I have to say, I don't understand this policy on DDT... It seems that we want these people to die.
While the harmful environmental effects of DDT may be exaggerated in some quarters, they are not completely mythical. And there are a lot of changes that need to be made in Africa to improve health and lifespan, that don't involve spreading toxic chemicals all over the place. It's worth noting that malaria used to be endemic in the southeastern U.S., and we managed to eradicate it, and are continuing to keep it at bay, without using DDT. It arrived in the 17th century, was a serious and widespread problem in the 19th century, and was virtually wiped out by 1940, BEFORE the introduction of DDT.
People all over Africa are dying of easily preventable diseases, from AIDS, which many Africans simply refuse to take any precautions against, to diarrhea in infants, which can be cured in time to save the infant's life with just a few cents worth of medicine that doesn't do one iota of harm to the environment. Those issues, and all the other issues that contribute the miserable state of human health in Africa, ought to be addressed before launching any human health initiatives that involve a "to hell with the wildlife" policy.
In people who live in a civilized manner and are reasonably healthy to begin with, malaria is rarely fatal. I would know -- I had it twice by the time I was 5 years old, and got over it both times without any medical care beyond what was available in the 1960s in the backward country of Rwanda where my family was living. Now in virtually perfect health in my mid-40s, my realistic life expectancy is well above the U.S. average. The high number of African deaths from malaria are not due to the absence of DDT (and in many cases, are due to the victims also having AIDS).