Why consider HIV/AIDS separately?
32. We have made the point that HIV/AIDS is now primarily
a disease of the poor. HIV/AIDS must be 'mainstreamed' in all
development work. It is not, however, enough simply to tackle
HIV/AIDS within a broad anti-poverty strategy, or even within
a sexual and reproductive health strategy. By itself such mainstreaming
will not be sufficient to reverse the spread and impact of the
epidemic. A distinct HIV/AIDS strategy is also necessary. To understand
why we must consider the peculiarities of the disease and epidemic.
Some are biological. One fact of great significance is that a
person infected with HIV may well be asymptomatic for ten years
or so. During that time, however, he or she is capable of infecting
others with the virus. Thus, by the time that large numbers are
visibly ill, many others may well be infected. The fact that HIV
is asymptomatic for so long means that it is easy to be unaware
of one's condition. UNAIDS estimates that only 5 per cent of HIV-positive
people in the world know of their condition.[21]
33. The 'invisibility' of HIV/AIDS is then exacerbated
by the stigma and denial attached to it. HIV/AIDS is not only
a biological phenomenon but a behavioural and cultural one. Even
where testing facilities are available to learn whether or not
one is HIV-positive, relatively few wish to know. HIV/AIDS carries
a stigma quite unlike any other disease because it is
about sex, because there has been an association with traditionally
stigmatised behaviour such as homosexuality or drug use, because
there is no known cure. This affects the willingness to know of
one's condition, the ability to discuss openly sexual behaviour
and how best to avoid infection, the treatment of those known
to be HIV-positive. This in turn has an effect on the continuing
spread of the disease.
34. Denial is further assisted by the fact that "HIV
does not cause a single, specific fatal disease; instead, individuals
whose immune system has been weakened by the virus fall prey to
infections and ailments that may look familiar in their community.
In other words, people who do not want to accept the reality or
gravity of AIDS can find all sorts of ways of questioning whether
it is as bad as the data from surveillance suggests".[22]
35. Dealing with HIV/AIDS means dealing with the
most intimate aspects of human behaviour, with stigma and denial,
with the promotion of human rights, with the multifaceted nature
of poverty. DFID officials agreed that such behavioural and rights
issues demanded a distinct approach. Dr Julian Lob-Levyt said,
"In the absence of a vaccine, in the absence of affordable
and effective drugs, it is about social change which is going
to enable people to protect themselves better".[23]
Paul Ackroyd from DFID added, "[HIV/AIDS] does raise very
sensitive social issues which make it very much more difficult
to talk about than it is to talk about malaria or TB or those
diseases which do not have that emphasis".[24]
36. In addition to the nature and sensitivity of
the epidemic, it is its scale which requires particular attention
and strategic thinking. Dr Julian Lob-Levyt explained that "What
is qualitatively different is the size of the problem which requires
that we have a particular attention and focus to it within [the
poverty and development agenda] and that it does actually need
substantial resources to make a difference. We are going to be
looking for more resources and greater political commitment within
that poverty and development agenda to address the HIV needs".[25]
37. Even with a separate HIV/AIDS strategy it may
well be the case that many of the interventions and much of the
funding is through mainstreamed programmes. The HIV/AIDS strategy
should ensure, however, that HIV/AIDS, with its distinctive challenges,
is explicitly, specifically and coherently addressed. We consider
that a distinct HIV/AIDS strategy is essential for all donors
of official development assistance and for all countries affected
by the epidemic.
Two crises, not one
38. Our Report does not only argue that HIV/AIDS
requires particular and urgent consideration. We also believe
that there are in fact two inextricably linked but distinct crises
facing us. First, there is the crisis of a global HIV/AIDS epidemic,
with the tragedy of unnecessary deaths, bereavements, illness,
and impoverishment that the disease brings in its train. Secondly,
however, there is sub-Saharan Africa with its appalling levels
of prevalence. As we will show in the next section of this Report,
the levels of HIV infection are so high in many sub-Saharan
African countries that there is a real danger of the collapse
of systems and infrastructures, the erosion of the state, and
the reversal of all recent gains made in development. Such deterioration
would make effective action against the epidemic almost impossible.
We do not believe that the international community has as yet
fully grasped the scale and seriousness of this African HIV/AIDS
crisis, nor that they are agreed on how to address it.
10 Q.111 Back
11
Human Development Report 2000 p.197 Back
12
UNAIDS June 2000 Report p.44 Back
13
UNAIDS June 2000 Report p.37 Back
14
UNAIDS June 2000 Report p.47 Back
15
Seventh Report from the International Development Committee, Session
1998-99, Women and Development, HC 160 Back
16
Seventh Report from the International Development Committee, Session
1998-99, Women and Development, HC 160, Executive Summary Back
17
African Development Indicators 2001 The World Bank pp.282-303 Back
18
Q.18 Back
19
UNAIDS AIDS epidemic update: December 2000 p.14 Back
20
UNAIDS June 2000 Report p.37 Back
21
Q.468 Back
22
UNAIDS June 2000 Report p.38 Back
23
Q.23 Back
24
Q.23 Back
25
Q.22 Back