Svetlanas dating kyrgystan

Kyrgyzstan has gained the reputation of having a higher level of political commitment to the HIV/AIDS cause than most of its neighbours (Ancker 2013).

svetlanas dating kyrgystan-56svetlanas dating kyrgystan-55svetlanas dating kyrgystan-72

Over the years, Kyrgyzstan has received funding from a variety of multilateral and bilateral agencies, including the World Bank, the World Health Organization, Soros Foundation-Kyrgyzstan and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).These actors not only played a crucial role in setting up and funding many HIV/AIDS projects but also helped to improve the normative and legislative basis for HIV/AIDS prevention and control efforts (CCC 2010; 2012; Bashmakova 2007).Yet, its declared commitment has not been backed with adequate state resources.In 2011, out of .7 million spent on Kyrgyzstan’s HIV/AIDS response, only about

Over the years, Kyrgyzstan has received funding from a variety of multilateral and bilateral agencies, including the World Bank, the World Health Organization, Soros Foundation-Kyrgyzstan and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

These actors not only played a crucial role in setting up and funding many HIV/AIDS projects but also helped to improve the normative and legislative basis for HIV/AIDS prevention and control efforts (CCC 2010; 2012; Bashmakova 2007).

Yet, its declared commitment has not been backed with adequate state resources.

In 2011, out of $5.7 million spent on Kyrgyzstan’s HIV/AIDS response, only about $1.4 million came from state sources, whereas the rest was funded by international donors (CCC 2012), yielding them considerable political influence.

It maps all stakeholders relevant for HIV/AIDS policy-making in Kyrgyzstan and analyses their position and influence.

||

Over the years, Kyrgyzstan has received funding from a variety of multilateral and bilateral agencies, including the World Bank, the World Health Organization, Soros Foundation-Kyrgyzstan and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).These actors not only played a crucial role in setting up and funding many HIV/AIDS projects but also helped to improve the normative and legislative basis for HIV/AIDS prevention and control efforts (CCC 2010; 2012; Bashmakova 2007).Yet, its declared commitment has not been backed with adequate state resources.In 2011, out of $5.7 million spent on Kyrgyzstan’s HIV/AIDS response, only about $1.4 million came from state sources, whereas the rest was funded by international donors (CCC 2012), yielding them considerable political influence.It maps all stakeholders relevant for HIV/AIDS policy-making in Kyrgyzstan and analyses their position and influence.

.4 million came from state sources, whereas the rest was funded by international donors (CCC 2012), yielding them considerable political influence.It maps all stakeholders relevant for HIV/AIDS policy-making in Kyrgyzstan and analyses their position and influence.

Understanding the complex relations at play in the policy process is vital not only for informing decision-makers and assisting the future design and implementation of effective and sustainable HIV/AIDS policies, but also for building consensus among national stakeholders and advocacy efforts in Kyrgyzstan.

We found that most stakeholders were supportive of progressive HIV/AIDS policies, but that their influence levels varied considerably.

Worryingly, several major state agencies exhibited some resistance or lack of initiative towards HIV/AIDS policies, often prompting international agencies and local NGOs to conceptualize and drive appropriate policies.

Most of them focus on prevention activities and the provision of services to most-at-risk populations and PLWHA (Murzalieva and Bogatikova 2010).

However, in recent years, some of the larger NGOs and NGO associations have become more active on the HIV/AIDS policy arena, demanding the revision of existing or the introduction of new legislation to better meet the needs and interests of their client populations.

This period was followed by another wave of intense policy revisions and improvements in 2004–2007, with a greater focus on protecting the human rights of most at-risk populations, PLWHA and other affected populations (Bashmakova 2007).