Africa Fighting Malaria

Africa Fighting Malaria (AFM) was an advocacy organization established in 2000 during negotiations connected with the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Based in Washington, D.C., and associated with South Africa, it presented itself as a malaria-policy organization seeking more transparent, responsive, effective, integrated, and country-led approaches to malaria control. Its most prominent early issue was the continued availability of DDT for carefully controlled indoor residual spraying against malaria, particularly in homes and hospitals. AFM argued that international health and environmental institutions should not remove potentially useful tools from the malaria-control repertoire. It opposed what it viewed as overly restrictive interpretations of international pesticide policy and promoted the idea that governments should be able to use DDT where epidemiological conditions, public-health guidance, and safety controls justified it. The organization’s advocacy was connected to the wider debate over whether DDT should be prohibited globally or permitted for narrowly defined public-health applications. AFM participated in the Save Children From Malaria campaign, a coalition that also included the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the European Science and Environment Forum, the Liberty Institute, and the Center for Dissemination of Economic Knowledge. The organization also framed malaria policy within a broader economic and institutional philosophy. Its public materials favored market-oriented solutions and economic freedom, and its stated purpose included scrutinizing public institutions responsible for financing and implementing malaria programs. Its personnel and advisers had links to free-market and conservative policy organizations, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, Tech Central Station, the Free Market Foundation of South Africa, and the European Science and Environment Forum. AFM became controversial because critics characterized it as a front group or greenscamming organization rather than an independent public-health institution. Critics cited its association with free-market think tanks, alleged corporate or foundation funding, and its positions on DDT, climate policy, and environmental regulation. Documents released in litigation involving tobacco companies were cited by critics as evidence that founder Roger Bate regarded AFM as part of a broader communications strategy intended to portray Western environmentalists as indifferent to African lives. Other commentators, including writers on climate-change denial and environmental politics, placed AFM within networks that challenged ambitious climate mitigation policies and questioned conventional environmental narratives. According to the organization’s own published materials, it did not accept funding from governments, insecticide manufacturers, or pharmaceutical companies, while identifying support from a number of private foundations, corporate philanthropic funds, and related institutions. The cited funders included the Anglo American Chairman’s Fund, BHP, the Earhart Foundation, Hedge Funds vs. Malaria & Pneumonia, the Ohrstrom Foundation, the Thiel Foundation, the Swordspoint Foundation, and the Legatum Institute. These funding associations became part of the public debate over AFM’s independence and policy positioning. The available record indicates that AFM’s website was last substantially updated around 2011 and that the organization had not published an annual report or original research since that period. IRS filing summaries cited in reference material reported spending concentrated on executive compensation, with no program expenses recorded in the relevant filings. The available sources do not establish a formal dissolution date, a successor organization, or a current operating program. AFM is therefore best described as an organization of uncertain current status whose historical public identity was built around malaria advocacy, DDT policy, market-oriented development arguments, and criticism of environmental and international health institutions.

Africa Fighting Malaria was formed in 2000 in the context of negotiations over persistent organic pollutants and international restrictions on chemicals including DDT. Its founding purpose was to argue that malaria-endemic countries should retain access to DDT for narrowly controlled public-health applications, especially indoor residual spraying. AFM maintained that international policy should distinguish between agricultural or unrestricted use and carefully managed spraying intended to reduce malaria transmission. The organization presented malaria as both a public-health and governance problem. Its public statements called for institutions responsible for malaria funding and implementation to be more transparent, responsive, effective, integrated, and accountable to affected countries. It also connected disease control with a broader free-market position, arguing that economic freedom and market-based development could improve welfare and life expectancy in poorer countries. AFM’s staff and associates were linked to organizations including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, Tech Central Station, the European Science and Environment Forum, and the Free Market Foundation of South Africa. Through these relationships, AFM became part of a wider policy network that challenged some environmental regulations and criticized international approaches to chemical control. The organization’s best-known public initiative was Save Children From Malaria, a coalition effort involving several think tanks and advocacy groups that sought to prevent international rules from eliminating DDT’s public-health uses. AFM stated that it did not accept government, insecticide-industry, or pharmaceutical-industry funding. Its website nevertheless listed support from private foundations, corporate philanthropic funds, and related organizations, including the Anglo American Chairman’s Fund, BHP, the Earhart Foundation, Hedge Funds vs. Malaria & Pneumonia, the Ohrstrom Foundation, the Thiel Foundation, the Swordspoint Foundation, and the Legatum Institute. These relationships were cited by opponents as evidence that the organization should be understood within a broader network of corporate, libertarian, and conservative policy advocacy rather than as a conventional humanitarian NGO. The organization was also criticized in environmental and climate-policy literature. Some commentators classified it as a greenscamming group, alleging that it used concern for African malaria victims to oppose environmentalists and climate-mitigation policies. Documents from tobacco-related litigation were cited as showing that Roger Bate viewed AFM as part of a larger communications strategy designed to challenge the credibility of first-world environmental advocates. AFM and its supporters, by contrast, presented its work as an effort to prevent ideology and regulatory constraints from blocking effective malaria interventions. Available reference material describes AFM’s activities as including online articles, commentary, coalition work, and policy advocacy rather than large-scale medical implementation. Its website was last updated around 2011, and no later annual reports or original research are identified in the supplied material. IRS filing summaries cited in the reference record reported expenditures entirely on executive compensation and no program expenses for the relevant filings. No reliable source in the supplied material establishes whether the organization formally dissolved, changed its name, or continues to operate. Its present status is therefore uncertain.

• 2011

  Last identified website and publication activity

  [1]Africa Fighting Malariaen.wikipedia.org

  The organization’s website was last updated around this period, and reference material identifies no later annual reports or original research.

• 2000

  Organization founded during Stockholm Convention negotiations

  [1]Africa Fighting Malariaen.wikipedia.org

  Africa Fighting Malaria was established during negotiations concerning persistent organic pollutants, initially focusing on preserving a public-health exemption for DDT in malaria control.

• Save Children From Malaria campaign launched

  [1]Africa Fighting Malariaen.wikipedia.org

  AFM joined partner organizations in a campaign opposing an international ban that would remove controlled DDT spraying from malaria-control options.

A market-oriented malaria-policy advocacy organization emphasizing DDT availability, institutional accountability, economic freedom, and opposition to what it regarded as excessively restrictive environmental and public-health policies.

• Public-health advocacy · 2000

  Malaria policy advocacy

  AFM’s principal offering was policy advocacy concerning malaria prevention and treatment systems. It argued that public institutions should be accountable for funding and implementing integrated, country-driven malaria programs and should retain access to all tools that could be used safely and effectively.

• Environmental and health policy · 2000

  DDT policy advocacy

  The organization promoted the limited, controlled use of DDT for indoor residual spraying in malaria-endemic settings. Its position focused on a public-health exemption and on distinguishing targeted disease-control use from broader agricultural or unrestricted pesticide use.

• Policy communications

  Online commentary and publications

  AFM operated a website carrying its own articles, commentary, and material from other sources on malaria, environmental policy, climate issues, and economic development. The available record indicates that this publication activity largely ceased after the website’s last substantial update around 2011.

• Allegations that AFM operated as a front or greenscamming group

  Critics described Africa Fighting Malaria as a front organization established to discredit environmentalists and as a greenscamming group. The allegations focused on its policy network, funding relationships, and use of African malaria concerns in arguments against environmental regulation and climate policy.

  Source

• Tobacco-litigation documents and strategic communications claims

  Documents obtained in litigation involving tobacco companies were cited by critics as showing that founder Roger Bate viewed AFM as part of a broader strategy to portray first-world environmentalists as unconcerned about Black Africans.

  Source

• Questions over spending and program expenses

  Reference material citing IRS filings reported that the organization’s spending was entirely directed to executive compensation, with no program expenses recorded in the relevant filings. The record does not establish whether this reflected all years of operation.

  Source

Read more

• Save Children From Malaria

  International · Africa · United States · Europe

  AFM participated in a coalition campaign with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, European Science and Environment Forum, Liberty Institute, and Center for Dissemination of Economic Knowledge. The campaign argued against removing DDT from the set of tools available for malaria control.

  Outcome. The campaign helped keep the public-health use of DDT prominent in international policy debate, although the supplied sources do not provide a quantified outcome or a single decisive campaign result.

  Source

• 2000

  Make DDT access the organization’s initial policy priorityStrategy

  Background

  The organization was formed amid negotiations on persistent organic pollutants and concerns that international restrictions could eliminate DDT from malaria-control programs.

  Action taken

  AFM advocated a public-health exemption allowing controlled indoor spraying with DDT where health authorities considered it appropriate.

  Aftermath

  DDT remained the central issue associated with AFM and shaped its participation in the Save Children From Malaria coalition.

  Source

• Adopt a market-oriented framing for malaria policyStrategy

  Background

  AFM’s financial and policy materials linked malaria outcomes with economic freedom, market-based solutions, and institutional accountability.

  Action taken

  The organization combined disease-control advocacy with criticism of public-sector inefficiency and opposition to what it regarded as ideologically driven restrictions.

  Aftermath

  This framing connected AFM to free-market think tanks and contributed to criticism that it was a political advocacy vehicle rather than a conventional public-health NGO.

  Source

1. 1Africa Fighting Malariaen.wikipedia.org
2. 2Africa Fighting Malaria official websitefightingmalaria.org