CASE STUDY

International HIV/AIDS Alliance (B):1

a strategy for 2020
Gerry Johnson

The International HIV/AIDS Alliance is a network of organisations throughout the world dedicated to combating
the spread and the effects of HIV and AIDS. Following the development of a strategy from 2010 to 2012, this case
explains the issues the Alliance faced in 2012 as it sought to develop a strategy to take it forward to 2020.

● ● ●

Thirty-four million people live with HIV globally (69%

in Sub-Saharan Africa). More than half do not know they
are HIV positive. In 2011, 1.7 million people died of
AIDS-related causes and there were 2.5 million new
HIV infections. Most AIDS deaths can be prevented with
antiretroviral therapy (ART) but only 54% of those eligible
for treatment in low- and middle-income countries receive
ART. These are the challenges that the International HIV/

Source: Nell Freeman

AIDS Alliance (‘the Alliance’) faces.
In mid-2011 Awo Ablo joined the Alliance as Director of
External Relations, with responsibility for external stake-
holders, including donor organisations and policy-makers.
As part of her brief she was given responsibility for develop-
ing the Alliance strategy to 2020 as part of a small group
led by the Executive Director. By the end of 2012 this pro-
cess was nearing completion. The key drivers of the strategy information and services they need for a healthy life. The
had been discussed and agreed. What remained was to Board of Trustees is the Alliance’s highest policy and
agree the future strategic direction. decision-making body. It approves the Alliance’s strategic
framework and is responsible for ensuring that the organ-
isation’s policies and strategies are in keeping with its mis-
The Alliance
sion. It also selects and appoints the Executive Director.
The Alliance has its international Secretariat in Brighton,
UK, which provides services to a global partnership of
41 nationally based, independent organisations working The work of the Alliance
together to mobilise communities against HIV and AIDS. Since 1994, the Alliance and its partners have supported
The Alliance is united around its mission: supporting com- over 3,000 projects in over 40 countries, reaching millions
munity action on HIV, health and human rights to end of people. It works in six areas.
AIDS. Its vision is a world in which communities have
brought an end to HIV transmission and secured their ● Prevention services. Over 90% of Alliance Linking
health and human rights. Its actions are guided by their Organisations (LOs) have prevention programmes. In
values which are that the lives of all human beings are of higher prevalence settings the Alliance supports pre-
equal value, and everyone has the right to access the HIV vention activities and services aimed at the general

This case was prepared by Gerry Johnson as a basis for class discussion and not as an illustration of good or bad practice. © Gerry
Johnson 2013. We are grateful to the International HIV/AIDS Alliance and especially Awo Ablo for cooperation in developing the
case study. Not to be reproduced or quoted without permission.

Z26_JOHN2545_10_SE_EM26.indd 700 10/9/13 1:42 PM


population, with care initiatives that reach people liv-
ing with HIV and through sexual and reproductive
health services. In lower-prevalence countries it sup-
ports prevention programmes focusing on relevant
members of key population groups such as men who
have sex with men, injecting drug users and sex workers
– ‘key’ because they are the ones most affected but
also because of the central role they play in breaking
the back of the epidemic.
● Care and support to orphans and vulnerable children. In
Africa and Asia the Alliance supports children orphaned
by AIDS, living with HIV or caring for sick parents. This
includes helping with school expenses, food, clothing
and legal issues, as well as providing emotional and
social support.
● Care and support services. The Alliance provides care
and support services, including HIV testing and coun-
selling, treatment, palliative care, support, and reduc-
ing the stigma and discrimination faced by people with
HIV/AIDS.
● Treatment adherence. Even where ART becomes avail-
able, effective rollout requires people to understand how
it works. So the Alliance works to ensure that commun-
ity structures and leadership, especially from people
living with HIV, support and endorse its introduction
and use.
● Technical support and capacity building. HIV affects people
most when they do not have access to information, ser-
vices or protection for their rights, or when they can not
act freely within their environment. The Alliance pro-
vides civil society organisations with technical support
using expertise from the regions.
● Policy and advocacy. The Alliance aims to influence and
improve the HIV policies of international policy-makers
and donors using the experiences of LOs and the lessons
learnt about successful responses to HIV.
To help deliver these services, the Alliance offices in
Brighton are organised as three departments. The
Programmes Department faces the LOs, the Corporate
Services Department provides services such as HR and IT,
and External Relations is concerned with external stake-
holders, including donors.
Alliance funding and finances
Global funding for HIV/AIDS increased sixfold between
2002 and 2008 but has remained on a plateau since 2008.
Of the $7.6 billion (£5bn; €5.9bn)2 from donor govern-
ments in 2011, the USA was the largest donor (59.2%),
followed by the UK (12.8%), France (5.4%), the Netherlands
(4.2%), Germany (4.0%) and Denmark (2.5%). Despite the
economic downturn, donors have avoided major cuts in aid
Z26_JOHN2545_10_SE_EM26.indd 701
INTERNATIONAL HIV/AIDS ALLIANCE (B) 701
budgets. The Alliance itself receives virtually no funding
from the general public and is mostly funded by the foreign
aid or assistance budgets of OECD countries, including:
the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID),
the USA (USAID), Sweden (SIDA), Denmark (DANIDA),
Norway (NORAD) and Australia (AusAID). Multilateral
donors include the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and
Malaria, UN agencies, the European Commission and the
World Bank. Private philanthropic donors are less pro-
minent but include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
and the Levi Strauss Foundation.
Alliance income in 2011 reached $100m, the majority
of which went directly from donors to the LOs (see Figure 1).
Most of the Alliance’s funding is restricted to programme
activities overseas, with a smaller amount of unrestricted
funding to support overall delivery of a strategy and core
functions such as support to LOs, business development,
fundraising, knowledge sharing, marketing, communica-
tions, finance, HR and IT.
The 2020 Strategic Plan
The planning process
The planning process for the 2010 Strategic Plan that
Awo inherited had been led by Sam MacPherson, as Head
of Planning, who had subsequently left the Alliance. The
process had involved extensive consultation with Board
members, LOs and external stakeholders in helping develop
and review both the key drivers of the strategy and the
strategic options. Awo was extensively briefed on this process.
Her approach was, however, different:
‘The LOs have delegated responsibility for the global
strategy formulation to the Secretariat. Sam had been
here nine years and executed the strategy planning in a
highly consultative fashion. I sometimes struggle to inter-
pret the limits and freedoms of the delegated responsibility
that we have as a Secretariat. We and the LOs are equal
for sure, but how we execute the delegated responsibility
is, I guess, the question . . . Consultation is absolutely
part of the process but the drivers for this strategy were
arrived at prior to consultation. The external game
changers had to be the drivers for the strategy; so our
approach was driven by this and my own approach was
more “can we find some more evidence that’s robust,
before we take decisions?” It is what we do about those
drivers that will be mapped out by consultation.’
The strategic drivers
The planning process described by Awo gave rise to a docu-
ment that identified a number of ‘strategic drivers’ of future
strategy. Extracts from the document are given in what
follows together with Awo’s comments.
10/9/13 1:42 PM
 702 INTERNATIONAL HIV/AIDS ALLIANCE (B)
Figure 1 HIV/AIDS Alliance expenditure, 2007–12
1 Global and economic power dynamics
‘By 2020 we envisage a world where the dominant global
powers have changed significantly, with countries such
as the BRICs3 and the Gulf States exercising their econo-
mic and political strength on the national, regional and
international stage. Economic recession and recovery
will reduce the influence and international development
resource flows from “old” powers like the US, the UK and
Europe. Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) is likely
to be concentrated in the poorest countries. In some
regions, e.g. Latin America and the Caribbean, increas-
ing violence, corruption and drug trafficking are likely
to be stronger influences on society than economics alone.
International frameworks will weaken (UNAIDS,
WHO and other UN agencies will see their influence
reduced) as new powers assert national sovereignty. On
the national stage new economic powers will be free to
decide what, how, how much and who they fund. The
main recourse for change to national priorities comes
from the country’s own citizens.
The emerging economies’ differing attitudes to
democracy and human rights will impact on their pri-
orities for development assistance. Within regions the
emerging economies will have a huge influence on their
neighbours.
A weakening of international frameworks may also
mean a strengthening of religious bodies, which for
the most part are not dependent on international aid.
Z26_JOHN2545_10_SE_EM26.indd 702
Changes in geopolitical power within the Gulf States, for
example, may lead to even stronger and far-reaching
religious forces in development.
Multinational corporations will continue to shape
our lives. Despite the economic downturn there are
likely to be more very rich people than ever before. Rich
philanthropists and multinational corporations, some
with CSR foundations, have enormous potential for
funding, but they are shaped by personal politics and
market interests.
What will this mean for the Alliance? Overseas
Development Aid (ODA) from traditional donors will
decrease and many LOs will see their ODA base dry up.
The influence of new regional powers will increase.
Understanding the motivations and interests of new
donors (whether multinationals, rich philanthropists or
religious institutions) will be key. International policy
frameworks will become less influential as the import-
ance of national actors and dynamics increases.’
Awo commented:
‘Our relationship with domestic governments had been
created as an instrument of Western donor goodwill.
That framework – the development assistance model –
struck me as one that was rapidly disappearing. In its
place the governments in Africa, Asia and Latin America
are having more responsibility for the welfare of their
own citizens . . . So I asked why hasn’t the Alliance
10/9/13 1:42 PM

got many relationships with the governments of the
countries where we work? Why am I not hearing of
contracting relationships where governments outsource
some of their health provision to our LOs in X or Y coun-
try? The Global Fund for AIDS, TB and Malaria (GFATM)
or the US government’s foreign aid arm will give money
to an NGO like the Alliance, parallel to government
systems; it doesn’t go into the local government budget.
The accountability and results are not necessarily
shared with the population even if they have a transpar-
ent government in that country, because it’s separate; it
doesn’t necessarily sit as part of a government health
system because of the emergency nature of the donors’
response to AIDS . . . Maybe we need to focus our time
with LOs on building their relationships with their
domestic governments; making sure they have good pro-
gramme models that are cost efficient so governments
will buy them because these middle income govern-
ments aren’t going to pay what the Bill Gates Foundation
or the US government paid . . . In addition the private
sector will have an increasing role as designers of pro-
grammes and as deliverers of programmes of work.
Maybe we have a role there too.’
2 Shifts in HIV/AIDS population dynamics: from LICs to
MICs
‘Large numbers of the world’s people living with HIV
and the poorest live in countries now considered middle
income countries (MICs). While in 2000 two-thirds
lived in low income countries (LICs), by 2009 this
dropped to just one-third. Looking at poverty rather
than HIV, the dynamics aren’t very different: 70% of
the world’s extreme poor now live in MICs. The total
number of LICs has fallen and will continue to fall in the
next decade and many of them will be fragile states.4
There is a clear agenda of “growth leads to
development” and it is being demonstrated by donor
withdrawal from MICs. As a result, international donor
funding for HIV is not following the epidemic, nor is
development assistance tracking the poor. Donors are
focusing on poor countries, rather than poor people.
As countries graduate from LICs to MICs they are
becoming ineligible for donor assistance, irrespective
of poverty indicators.
We expect inequality to increase as development
assistance from MICs is withdrawn. Greater inequality
may lead to increased numbers of sex workers and
injecting drug users. Human rights programming may
be difficult to support in MICs where national resources
will be the main source of funding and in LICs and frag-
ile states where civil society may be more nascent and
donor funding more concentrated on reconstruction
and emergency/humanitarian responses.
Z26_JOHN2545_10_SE_EM26.indd 703
INTERNATIONAL HIV/AIDS ALLIANCE (B) 703
What will this mean for the Alliance? Funding from
ODA will decline or disappear and will need to be
replaced by other sources in MICs. Since 2005, eight
countries where the Alliance has LOs have graduated
from LIC to MIC status.5 Most of our current program-
ming (in terms of people reached and financial volume)
currently takes place in MICs. By 2015, only 12 coun-
tries where we currently have LOs are likely to still have
LIC status.6 Human rights work will be more challeng-
ing within our current model.’
In relation to this, Awo commented:
‘When we looked at World Bank indicators for the coun-
tries where we work we saw that since 2001 there has
been a huge migration of “Alliance countries” from low-
income status to middle-income status. So, Botswana,
India and Nigeria are now middle-income countries.
The US, the UK, the Nordic donors are the big ones for
HIV funding and they have all said publicly that they are
pulling out of MICs on a number of issues or entirely,
though they may still help with infrastructure projects
because that still helps trade links.’
She explained, however, that the increased wealth of
these countries did not necessarily go hand in hand with
enlightened policies on AIDS:
‘Key populations in some countries often have diffi-
culties in accessing HIV treatment, prevention and
care services due to high levels of stigma, discrimina-
tion, violence and persecution. According to UNAIDS,
only 22% of countries have laws protecting men who
have sex with men from discrimination. Even fewer
countries (15%) have laws to protect transgender people
from discrimination. Over the last few years more than
100 countries have used criminal law to prosecute
citizens who fail to disclose their HIV status to others.7
These practices undermine access to HIV services for
key populations. Increased efforts to strengthen health
systems, especially but not only in low-income countries,
is crucial.’
3 Increasing focus on measurable, quantifiable results
‘Donors increasingly measure results and want to focus
on and fund these rather than the activities or inputs
that bring about these results. This results-led agenda is
donor driven and often linked to satisfying taxpayers,
even though there is little evidence that public support
is greatly influenced by results as expressed by govern-
ments. Donors increasingly want to contract develop-
ment services, rather than fund organisations to achieve
shared goals. Taking this agenda to its logical conclu-
sion, donors may change aid delivery models to provide
payment by outcomes. When the thing being delivered
is an outcome such as the number of additional people
10/9/13 1:42 PM
 704 INTERNATIONAL HIV/AIDS ALLIANCE (B)
on HIV treatment or the number of infections averted,
this becomes hugely problematic to measure and attri-
bute to one agency. Private-sector donors are also likely
to apply similar approaches.
Payment by results favours easily quantifiable
results. Donors may not apply this principle to the
significant proportion of funding they invest in fragile
and post-conflict states. On the positive side, the results
agenda is a natural impetus for greater cost efficiency
and effectiveness.
What will this mean for the Alliance? Quantitative
measures and payment by results favour commodities
and biomedical approaches more than social enablers
and approaches like community mobilisation; the stra-
tegic investment framework provides our advocacy
platform to challenge this. The Alliance needs to focus
on developing a shared methodology to measure value
for money in response to this driver.’
4 The end of AIDS exceptionalism
‘Apart from the US (decreasing) and AusAID (increasing),
no bilateral donor currently has an HIV/AIDS specific
budget line. This reflects the changing nature of the epi-
demic. Predominantly, HIV will be framed as a health
systems issue, bypassing the crucial difference that
AIDS, unlike many public health concerns, forces sys-
tems (government, clinicians, etc.) to confront sex, sex-
ual minorities, drug use and society’s moral and cultural
norms.
AIDS exceptionalism also sits within a wider trend
focusing on the interdependency of aid sectors; growth,
health, livelihoods, governance, etc. USAID is already
pushing for mergers of different organisations in the
Caribbean for this reason. Yet opportunities still exist for
AIDS to play a leading role and have a voice, for example
with the non-communicable disease (NCD) agenda – the
programmes, infrastructure and experience built by
the AIDS response can be used for NCDs.
What will this mean for the Alliance? Voices ques-
tioning a primary HIV focus will continue. Some LOs
will explore integration while others fully take on a
broad health/human development agenda. There is a
risk of distancing ourselves from key populations as we
broaden the agenda.’
Awo commented:
‘I went to the regional meeting held in Indonesia of all
the LOs from our Asia and Eastern Europe region. They
were there to discuss how they were doing against the
current strategy. For a lot of them the name of the
organisation is an acronym, a bunch of letters, and
many have an “H” in it and an “A” which I assumed
related to HIV and AIDS. But as they introduced them-
Z26_JOHN2545_10_SE_EM26.indd 704
selves they would explain what their letters meant and
a lot of them had turned the “H” into “health” and the
“A” was for “and”. Nonetheless they said “we still need
to be tackling HIV in our communities because often
we’re the only ones doing it. We’re not going to go into
a country where HIV isn’t a big problem and we want
to continue working for those key populations where
there are concentrated epidemics; but we also realise
that the communities around us have needs other than
HIV. So the conundrum for us is that we are focused on
HIV but recognise the drive to deliver better health and
wellbeing outcomes in other areas for our communities.
So, it’s a balancing act. . . . Another issue we identified
was that we do not prioritise our resources systematic-
ally based on the burden of the epidemic and the impact
we could have. The question is, should we?’
She also added:
‘Not all money is created equal. An NGO has “unrestricted
income” and “restricted income”. Unrestricted means you
can spend it on whatever you think you need to do to
reach your mission and deliver an over-arching strategy.
The Alliance sets a target of 20% unrestricted. But part
of the donor trend is a reluctance to fund unrestricted.’
Awo also added further points on AIDS exceptionalism:
‘The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) run out in
2015. These are goals that UN Member States commit-
ted to in 2000 which focused the attention of the world
on priority actions for reducing poverty in the develop-
ing world. They have been enormously influential. The
MDGs include a goal to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and
other diseases. So, health issues were winners and HIV
was a big winner. But we will be lucky if we get a men-
tion in the next framework . . . There were also targets
set in 2011 by all governments at the UN High Level
Meeting on HIV/AIDS on how many people should be
on treatment. We have reached eight million but the
target is double that by 2015 and the analysis by the UN
demonstrates that, given the current rate of programme
work on HIV, we will not reach those goals by 2015.
UNAIDS has also plotted and costed exactly what inter-
ventions and actions are needed to break the back of this
epidemic. New infections will need to drop dramatically
in order to attain the other MDG goal of reducing the
rate of HIV infection by 50% by 2015.8 The decline in
new HIV infections has not been sufficient in areas
where the epidemic is concentrated among key popula-
tion groups with a higher risk of HIV infection, such
as sex workers, people who inject drugs and men who
have sex with men. There is a need for increased invest-
ments in prevention efforts targeted at groups that are
highly vulnerable to HIV transmission . . . To achieve
10/9/13 1:42 PM

all this we mustn’t take our foot off the pedal . . . And
remember that the Alliance is respected for working
with key populations.’
5 Improvements in biotechnology and ever-increasing
use of ICTs
‘There will be significant developments in biotechno-
logy such as the expected availability of microbicides
by 2019, the potential of a new TB vaccine, treatment
as prevention and better ART. These present enormous
Some key questions
opportunities and health benefits, but will have behavi-
Awo also issued a discussion paper that outlined some key
oural and social effects that are as yet poorly understood.
questions that needed to be addressed. These included the
Home HIV testing is likely to be made more available,
following.
which raises questions about how people access follow-
on health services, along with questions about how
those on treatment will understand themselves or be
understood by their communities in terms of HIV trans-
mission, sexual and injecting risk and social roles. Those
who are marginalised will continue to be excluded from
many of these developments.
Although there will still be a digital divide, new infor-
mation and communication technologies (ICTs) such as
telemedicine, the Internet and mobile phones have the
potential to help improve access to services, For example
diagnosis and prescriptions could be accessed remotely
and even anonymously. Increased access to the Internet
will provide greater availability of information on health
and rights.
What will this mean for the Alliance? The ability to
reach marginalised and high-need communities will be
critical, along with protecting a reputation that ensures
we continue to be a trusted provider of health and
human rights information. There is a need to explore
and understand what these new technologies mean for
key populations; and what the role of community mobil-
isation is in increasing uptake and reducing the negative
impacts. The Alliance will need to understand and work
with online communities.’
Awo explained further:
‘I was surprised that you could get diagnosed with HIV
and wander off with no drug regimen until your CD4
cell count hits 350. But in 2011 at the Rome conference
for HIV, highly significant clinical trial results were
announced. If someone who is HIV positive starts taking
the HIV regimen earlier than the current WHO guide-
lines (i.e. at a CD4 count between 350 and 550), then
the viral load reduces to such a low that their transmis-
sion risk to somebody else can potentially be reduced by
96%. So, for the first time it has been shown that treat-
ment is not only keeping people alive and healthy but
can prevent them passing on the virus. So, the Alliance
needs to rethink how much it does to support more
Z26_JOHN2545_10_SE_EM26.indd 705
INTERNATIONAL HIV/AIDS ALLIANCE (B) 705
people getting treatment early and adhering to that
treatment. However, we have been perceived as a much
more traditional prevention organisation, distributing
condoms, providing education, information and coun-
selling about transmission risks, prevention behaviours,
etc. It also means getting more people to adhere to their
drug regimes, because if people don’t, then the preven-
tion effect doesn’t work.’
Strategic responses
How should we respond to the divergence becoming
apparent between LICs and MICs?
Many LICs may continue to receive ODA. Here it
seems appropriate to continue to invest in helping
to scale up and maximise the impact of LOs. However,
in states in which ODA may not continue (in the
main MICs) we will have to shape new community
responses.
What should we do to convince governments and
donors that LOs are able to go beyond the project level
to influence investment decisions at national level, par-
ticularly in MICs?
In non-ODA-assisted states, such as in Asia, Latin America
and Eastern Europe, substantial volumes of funds are
still misdirected to generalised programming and pre-
vention activities for low-risk populations. There is also
limited evidence that countries are substantially increas-
ing domestic investments targeting key populations.
This underscores the importance of generating political
and social acceptance for policy and programming that
targets key populations in the medium and long term,
essential for long-term sustainable responses.
How might this be achieved?
In what ways might we work with the private sector as
a provider of services?
We will need to develop new business models for MICs.
Some emerging business models include the following:
1 Service Delivery Commissioned Model: delivering
services and running clinics commissioned/funded
by national governments. This will require defining
standard packages of services and models with
detailed (lower) unit costings; LOs going down this
track will need to develop a better understanding of
health systems and government budgeting and com-
missioning processes. A focus will be on facility-based
service delivery.
10/9/13 1:42 PM
 706 INTERNATIONAL HIV/AIDS ALLIANCE (B)
2 Government Development Partnership Model: influ-
encing health (and other) systems to improve access
and quality for key populations and protect human
rights. This would mean working with government
to ensure the packages of services are high quality
and comprehensive. It would involve providing
training/education and workforce development for
government providers or developing kitemarking for
services for key populations. There could also be an
advocacy role in influencing the spending priorities
and budget allocation of national and local govern-
ments to ensure they meet the needs of key popu-
lations and provide a comprehensive package of
services. Although some of this may be financed by
government, prevention activities may be dropped
compared with a focus on treatment for example.
3 Watchdog Model: holding governments to account
and addressing structural barriers through legal
processes. The ways of working here would be using
the judicial system and litigation to improve access
to health systems. The aims would be to influence
equity of budget allocation and ensure that rights are
being protected. If this was the sole or primary role of
an Alliance LO, we would need to develop technical
and legal expertise to scrutinise the work of public
bodies. Funding for this kind of work will almost
never come from national governments themselves,
so alternative funding will have to be sought. LOs
fulfilling this function are unlikely to be able to also
deliver services for governments.
4 Human Rights Defenders Model: protecting human
rights at the grassroots level. Here the focus would
be on advocating change and a more enabling
environment, using non-legal methods and advocacy
to challenge violence, homophobia and transphobia,
stigma and discrimination among communities.
Funding for this role is highly unlikely to be provided
Z26_JOHN2545_10_SE_EM26.indd 706
by national governments, so alternative and innova-
tive sources would be needed.
Which of these models is most appropriate and why?
How would (a) the Secretariat and (b) support hubs
need to change to support different business models?
Community action on HIV is often made difficult by
hostile policy environments. Resource constraints,
laws that perpetuate or exacerbate the marginalisation
and stigmatisation of key populations, and a failure to
enforce laws where they do exist, all undermine HIV
efforts and leads to rights violations.
Given the importance of key populations, what role
should the Alliance play: e.g. should it become a
stronger, more challenging public campaigner or one
that seeks to work more closely with governments?
A video featuring the work of the AIDS Alliance can be
seen on: ‘Someone’s mother, someone’s brother’ at http://
www.youtube.com/watch?v+jwDAiX2dut.
Notes and references
1. The first International HIV/AIDS Alliance case study appeared in the
9th edition of Exploring Strategy, deals with the 2010–12 strategic
plan and is available at www.pearsoned.co.uk/mystrategylab
2. $1 ≈ £0.66 ≈ €0.78.
3. Brazil, Russia, India and China.
4. Such as Somalia, Sudan, Congo, Zimbabwe, Chad, Haiti and
Afghanistan. Fragile states are de facto categorised as LICs.
5. Côte d’Ivoire, India, Mongolia, Nigeria, Senegal, South Sudan,
Vietnam and Zambia. Figures from the World Bank (2011).
6. Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Haiti, Kenya,
Kyrgyzstan, Mozambique, Myanmar, Uganda and Zimbabwe, from
World Bank (2011), ‘Country and lending groups’, http://data.world-
bank.org/about/country-classifications/country-and-lending-groups
7. UNAIDS (2012), UNAIDS report: Together We Will End AIDS, July
2012.
8. Ibid.
The author wishes to thank the International HIVAIDS Alliance for their
co-operation in the writing of the case study.
10/9/13 1:42 PM