Emma Michelle Taylor

One World-One Health and neglected zoonotic disease: Elimination, emergence and emergency in Uganda

This paper traces the emergence and tensions of an internationally constructed and framed One World-One Health (OWOH) approach to control and attempt to eliminate African Trypanosomiasis in Uganda. In many respects Trypanosomiasis is a disease that an OWOH approach is perfectly designed to treat, requiring an integrated approach built on effective surveillance in animals and humans, quick diagnosis and targeting of the vector. The reality appears to be that the translation of global notions of OWOH down to national and district levels generates problems, primarily due to interactions between: a) international, external actors not engaging with the Ugandan state; b) actors setting up structures and activities parallel to those of the state; c) actors deciding when emergencies begin and end without consultation; d) weak Ugandan state capacity to coordinate its own integrated response to disease; e) limited collaboration between core Ugandan planning activities and a weak, increasingly devolved district health system. These interrelated dynamics result in the global, international interventionalist mode of OWOH undermining the Coordinating Office for Control of Trypanosomiasis in Uganda (COCTU), the body within the Ugandan state mandated expressly with managing a sustainable One Health response to trypanosomiasis outbreaks in Uganda. This does two things, firstly it suggests we need a more grounded, national perspective of OWOH, where states and health systems are acknowledged and engaged with by international actors and initiatives. Secondly, it suggests that more support needs to be given to core coordinating capacity in resource-poor contexts. Supporting national coordinating bodies, focused around One Health, and ensuring that external actors engage with and through those bodies can help develop a sustained, effective OWOH presence in resource-poor countries, where after all most zoonotic disease burden remains.

The Politics and Anti-Politics of the Global Fund Experiment: Understanding Partnership and Bureaucratic Expansion in Uganda

After a decade of operations, the Global Fund is an institutional form in flux. Forced to cancel its eleventh round of funding due to a shortfall in donor pledges, the Fund is currently in firefighting mode, overhauling its leadership, governance structures, and operations. Drawing on a case study of Uganda, we look at how the original Global Fund vision to be a simple financial instrument has played out at the country level. Even prior to the cancellation of round 11, the proliferation of partners required to sustain the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria experiment led to increasing bureaucratization and an undermining of the Fund’s own intentions to award life-saving grants according to need. Understanding these effects through the ethnographic material presented here may be one way of reflecting on the Fund’s structure and practices as it struggles to reinvent itself in the face of criticism that it has impeded resource distribution.

One Health: competing perspectives in an emerging field

Over the last decade, One Health has attracted considerable attention from researchers and policymakers. The concept argues that the fields of human, animal and environmental health ought to be more closely integrated. Amid a flurry of conferences, projects and publications, there has been substantial debate over what exactly One Health is and should be. This review summarizes the main trends in this emerging discussion, highlighting the fault lines between different perspectives on One Health. Some have shown that One Healths call to synthesize knowledge from different disciplines can lead to better interventions. Others, however, argue that One Healths challenge to existing practice must go further, and set out a vision that foregrounds the social and economic drivers of disease. Meanwhile, recent examples of One Health in practice highlight the potential but also the challenges of institutionalizing cooperation. We also discuss the promise and pitfalls of using complexity theory to tackle multifaceted problems, and consider how the One Health concept has been brought to bear on other issues, such as emerging new technologies. Ultimately, One Health is an important and worthwhile goal, and requires a debate that clarifies both the competing uses and the political nature of the project.

The Impact of Official Development Aid on Maternal and Reproductive Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review

Background Progress toward meeting Millennium Development Goal 5, which aims to improve maternal and reproductive health outcomes, is behind schedule. This is despite ever increasing volumes of official development aid targeting the goal, calling into question the distribution and efficacy of aid. The 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness represented a global commitment to reform aid practices in order to improve development outcomes, encouraging a shift toward collaborative aid arrangements which support the national plans of aid recipient countries (and discouraging unaligned donor projects). Methods and Findings We conducted a systematic review to summarise the evidence of the impact on MDG 5 outcomes of official development aid delivered in line with Paris aid effectiveness principles and to compare this with the impact of aid in general on MDG 5 outcomes. Searches of electronic databases identified 30 studies reporting aid-funded interventions designed to improve maternal and reproductive health outcomes. Aid interventions appear to be associated with small improvements in the MDG indicators, although it is not clear whether changes are happening because of the manner in which aid is delivered. The data do not allow for a meaningful comparison between Paris style and general aid. The review identified discernible gaps in the evidence base on aid interventions targeting MDG 5, notably on indicators MDG 5.4 (adolescent birth rate) and 5.6 (unmet need for family planning). Discussion This review presents the first systematic review of the impact of official development aid delivered according to the Paris principles and aid delivered outside this framework on MDG 5 outcomes. Its findings point to major gaps in the evidence base and should be used to inform new approaches and methodologies aimed at measuring the impact of official development aid.

MDGs and NTDs: Reshaping the Global Health Agenda

The United Nations (UN) Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) expire in 2015. A high-level panel, appointed to discuss the global development agenda post-2015, reported back in May 2013 with its recommendations. These are likely to prove extremely important for determining the global health budget over the coming decade. Who the “winners”—those who will benefit from UN endorsement and enhanced funding—and the “losers”—those not receiving such recognition or resources—will be in the new agenda is not yet decided, but certain parties hope that this time around NTDs will gain a special mention. The MDGs, established in 2000, gave a new prominence to the health issues affecting the poor. However, the spotlight they provided was restricted and derived from a top-down process of deliberation, rather than informed by inclusive analysis and/or a thorough prioritisation of development needs. Subsequently, the narrowly focused and largely sector-specific MDGs left gaps in coverage and failed to realise synergies between the foci covered by the goals (education, health, poverty, and gender) [1]. MDG 6 in particular—“combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases”—sidelined many of the communicable and non-communicable diseases that perpetuate the cycle of poverty in developing countries. And yet, the very act of naming HIV/AIDS and malaria raised the profile of these diseases immeasurably. It stimulated a reconfiguration of official development assistance for health. Global health initiatives such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM) and the Presidents Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) ushered in an era of vertical aid on an unprecedented scale and diverted resources away from existing health programmes [2]. In this funding climate, diseases were pitted against one another and advocacy groups were left to argue that it was their disease being referred to in the ambiguous wording “other diseases.” In this respect, the case of tuberculosis is instructive; the success of the tuberculosis campaigning was such that it is now widely assumed that it too received a special mention in the MDG 6. Of course, parallel to this misapprehension, tuberculosis was considered so central to the GFATM that it was even incorporated into the name; the extent to which this is due to lobbying or to the specific interactions between HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis has not been established. Clearly, however, effective networking and alliance building can blur the boundaries of the MDGs and raise the profiles of diseases.

Regulating private health insurance: The reality behind the rhetoric in Uganda.

Abstract The continued preponderance of large health budget deficits in low-income countries has led to increasing international debate over the role that private health insurance could play in providing additional financing for health. However, the market failures inherent to insurance constitute a major concern and proponents are now advocating that states employ calculated regulations to offset these tendencies. This article uses an examination of the policy evolution of the Government of Uganda to demonstrate how one low-income country has heeded the call for regulation yet, so far, has remained unable to implement the resulting policies. In doing so, the case study exposes the contradiction underlying the impetus for the state to regulate private health insurance in low-income settings, namely, that while private health insurance is advanced as one response to the failure of the nation state and its inability to provide adequate health services for its population, the same ‘failing’ state is now being called upon to govern against the market failures inherent to the product.

Neglected Tropical Diseases and Equity in the Post-2015 Health Agenda

The Millennium Development Goals’ focus on just three infectious diseases (HIV/AIDS, malaria, and belatedly, tuberculosis) configured the global health funding landscape for 15 years. neglected tropical diseases (NTDs), a group of 17 or so diseases that disproportionately afflict the world’s ‘bottom billion’, are a symbol of global health inequities, in terms of prioritisation, research attention, and treatment. This article traces efforts to include NTDs in the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) agenda and, having achieved that goal, lobby for an influential position in the post-2015 aid agenda. The SDGs herald a shift to a more expansive approach and there is a risk that NTDs will once again be left behind, lost in a panoply of new goals and targets. There is, however, an opportunity for NTDs to lever their ‘neglect’ and be recast as a tool of accountability, acting as both a target for and proxy indicator of health equity for the SDGs.