outside interference in domestic policies, the very disturbing scenario I have described for Uganda’s population and development must surely impact upon national and, in turn, regional security. Given that the USA, as one of Uganda’s largest aid donors, has much influence on national issues, it seems sensible foreign policy for the US government to offer guidance and resources to help Uganda limit the worst effects of its rapid population growth. To do otherwise is to do no more than help the Ugandans rearrange the deckchairs on their personal Titanic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
