Lessons Learned from Ebola

~Written by Kelly Ann Hanzlik (Contact: kelly_hanzlik@hotmail.com)

According to the World Health Organization, 28,616 people contracted Ebola and 11,310 lives were lost during the Ebola epidemic. After so many lives lost and the hopeful, but understandably tentative countdown of Ebola free days continues once again in West Africa, it is imperative that we take a moment to consider what we learned from the devastating and tragic epidemic.

I spoke with Dr. Ali S. Khan, former senior administrator for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, former Assistant Surgeon General, and current Dean of the University Of Nebraska College Of Public Health. He noted initially, that there is always the risk of importation of cases; that is how it started he reminds us. He elaborated further that the epidemic “changed the response from the WHO and caused a change in political focus by the nations involved that will affect future outbreaks and ensure native capabilities, as well as link them to the global response.” He also noted that new medical counter measures, such as vaccines and related therapeutics, were also the result of the Ebola impact. When asked about what we learned, he did not hesitate. “The first thing was a new vaccine that permits a novel prevention strategy using ring vaccination to prevent spread and new cases. The second is the new monoclonals and antivirals for treatment.” He also noted the better understanding of the viral progression and clinical diseases that will influence options for acute treatment and follow up of convalescents.

Ebola has provided us with a virtual plethora of opportunities to learn about the disease, its treatment and control, as well as the control of other infectious illnesses through our attempts to prevent its spread as well as through our failures, and successes. We gained valuable treatment modalities and tactics that will likely be used in future outbreaks of Ebola, as well as many other infectious diseases.

Ebola taught us other things too. It has been some time since global health has taken center stage. Ebola changed that. During the epidemic, one could not watch the news or go through a day without hearing an update on the latest development in the Ebola crisis. Although other infectious diseases like Plague, Polio, AIDS, SARS, H1N1, Cholera, and now Zika have captured the world’s attention, few diseases have made such an intense impact, nor caused the uproar and fervor that Ebola elicited. Ebola reminded us that global health is public health and affects us all, and as such, deserves to be a priority for national and international focus and funding for everything from vaccine development and research, to capacity for response locally, nationally, and internationally. Global health has teetered on the edge of public awareness, and remained a quiet player in the competition of priorities in national budgets. Today, it is abundantly clear how vital this sector is to each nation’s, as well as the world’s health, safety, success and even its survival.

Another effect from the Ebola crisis was the opportunity to educate people about public health and the transmission of infectious disease. Through education, public health officials were able to promote behaviors that ensured the safety and health of the public. It is stunning that in this day and age, we persist in so many behaviors that put us and those we interact with at risk. The discrepancy in what we say we will do, and what we are actually willing to commit to and take action on, looms large. Persisting low vaccination rates and the prevalence of infectious diseases such as sexually transmitted diseases, measles, pertussis and influenza show this. Ebola offers yet another opportunity to demonstrate the connection between our behaviors and our risks and disease.

Ebola also showed us that many nations continue to lack sufficient financing, infrastructure, facilities, support and medical staff to treat their own populations. Endemic conditions like malaria, and neglected tropical diseases like Guinea worm disease, Yaws, Leishmaniasis, Filariasis, and Helminths, as well as other conditions continue to affect millions globally.  Maternal and childhood morbidity and mortality rates remain deplorable as well. And millions of children around the world continue to suffer and die of malnutrition and disease before they reach the age of five. This is unacceptable, especially because proper treatment and cures for these conditions exist. Ebola also highlighted the need for treatments for chronic non-infectious conditions as well.

Moreover, Ebola clearly demonstrated the enormous need that remains for sufficiently trained medical professionals and healthcare staff to provide adequate care for many populations throughout the world. The loss of so many extraordinary and heroic staff that dedicated their lives to helping others in need under the most daunting and challenging of circumstances was devastating to those whom they served, and must not be in vain.

Additionally, Ebola provided us with yet another chance to relearn lessons about the role of safety in giving aid to others in need. We learned that we cannot just rush in with aid, but must recall the basics that every first responder and medical student must learn:  Ensure scene safety before giving care, and first do no harm. Ebola showed us the necessity to strategize and prepare to give care by utilizing personal protective equipment. It also reminded us very quickly that we could indeed do harm, and worsen the epidemic when we acted without first assessing the situation and ensuring proper protection and preparation.

So, it remains to be seen just how much we will learn from Ebola. Will we learn from our mistakes? Will we take the global view in the future, or the narrow one? Will we truly live by the motto of the Three Musketeers and be "one for all and all for one", or persist in "it's all about me"? Only time will tell. 

Aid Dependency: The Damage of Donation

~Written by Victoria Stanford, University of Edinburgh (Contact: vstanford@hotmail.co.uk)

"The Culture of Aid Dependency Need to Change," David Sengeh, Sierra Leone. Photo Credit: www.engineeringforchange.org

Aid has long been the response of richer countries to the imbalance of economic development seen across the globe. In the last two decades however, relatively non-intrusive in-kind giving has been re-branded and intensified to the point where aid today is arguably used as a strategic force in increasingly interventionist global development policy. The aid industry has seen a rapid expansion, characterised by an increase in the number of organisations, amounts of funding and geographical reach (Collinson and Duffied, 2013). The question of aid dependence is an important one; many argue that international assistance paradoxically poses a barrier to recipient country development and sustainable economic growth (Moyo, 2009).

Recent rhetoric surrounding aid dependency is clear- it is an unwelcome and unfortunate side effect of aid and its diminishment is high on the aid policy agenda (Thomas et al., 2011). What is becoming increasingly clear however is that there is an emerging type of aid-related dependency that does not refer to economic or financial factors, but political. Cases of corruption in recipient country governments have been met with the development of more complex modes of donation, including direct programme funding, conditionalities, tied aid, and grants, which give donors more control over the direction and ultimate use of their funds. This often means that those providing aid are increasingly entwined in political processes. This combined with aid uncertainty, questionable sustainability, and a tendency of top-down approaches to political involvement, create a situation where countries in need of aid are dependent upon foreign agendas.

How has aid caused dependency?

Aid dependency refers to the proportion of government spending that is given by foreign donors. Since 2000 this has in fact decreased by one third in the world’s poorest countries, exemplified by Ghana and Mozambique where aid dependency decreased from 47% to 27% and 74% to 58% respectively (3). Aid is not intrinsically linked to dependency; studies have shown that dependency is influenced by many factors, mostly length and intensity of the donation period, and 15-20% has been identified as the tipping point where aid begins to have negative effects (Clemens et al., 2012). What causes dependency is when aid is used, intentionally or not, as a long-term strategy that consequently inhibits development, progress, or reform. Food aid is particularly criticised for this; increasing dependency on aid imports disincentivises local food production by reducing market demand. This is compounded when declining aid is replaced with commercial imports rather than locally-sourced food, either because of cheaper prices or a lack of recipient country food production capacity because of long-term aid causing agricultural stagnation (Shah, 2012). This is exemplified in the situation of Haiti, which is dependent on cheap US imports for over 80% of grain stocks even in a post-aid era, or countries such as the Philippines where aid dependency has forced an over-reliance on cash crops. Dependency relates not only to commodities but also technical expertise and skills which donors often bring to specific aid schemes and projects, which when not appropriately coupled with education create an over-reliance on donors (Thomas et al., 2011).

A more concerning type of dependency

The nature of aid almost intrinsically causes what is increasingly known as ‘political dependency’ by encouraging donor intervention in political processes. Donors need to satisfy the interests, values and incentives of the home country, whilst also providing them with expected results in order to maintain the cash flow. This has resulted in donors either bypassing and therefore destabilising government service provision processes to establish donor projects, a strategy often favoured by USAID and the World Bank (Bräuntigam and Knack, 2004), or intervening directly in policy-making and implementation (Bräutigam, 2000).

The involvement of donors, either foreign governments or international agencies, in recipient country political processes has been shown to reduce the quality of governance (Knack, 2001). It reduces leader accountability; the government is “playing to two audiences simultaneously”- the donors and the public (Hayman, 2008). This means the direction of accountability is between government and donor rather than the public, risking government legitimacy and delaying the progress of political reform and development (Bräutigam, 2000). This is particularly damaging in countries where the need for aid stems from political upheaval or civil unrest such as the Democratic Republic of Congo or Zimbabwe, which have a lengthy history of aid dependence (Moss et al., 2006). The risk here is that donors have political leverage, thus decisions and planning become reliant on donor involvement whose motivation and values may not necessarily align with those of the public or government.

Furthermore, ‘earmarking’ is a strategy favoured by many international donors who fear corruption in recipient governments, therefore ‘earmark’ direct sector or programme funding rather than general government budget support (Foster and Leavy, 2001). This not only shifts the agenda-making power to donors who have the authority to set priorities and direct funds accordingly, but also creates patchy and unsustainable development where some sectors outperform others.

An additional significant problem of dependency upon international agenda-making for countries receiving aid is that globally recommended ‘best practice’ policies often lack appropriate contextualisation to cultural, religious, or social values. A top-down, uniform approach to policy implementation by donors also has logistical barriers whereby local infrastructure is incapable of carrying out donor projects effectively and producing satisfactory results. A good example of this is the widely-disseminated policy encouraging syndromic management of sexually transmitted diseases, which was coercively incorporated into aid channels in Mozambique, despite the clear lack of the technical expertise and human resource capacity that such a robust policy requires (Cliff et al., 2004). This then perpetuates aid dependency because donors do not receive satisfactory project results and may consequently reduce funding without actually solving the problem, thus the poverty cycle continues and aid is required once again.

Demolishing aid dependency

Ending or preventing aid dependency will be contingent on affirmative action from both donors and recipients. Botswana is a key example of recipient-led aid policy that effectively resulted in rapidly reducing aid and therefore dependency. Botswana began receiving aid shortly after gaining independence in 1966 (Bräutigam and Botchwey, 1999). Of primary importance here is that Botswana largely decided the direction and use of funding; areas of priority were identified and donors were matched accordingly, thus avoiding reliance on donor ideas and agendas. Only projects that the predicted government capacity could absorb once aid was reduced in the long-term were undertaken, which ensured sustainability. In contrast, the relative ‘success story’ of Taiwan can be explained by donor-led project planning. Taiwan received much aid from the US in the early 1960’s which focused mainly on building infrastructural capacity-docks, railways, factories-with the aim to increase trading systems and boost the economy. In fact, this scheme was so effective that the US eventually withdrew aid for fear of creating competition (Chang, 1965).

It seems evident that recipient-led schemes and projects are more effective and reduce the risk of dependency. Technically speaking, some argue that aid should only ever be in the form of general government budget support rather than selective sector or project aid because it reduces donor involvement in political processes. It is also less bureaucratic, is less influenced by donor missions who need to produce and report results, and avoids the risk of uneven service provision (Moss et al., 2006). Ideologically speaking, the aid industry today is at risk of forming a novel kind of colonialism where ‘Western’ ideas of development and progress are used to influence and hold power over governments of countries receiving aid.

Concluding thoughts

The aid industry must respond to the problem of economic and political dependence. Coordinated efforts to more effectively monitor donor-recipient relationships, using a widely implemented human rights-based legal and moral framework for aid policy should be the ultimate, collective goal (Ooms and Hammonds, 2008). The reality is however that with increasingly complex humanitarian disasters and the destructive forces of climate change looming, the aid industry will be called upon to increase capacity and intensity which may perhaps re-direct focus from implementing ideological change. Nevertheless, the opportunity to ‘get things right’ in aid policy and practice persists, and it is a moral imperative that the industry and its participants make the attempt.

References:

Bräutigam D and Botchwey K (1999) The institutional impact of aid dependence on recipients in Africa. Chr. Michelsen Institute;Working Paper 1.

Bräutigam, D. (2000). Aid dependence and governance, Almqvist & Wiksell International;Stockholm pp.14.

Bräuntigam D and Knack S (2004) Foreign aid, institutions and governance in Sub-Saharan Africa, Economic Development and Cultural Change, Vol 52;2, pp.255-285.

Chang D (1965) US Aid and Economic progress in Taiwan, Asian Survey, Vol 5;3, pp.152-160.

Clemens MA, Radelet S and Bhavnani R (2012) Counting Chickens when they Hatch: Timing and the Effects of Aid on Growth, The Economic Journal, 122(561), 590-617.

Cliff J, Walt G and Nhatave, I (2004) What's in a Name? Policy transfer in Mozambique: DOTS for tuberculosis and syndromic management for sexually transmitted infections. Journal of Public Health Policy, 25;1, p.38-55

Collinson S and Duffied M (2013) Paradoxes of Presence:Risk Management and aid culture in challenging environments, Humanitarian Policy Group, Overseas Development Institute [Online] Available at: http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/8428.pdf [Accessed 02 January 2015].

Foster M and Leavy J (2001) The choice of financial aid instruments. London: Overseas Development Institute, pp.4.

Hayman R (2008) Rwanda: milking the cow. Creating policy space in spite of aid dependence. The Politics of Aid, 156.

Knack S (2001) Aid dependence and the quality of governance: cross-country empirical tests, Southern Economic Journal, 310-329.

Moss T, Pettersson G andVan de Walle, N (2006) An aid-institutions paradox? A review essay on aid dependency and state building in sub-Saharan Africa, Centre for Global Development; Working paper No. 74.

Moyo D (2009) Dead Aid, Penguin; London, pp.12

Ooms G and Hammonds R (2008) Correcting globalisation in health: transnational entitlements versus the ethical imperative of reducing aid-dependency. Public Health Ethics, 1(2), 154-170.

Shah A (2012) Food aid, Global Issues [Online] Available at: URL: http://www. globalissues. org/article/748/food-aid [Accessed January 02 2015]

Thomas A, Viciani L and Tench J et al (2011) Ending Aid Dependency, Action Aid; London.

Sustaining the Fight against Malaria

~ Written by Randall Kramer, PhD, M.E. (Professor of Environmental Economics and Global Health, Duke University) & Leonard Mboera, PhD, MSc (Chief Scientist, Tanzania National Institute for Medical Research)

*Also published on the Duke Global Health Institute Website 

On World Malaria Day, April 25, there’s much to celebrate and acknowledge when it comes to the fight against malaria. Over the past 15 years, we’ve seen a huge ramp-up of international funding, and the latest statistics show impressive progress—a 46% decrease in malaria infections among children in sub-Saharan Africa and an estimated 4.3 million deaths averted globally over time.

One of the most effective malaria control measures has been the free distribution of several hundred million insecticide-treated mosquito nets that protect people from mosquitoes while sleeping. In 2004, only 3% of at-risk people in sub-Saharan Africa had an insecticide-treated mosquito net available to them, compared to 49% in 2014 after an international campaign.

The U.S. government is among the major funders of malaria control, and it’s one of the few international assistance programs that has garnered bipartisan support through the Bush and Obama terms. But despite the upsurge in spending and the laudable success of these programs, malaria remains one of the leading causes of death in poorer and tropical parts of the world.

The need for continued support is critical; it’s estimated that eliminating malaria as a major global disease threat would require double the current $3 billion invested annually in malaria control. But in the face of so many other pressing needs, why should we continue to invest in malaria?

In the last year, nearly 200 million people suffered from malaria, and its death toll—more than 500,000—was 50 times greater than that of the widely publicized outbreak of Ebola in West Africa. And malaria takes a particularly devastating toll on the young. More than 80% of the deaths from malaria are in children under five, and those who manage to survive the illness often suffer lasting effects on development, school performance and lifetime earnings.

Because malaria is such a resilient killer, we can expect to see these malaria losses continue and potentially rise in the absence of continued financial support. In fact, with temperatures steadily increasing throughout the world as a result of global warming, malaria-transmitting mosquitoes have begun to take residence in new regions, raising the specter of malaria spreading far beyond its current boundaries.

In addition to the physical suffering malaria causes, the disease stunts national economic progress.

Studies by Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs suggest that, if not for malaria keeping children out of school and agricultural workers out of the fields, the rate of economic development in sub-Saharan Africa would have been much higher in the past few decades.

And lastly, we can’t underestimate the goodwill generated by our investments in mosquito nets and other malaria-defeating approaches in recipient countries. As one community member told our research team in rural Tanzania, “Mosquito nets have been a great help to us. The day when mosquito nets were distributed, people were very happy, because many people in our community could not afford to buy the mosquito nets.”

The malaria parasite, a resilient and opportunistic pest, has successfully co-inhabited with humans for thousands of years, and it continues to adapt and evolve, damaging populations and economies across the globe. We now have the knowledge, technology and health systems to significantly reduce its devastating human impacts. But putting these assets into action will require renewed political will and financial commitment from rich and poor countries around the globe—including the U.S.

Global Ebola Involvement

~Written by Mike Emmerich, Specialist Emergency Med & ERT Africa Consultant (Contact: mike@nexusmedical.co.za) 

https://twitter.com/MikeEmmerich

As a passionate and committed African, having spent the past 20 years working in various countries on my continent, and having seen the effects of colonisation, globalization, war as a result of minerals and commerce (funded by big western businesses) and how Africa is marginalised via trade and commerce. Never mind the fact that all the ex-French colonies still pay tax to France, even years after independence!!

http://www.siliconafrica.com/france-colonial-tax/

It is also true that Africa’s problems are also created by many corrupt Africa politicians and greedy emerging markets in Africa.

What should our response be, in the event of disasters, war, famine or in the case of Ebola (disease outbreaks). As a human race we all live in a global village and we cannot and should not stand by when we see our fellow man/woman suffering; be it in Syria, Ukraine or in this case West Africa (Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia). Every effort should be made to help when and how we can, be it with manpower, resources or financial aid. This is not a regional or Africa problem, but a global one.

The entire Southern West Africa region is still emerging from a decades long conflict (partly made infamous by Blood Diamonds) and their are trails ongoing in the Hague re this conflict. One could even argue that western powers (corporate and country) were complicit in this conflict, hence they should now have at least an ethical (if not moral) motivation to get involved. Far to often we stand on the sides and wring our hands at the mess Africa is in and that it never seems to get out of this mess (that in itself is another long missive for another day/blogpost).

Now the region needs beds (hospitals) and staff to man them, there is a huge shortage of beds. The one thing that this epidemic (as most of them do) has taught us that it is gloves not vaccines that will make the difference. Good basic hygiene, clean water, bleach/chlorine and excellent palliative care in a sterile environment will make a difference. Those who have survived, have survived for these reasons.

All of the above needs to sustainable in the medium to long term and the affected countries must be encouraged through means of trade and commerce to make these changes real and lasting. I know this last paragraph sounds pie in the sky, but the rich western countries and corporates (Large Pharma) in this case must commit to push for it to happen; not for their end gains and an increase in share price (my cynical comment re what is motivating large Pharma in this case), but for the good of the region.

People in West Africa will have to alter behaviours, we won’t stop this outbreak solely by building hospitals. There will have to be a change in the way the community deals with the disease. Changing behaviour which is so closely linked to culture, tribe and religion will not happen in the short term. Meaning that the worst case scenario could come to fruition, which is over 100,000 cases by the 1st of December. (as outlined in some disease modelling programmes!)

Government ministers in the region must focus within their communities and regions on the key ways to manage this outbreak. They need to be out in the field as the voice of government, pushing for the necessary societal changes hat need to take place. The region needs beds, hospitals and basic supplies. Beds and hospitals is not being dealt with as urgently as it should be by local governments, they are waiting for outside funders to step in, they must drive the initiative on the ground and mobilise local leaders to work with their villages to manage this outbreak, otherwise the worst case scenarios that are being punted look scary. Both MSF and WHO are pushing for this, but they need local governmental support.

My closing comment is that gloves not drugs (vaccines) will save the day. Basic good clean sanitary medicine and palliative care, aligned with sound symptomatic treatment will save lives, for that we need beds, hospitals, staff and supplies, from across the globe, Cuba has stepped into the breach while others (Australia) are still wringing their hands.