The Investment Framework and the community

response

Mike Podmore, IHAAAug 2012

Contents

1. Civil Society Engagement in the IF – CS Meetings– UNAIDS/ICSS CM&IF Meeting– APCASO IF Seminar– CS Documentation

2. Why does the Investment Framework matter for Civil Society

3. What are the Limitations of the Investment Framework

Civil Society engagement in the investment

framework

CS Meetings• Nov 2011 - UNAIDS held small civil society

consultation in Geneva• Dec /Jun 2011 – Consultation on IF in UNAIDS

PCB• Feb 2012 – UNAIDS and ICSS host Dar meeting

on ‘community mobilisation and the IF’ (for generalised epidemics)

• Apr 2012 – APCASO held Introductory IF seminar in Asia

• Jul 2012 – numerous sessions on IF at IAC

UNAIDS/ICSS CM & IF MeetingDar, Tanzania , 21-23 Feb 2012

• 75 reps from civil society, government and UNAIDS met to discuss the Investment Framework, opportunities and challenges in application of this framework at the country level and how UNAIDS should proceed with ensuring its uptake.

Outcome Document recomms.1. All credible expressions of country interest in

uptake of the Investment Framework should be supported.

2. Ensure people living with HIV and communities at greatest risk of infection are equal partners

3. The Investment Framework must become a living document

4. Ensure an effective role for civil society in implementation

5. Outlined support needs from global networks, UNAIDS, Global Fund and PEPFAR

APCASO’s Introductory SIF Seminar 26 April 2012, Bangkok

Objectives: • A Brief Analysis of Current Climate for HIV and

AIDS Policy, Programme, Funding and Advocacy • Understanding the Strategic Investment

Framework and Aligning it with other Key Global Policy Frameworks

• Putting SIF In Context at Country Level • Regional and National Strategies for Advocacy

Participants from 12 national-level HIV organisations from 10 countries in Asia, 7 regional KAP networks and others. Total participants: 25

Expected outcomes • Energetic and systematic engagement with SIF

by civil society advocates• Enhanced knowledge and understanding of

major policy frameworks• Identification and analysis of challenges,

opportunities and strategies for civil society advocates to influence and contribute to the national response

• Initiation of ongoing informed dialogue at regional and national levels.

Since this seminar, participants from Cambodia, China, Nepal and Sri Lanka have taken actions to share SIF with their networks and partners; have discussed organising national CS dialogues or consultations with national AIDS commissions and interested donors; have proposed SIF on CCM meeting agenda.

(APCASO Introductory Seminar, 26 Apr’12, Bangkok)

Critical enablers: - Gaps, potential - What new roles?

Dialogue with govts, donors and other stakeholders

Own capacity + competencies

Use SIF to negotiate existing programmes, e.g. GF Renewals

Country Develop framework to mobilise community

Areas of collaboration and opportunities for TA and resources

Regional Networks

Guidance on SIF implementation

Clarity on TA or support for civil society

UCO or focal points – Facilitate process for civil society and enable meaningful participation by CS

UNAIDS

Civil Society – Suggestions and Expectations

AlsoWhat role can Global Fund play for SIF at national level?

(APCASO Introductory Seminar, 26 Apr’12, Bangkok)

• A regional task force or committee (5-6 people from planning group?) to monitor progress of proposed road maps or strategies.

• Need to maintain periodic communications with country advocates on progress of activities.

• Provide TA and tools to support country-level capacity

• Plan for a report-back in mid-2013 or early 2014?

• Create space for SIF dialogue • Advocate with Government• Form SIF-CS working groups – idea of

‘critical mass’ – advocates helping and motivating each other.

• Map SIF against national response (the NSPs)

• Do baseline analysis of:– Investment flows– 6 programme areas– Link enablers to these 6 areas

• Explore or identify possible new roles

Follow Up Needed

(APCASO Introductory Seminar, 26 Apr’12, Bangkok)

Possible Country Activities

Moi Lee Liowmoileel@apcaso.org APCASO, 22 Aug ’12 check out www.apcaso.org for our proceedings report

CS Documentation• ITPC consultation on Treatment 2.0 (2011)• Alliance IF discussion paper (Sept 2011)• ICSS collation of docs and power points on community

mobilisation and the IF (2012)• IF CM Meeting Outcome Document (Mar 2012)• Alliance discussion paper on CM (Jul 2012)In pipeline:• Generic two-page description of IF and CS• Generic CS roadmap for IF at national level• UNAIDS paper on Critical Enablers and Development

Synergies

Why does the Investment Framework matter for civil society?

The IF is key for civil society because:

1. It confirms that communities have an indispensable role in the HIV response and must be seen as an equal partner with government and other stakeholders.

2) It places components such as community centred design and delivery and community mobilisation as ‘critical’ enablers – not ‘nice if you have some extra money’ enablers.

A shift to primary care and community-led approaches is the only way to:

• scale up basic programme interventions to the level needed;

• to reach the hardest to reach populations; • to keep people accessing services; • and for the cost not to spiral out of control

3) Cost efficiencies are not dependent on under-resourced community responses or exploitation of unpaid labour

• CSS built in (but not explicit)• CHWs costed (but not emphasised)

4) It gives us an opportunity to articulate the value of integration work at community level

– how the HIV response supports and builds broader health and development priorities

5) Human rights approach is highlighted as foundation of IF

Programming such as advocacy, stigma reduction and efforts towards supportive laws and practices reduce insurmountable barriers to access

6) It is an opportunity for dialogue and closer working between civil society, government and other key stakeholders

What are the limitations of the Investment Framework?

• Theories of change that show the relationships between components of the IF

• How the IF might change in different national epidemic typologies (e.g. concentrated, generalised and mixed epidemics)

• The ‘critical enablers’ need better definition and testing in different contexts and cultures

• How are the needs of women and girls met?• How the IF acts on and supports the

implementation of new science (e.g. TaP)

Gaps and further explanation needed:

Cont.

• How the IF can only work in an enabling legal environment

• Better documentation of best practices in community health approaches

• Improve data supporting effectiveness and costing of community mobilisation activities and costing data on certain programmatic interventions (e.g. sex work)

• Profile the importance of Monitoring and evaluation• Raise role of community system strengthening in

underpinning community interventions (& how it links to the CSS framework)

Thanks

Contact: mpodmore@aidsalliance.org