Zambia signs US health deal after disputes over data-sharing

Zambia signs US health deal after disputes over data-sharing A leaked draft earlier this year prompted civil‑society groups to warn that Zambia was accepting broader data‑sharing terms than other African nations, including prolonged access to pathogen data and biological specimens. The Chapter One Foundation, a human‑rights organization, said the government risked “signing away” citizens’ health data. HIV advocates, including the Treatment Advocacy and Literacy Campaign, argued that the flow of information would be “one‑way” and demanded the agreement be made public. Opposition figures and activists also seized on reports linking health financing to preferential treatment for US firms seeking access to Zambia’s copper and other critical mineral reserves. In May, Foreign Minister Mulambo Haimbe described the data provision as a usurpation of privacy and called it “unconscionable,” accusing Washington of tying the package to mineral concessions. Then‑US ambassador Michael Gonzales rejected that characterization as false. The controversy was intensified by a prior US suspension of aid after the embassy alleged theft of donated medicines, a claim the Zambian government disputed. Zambia’s new arrangement replaces the long‑standing flow of funds primarily through US‑run programmes. The money is earmarked for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, maternal and child health, disease surveillance and wider health‑system strengthening, including the recruitment of community health workers. The United States frames the deal as a shift from a donor‑recipient model toward shared responsibility, noting that US contributions are expected to decline over the next five years as Zambia raises domestic spending. Officials have estimated the combined package for 2026‑2030 at approximately $3.6 bn, although figures for Zambia’s share have varied in different reports. Shortly after beginning his second term in January 2025, President Trump ordered the closure of USAID, a move that devastated health programmes in several African nations dependent on American funding. Critics contend the decision has hampered the speed of detecting the ongoing Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo and weakened the response, stressing that the humanitarian agency was vital for coordinating logistics, supplies and local outreach. The United States denies that its cuts have harmed efforts, asserting that the assistance is now more “aligned and effective” under the new agreement and citing its $270 million contribution to combat the epidemic. Read the full story at BBC News →