Posted on

Correction: Give The Women of Africa an Option In Protection

In my article, Anti-HIV/AIDS Campaigns: Give The Women of Africa an Option In Protection

I stated: The main disadvantage of the female condom is that it is three times more expensive than the male condom and therefore beyond the means of women in most African communities where the average income is less than a dollar a day. (The cost of the female condom is between $2.50 -$5.00).

Correction:

The cost of the FC2 Female Condom is around $0.60 for governments and donors and lower with increased volume.  The $2 price is what FC1 costs on the shelf in a retail drug store in the US.  The FC2 was developed to lower the cost of the female condom with intent to increase access to women in Africa. It has same design but different material and different manufacturing process which allows for the significantly lower cost.   

I apologize for mixing these up in the article.

 Thank you,

Kwabena Amponsah-Manager

Share
Posted on

Reducing trauma in HIV orphans

uganda orphans
When a child loses a parent to HIV/AIDS, grief counselling helps with the trauma of loss, but when the child is both poor and orphaned, the chances of a fulfilling life are significantly diminished.
Studies have found high levels of psychological distress among such orphans, and suggest interventions to improve their mental wellbeing. Here are some ways to minimize trauma among these children:
Keep them in the family
Most African orphans remain with their extended families, being cared for by either the remaining parent, grandparents or other relatives. Studies show that staying with family is best for children; institutional care should only be a temporary solution or last resort.
Keeping brothers and sisters together also enhances their emotional wellbeing; a 1998 Zambian study found increased emotional distress after sibling separation.
 
In addition, it appears that remaining with closer relatives rather than more distant ones is also better for orphans. A 2003 study in the district of Rakai, central Uganda, found that the more distant the relative, the lower the chances of child survival.
 
Meet their basic needs
Few African parents leave wills, and property grabbing is common when adults die; in a Ugandan survey, 21 percent of orphans aged 13-18 reported property grabbing. The phenomenon undermines the livelihood of families already weakened by the death of parents.
In addition, families who take in orphaned children are often poor themselves; additional mouths to feed often stretch limited resources to breaking point. These families may need economic support to a larger number of dependents.
 
A 2008 study suggested that programmes such as school-feeding schemes, sustainable food and gardening projects, employment initiatives and targeted assistance for grant applications could have positive mental health impacts on AIDS-orphaned children.
 
Provide psycho-social care
Dealing with the loss of a parent is tough enough, but watching a parent die, adjusting to a new family and dealing with stigma and a much worse economic position make counselling all the more important. A 2002 study in Tanzania's commercial capital, Dar es Salaam, found that orphans were significantly more likely than non-orphans to internalize their problems, jeopardizing their long-term mental health.
Grief counselling is important, notably for younger children who do not yet fully grasp the concept of death. Orphans may also need more life-skills training, particularly if they are not living in traditional family set-ups and have little chance of learning, for instance, gender roles and how to make the transition from childhood to adulthood. Peer support groups can be especially helpful in allowing orphans to share their feelings with people who may be going through similar situations.
 
Keep them in school
School drop-out rates tend to be higher among orphaned children; they often quit school to care for sick parents and never make it back into the education system. A 2004 Princeton University study of 10 sub-Saharan African countries found that orphans were at significant risk for lower school enrolment.
"When these orphans are not in school something happens, they refuse to think, but once they get back in school they regain focus on their lives," she told IRIN/PlusNews. "The difference between the child on the first day of farm school and one term later is amazing – they begin to look like any other child."
Free primary education has gone some way to improving overall school attendance, but other factors, such as living with a non-relative, continue to hamper orphans' education.
School-based peer support groups have also been shown to reduce psychological distress of orphaned younger children and teenagers.
 
Caring for the carers
Families taking in orphans face challenges too – a new household structure, additional expenses and the responsibility of caring for psychologically distressed children.
Custodial families may need counselling themselves to adequately respond to the emotional needs of orphans.
Surviving grandparents often step into the role of parent when their children die from AIDS-related causes. A Ugandan study  found that custodial grandparents experienced extreme economic deprivation, felt physically challenged with care-giving and emotionally stretched by concerns for the children under their care.
According to a 2009 South African study, families caring for orphans are not receiving the support they need; the authors found a lack of assistance from social support services and family. They recommended that health workers and home-based caregivers be trained to support orphans' caregivers.
 
Authors of the Ugandan study recommended that grandparents be offered "respite care, child care, parenting support, support groups and skills development and recreational opportunities for the grandchildren".
 
(A UN Study/IRIN)
Share
Posted on

G20 Leaders Must Renew Their Commitment to Global Development

By Kofi Annan
Ahead of today’s G20 Summit in South Korea, two issues stand out for those of us who take an interest in international development.
First, the concepts of fairness, balance, and the common good have experienced a welcome renaissance as world leaders have had to remind each other of these universal principles to avoid a potentially devastating escalation of their disagreements on currency values and trade imbalances.
Second, while it remains to be seen to what extent it will help to bring countries’ contending economic strategies into line, this rediscovery of basic values comes just as the G20 is beginning to include international development issues in its deliberations. Naturally, it is my profound hope that the principles of fairness, balance and the common good which have become so popular with G20 leaders lately will also inform these discussions — and not only those on issues like undervalued currencies, lopsided trade statistics or skewed consumption patterns however important they may be.
Unfortunately, the signs are decidedly mixed. On the one hand, the global repercussions of the financial and economic crises have clearly nourished an understanding of the true extent and consequences of our interdependence. At least for a moment, there seems to have been a consensus that a world that restricts the benefits of globalization to a few at the expense of many is neither fair nor stable; that one cannot address trade imbalances without addressing the development imbalances that underlie them; and that it is in everyone’s interest to see the developing world graduate out of instability and economic dependence as soon as possible.
However, all these realizations have not yet led to the fundamentally different policies that are so urgently needed. In fact, in many G20 countries the crises, and particularly their effects on the world’s poor, appear already all but forgotten and business and politics have resumed with little regard to the damage caused, the trust destroyed, and the lessons learned. Several G20 members have even used the economic upheavals as an excuse to tighten protectionist policies in direct contrast to their repeated pledges to keep markets open. As so often, developing countries have been among the primary victims.
This is deeply unfortunate as, in my view, the G20 states, both individually and collectively, are the natural drivers of development. They are, by definition, the countries with the capacity, resources, influence and, thus, the moral obligation and responsibility to help those less fortunate.
Many of them have only recently graduated into major economies and their developmental experiences are still fresh. These countries understand that the key to development is not charity but equitable, job creating, and ideally green economic growth fueled by investment in the productive sectors, agriculture, infrastructure, renewable energy, trade, knowledge and technical skills. They also appreciate that the most important sources of development finance must be domestic revenues and private sector investment and that aid’s main value other than in meeting urgent humanitarian needs, is to increase capacities, reduce dependence upon external support, and to lubricate and leverage investment in the sources of growth and good governance.
It is thus encouraging that the development agenda proposed by the South Korean presidency speaks as much to these realities as to a new sense of partnership and genuine mutual accountability. The document, as far as it is known, covers all the right points, including the unblocking of existing initiatives and the need to complement the efforts of other actors such as the G8, the G77 and, of course, the United Nations. If the leaders assembled in Seoul decide to take it on with the same universal values in mind that they now invoke in the areas of trade and exchange rates, we will have gained much.
Having said all this, the implementation of the valuable ideas entailed in the Korean proposal should not be made dependent on the G20 taking them on as a group. While a renewed commitment to development by the world’s most powerful group would certainly be a major step in the right direction and send an important political signal to developing countries, it is of course not enough on its own to overcome the immense challenges that these countries face. Nor does it necessarily invalidate some of the concerns raised regarding the G20’s legitimacy and capacity.
What really counts is that each member of the group internalizes the concepts of fairness, balance, and the common good and adapts its behaviour accordingly. If the G20 setup can help them do so by playing to its unquestionable strengths of composition, reach and sheer economic prowess, this will be all the better and should not only be welcomed, but encouraged.
Kofi Annan is Former UN Secretary General & Chair of the Africa Progress Panel.
Share