Progress and Challenges in Harmonising HIV/AIDS Funds in SADC Region

undefined
 
 
Teresa Guthrie
Centre for Economic Governance and AIDS in Africa
 
Inaugural Conference of the African Health Economics and Policy Association
Accra - Ghana, 10th - 12th March 2009
PS 02/5
 
To assess the progress of SADC countries
towards harmonisation & alignment of
funds for HIV and AIDS
To review the existing declarations &
 
instruments
To identify the blocks and challenges
To make suggestions for required actions.
 
Literature review
Interviews with key respondents from
various SADC countries
Used data from country NASA reports
,
 
where available
 
Incidence of HIV/AIDS has been steadily
increasing in the SADC region for the last two
decades
15 million HIV-positive people in SADC Region
51% of all the infections in Africa are in SADC
37% of the global total  are in SADC
Thus SADC region is the worst affected in the
world
 
Member states have 
put in place measures at
both national & regional levels for treatment,
prevention & mitigation
Multi-sectoral strategic plans (NSPs) and strong
leadership response
Commitment to Abuja Declaration and Plan of
Action, the New Partnership for Africa's
Development (NEPAD), the Millennium
Development Goals (MDG) and the UN General
Assembly Special Session of HIV/AIDS
Increasing partnerships with International
Cooperation Partners (ICPs) 
- 
Donor coordination
meetings, partnership framework, ICP framework
Increasing role of civil society
 
SADC HIV/AIDS Strategic Framework and Plan of
Action: 2003-2007 adopted
Underscored the importance of 
resource
mobilization
 in the fight against HIV/AIDS
Approved the establishment of a 
regional fund
 for
the implementation of the SADC HIV/AIDS Strategic
Framework and Programme of Action 2003-2007
Urged International Cooperating Partners and
international development finance institutions to
generously contribute
 to the fund
Appealed for a 
relaxation in the stringent
requirements
 attached to accessing these funds on
the part of ICPs
Members to continue efforts towards allocating at
least 15% of their national budgets to health,
consistent with 
the Abuja Declaration
.
 
Difficult to get a regional picture, requires
country level analysis and reporting to SADC
Not all countries have undertaken NASAs nor
accurately costed their NSPs
Some countries not aware of all the commitments
and disbursements made to HIV/AIDS, and very
few aware of the actual expenditure
So do not have a clear picture of the resources
required, the resources available, and therefore
cannot estimate the resource gap & mobilise
funds
Limited evidence on the extent of absorptive
capacity (undermined by above points)
 
From external, domestic, and some
private/ business sector resources
Increasing number of actors –
confusion, fragmentation, duplication,
 
undermining a coherent response
 
Varying funding mechanisms &
reporting requirements – varying
complexity and strengths &
weaknesses
 
Authority is dispersed
National priorities are weakened
M&E is fragmented
Implementation is slowed
Duplication, gaps, wastage of resources
Poor absorption
Impact is limited
 
 
 
Aid Effectiveness
Harmonisation  and alignment
Existing declarations, instruments, tools
Country efforts
From OECD/DAC
 
“Aid harmonisation refers to the creation of
common arrangements for managing foreign
aid. It requires that donors should work together
to ensure that their systems and processes are
standardised to reduce transaction costs to the
recipient government
”.
 
(AFRODAD, 2007).
 
The adoption of common procedures:
Use the national government budget process
(direct budget support)
Use the government accounting and
procurement systems,
Undertake 
joint:
aid missions to a country
diagnostic studies (sit.analysis)
monitoring, auditing and evaluation processes
 
2002 Monterrey - conference on Financing for
Development
2003 Rome: High-Level Forum on Harmonization
2003 ICASA: 
The Three Ones conceptualized
2003 Maseru: HIV/AIDS Summit
2004 Washington: 
Harmonization of International
Funding
2004 Tanzania: 
Africa Region Workshop on
Harmonization, Alignment and Results
2005 Paris: 
Declaration on Aid Effectiveness
2005 London: 
Global Task Team established
2005 Rio: Three Ones Consultative Workshop
2006 Paris:
Innovative Financing for Development
2006 Rwanda: 
Harmonisation, Alignment and Aid
Management
 
goes beyond previous agreements by
attempting to lay down a more practical, action-
oriented roadmap to improve the quality of aid
and its impact on development” 
(AFRODAD, 2007).
 
5 five key principles:
ownership
alignment
harmonisation
managing for results
mutual accountability
establishes a commitment to track and set targets
against 12 indicators of progress.
 
Joint Assistance Strategies (JAS) or Development Aid
Strategies (DAS) for aid mobilization, coordination and
utilization (eg. Zambia, Malawi, Tanzania).
Aim at increasing efficiency and effectiveness in the
mobilisation and utilisation of aid to achieve development
goals
Number of reforms, such as the establishment of new aid
coordination mechanisms, which causing an increase in
the number of structures that that manage aid in the
country.
Aid and Debt Policies
Public Financial Management (PFM) reform
Support for the PFM agenda/ Action Plan
Regular stakeholder dialogue forums, partnership
forums
Increasing joint approaches:
Planning, Reviews and analytical work, SWAp, Direct
budget support, Pooled funding – common funds.
undefined
 
Plenary Session Wed!
 
 
Factors undermining “One National Framework”:
NSP is often disregarded by the various actors
National target setting might be unrealistic
May be due to accommodating civil society demands
NSP are not well costed, leading to an under- or
over-estimation of resources required
Donors continue to fund direct projects, which
may be on or off the plan, and which they may or
may not report on
Civil society groups may not buy-in to the NSP nor
feel the need to report on their activities and
expenditure
 
 
 
Factors undermining 
“One National Coordinating
Authority”
Donors still have their own agendas and
interests, not consulting with NACs
Duplication and parallel systems of CCMs and
National AIDS Authority
Staff shortages and gaps in the NAC, in the MoH
and MoF
Civil society has role to hold govt and donors
accountable, but should also be accountable to
NAC
Power is not given to NACs to manage the funds
 
 
Factors undermining 
“One M&E system”:
Lack of capacity in M&E
Financial reporting weak - Many NACs are not aware of
what has been spent on the HIV/AIDS national
priorities
Donors continue to have individual programme
monitoring & reviews, and separate auditing
requirements imposed on recipient Governments
Failure of national budget & accounting systems to
link expenditure  with HIV/AIDS priorities
The activities & outputs of civil society are
generally not included in the national M&E system
(eg. Swaziland has specifically developed the
SHAPMoS but CSOs are resisting)
 
Factors undermining 
unified systems and
procedures:
The Public Finance Management reform is progressing
slowly, leading to a lack of trust in Govt. systems &
donor cynicism
The national procurement, auditing and accounting
systems are weak, or perceived to be weak by donors
Some donors’ systems are inflexible, preventing rapid
alignment
Governments do not provide clear guidelines on
scheduling and conduct of missions, nor demanding
joint missions
Creating an optimal combination of DBS, Sector
Support, Basket Funding (what really contributes to
harmonisation?)
 
NAC/ governmental roles:
NSP should be a “living document” that guides the
national response (responsive, involving all
stakeholders, buy-in, engendered)
Governments to own and lead the response to
HIV/AIDS
Governments to better define the “rules of
engagement” with partners
Develop a clear agenda for action, reflecting mutual
accountability, building on countries' own systems, with
clear allocation of responsibilities for all parties 
(govt,
donors, civil society)
NSP should be realistically costed, and expenditure
against the priority activities should be tracked
Establish and maintain structures for regular dialogue
with all stakeholders
 
Increase/ demand for more joint approaches:
Planning, Reviews and analytical work, Direct budget support,
SWAp, Pooled funding, baskets
Government and donors and civil society to agree on a
common framework for financial performance
monitoring, strengthen economic governance systems
Design and implement a system of assessing donors
based on Paris Declaration norms – 
eg. Donor Score
Card
Government to formulate and implement an Aid
Coordination Calendar (donors to align their fiscal
year)
Sector ministries to articulate work plans for their
contribution to the HIV/AIDS national priorities
All levels of govt to enhance their own accounting,
reporting and transparency regarding fund utilisation –
this will increase donor confidence and willingness to
align and encourage civil society accountability
 
ICP’s roles
Increase predictability of donor funding (longer-term
commitments), with greater flexibility
More funding for general health systems strengthening
More support for the construction of solid national
authorities and coordination capacity
Emphasis on human and institutional capacity building
Accept and use the national M&E and reporting
systems
Harmonize reporting requirements, tools and indicators
Donors to use national systems for procurement,
accounting and auditing
Closer exchange and  effective dialogue between
Global Fund and UN
Emphasis on strengthening govt. financial information
systems, so as to enable electronic timeous reporting
on expenditure and easily available data
(computerised systems reporting according to NASA
categories)
 
SADC Roles:
Strengthened communication channels and
mechanisms for sharing info across SADC and between
NACs – sharing best practices
Strengthened position if negotiating as SADC
Spearhead the development of a Code of Conduct for
all partners, particularly relating to ICPs alignment with
NSPs (eg. Donor Score Card)
Fund for the response to HIV/AIDS?
Hold joint annual reviews of progress towards
harmonisation and alignment – with all stakeholders
Request regular commitment & expenditure reports
from Members – to create the regional funding picture
Regional group to consider/ monitor regional funding
issues
Encourage Members’ use of the RNE, NASA and CHAT
tools
 
 
Civil Society’s roles:
Civil society could broaden its advocacy focus to include
processes such as alignment and harmonization
Generate more public debate on alignment to drive the
“access” agenda – delivery of Universal Access relies on
effective architecture – “making the money work”
Demand the govt and ICP reveal their actual expenditure
in-country
Reveal their own activities and expenditure leading to
improved governance and greater transparency (eg.
recent Declaration on Good Governance and
Leadership)
Demand greater transparency of adherence to promises
Increased financial contribution from the private sector
 
 
International Health partnership and
related initiatives (IHP+)
 is a 
collective
commitment to work together in more
effective ways to improve health care
Rationalising of the health architecture
Change in the way donors work together with
partner countries through coordinated efforts of
all stakeholders
the strengthening of in-country health system
services
under the leadership of the Government, acting
with the representatives of civil society
 
To prove the impact of the IHP+ will require strong,
transparent financial information & accounting systems
by governments.
Spending of pooled funds is difficult to track to the
specific donor ~ adoption of single reporting by govt
without individual outputs reflected.
Public contributions to health are key to sustainability of
programmes, and therefore donor-dependency must be
addressed.
Evidence of basket funding for HIV/AIDS  and
Partnership Forums – donors maintain dominance in
determining spending priorities, and can ‘gang up’
against govt.
Are donors ready to allow governments full
determination of the use of funds?
Will funding for critical NGO services reduce?
 
 
Teresa Guthrie
Centre for Economic Governance and AIDS in Africa
teresa@cegaa.org
+27-82-872-4694
Slide Note
Embed
Share

Incidence of HIV/AIDS in the SADC region has been steadily increasing, with 15 million HIV-positive individuals. Member states have implemented measures at national and regional levels, including multi-sectoral plans and commitments to various frameworks and declarations. Efforts have been made towards resource mobilization, fund establishment, and budget allocation for health.

  • HIV/AIDS
  • SADC region
  • Resource mobilization
  • Harmonisation
  • Health budget

Uploaded on Sep 07, 2024 | 2 Views


Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Teresa Guthrie Centre for Economic Governance and AIDS in Africa Inaugural Conference of the African Health Economics and Policy Association Accra - Ghana, 10th - 12th March 2009 PS 02/5

  2. To assess the progress of SADC countries towards harmonisation & alignment of funds for HIV and AIDS To review the existing declarations & instruments To identify the blocks and challenges To make suggestions for required actions.

  3. Literature review Interviews with key respondents from various SADC countries Used data from country NASA reports, where available

  4. Incidence of HIV/AIDS has been steadily increasing in the SADC region for the last two decades 15 million HIV-positive people in SADC Region 51% of all the infections in Africa are in SADC 37% of the global total are in SADC Thus SADC region is the worst affected in the world

  5. Member states have put in place measures at both national & regional levels for treatment, prevention & mitigation Multi-sectoral strategic plans (NSPs) and strong leadership response Commitment to Abuja Declaration and Plan of Action, the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and the UN General Assembly Special Session of HIV/AIDS Increasing partnerships with International Cooperation Partners (ICPs) - Donor coordination meetings, partnership framework, ICP framework Increasing role of civil society

  6. SADC HIV/AIDS Strategic Framework and Plan of Action: 2003-2007 adopted Underscored the importance of resource mobilization in the fight against HIV/AIDS Approved the establishment of a regional fund for the implementation of the SADC HIV/AIDS Strategic Framework and Programme of Action 2003-2007 Urged International Cooperating Partners and international development finance institutions to generously contribute to the fund Appealed for a relaxation in the stringent requirements attached to accessing these funds on the part of ICPs Members to continue efforts towards allocating at least 15% of their national budgets to health, consistent with the Abuja Declaration.

  7. Difficult to get a regional picture, requires country level analysis and reporting to SADC Not all countries have undertaken NASAs nor accurately costed their NSPs Some countries not aware of all the commitments and disbursements made to HIV/AIDS, and very few aware of the actual expenditure So do not have a clear picture of the resources required, the resources available, and therefore cannot estimate the resource gap & mobilise funds Limited evidence on the extent of absorptive capacity (undermined by above points)

  8. From external, domestic, and some private/ business sector resources Increasing number of actors confusion, fragmentation, duplication, undermining a coherent response Varying funding mechanisms & reporting requirements varying complexity and strengths & weaknesses

  9. Authority is dispersed National priorities are weakened M&E is fragmented Implementation is slowed Duplication, gaps, wastage of resources Poor absorption Impact is limited

  10. Aid Effectiveness Harmonisation and alignment Existing declarations, instruments, tools Country efforts

  11. From OECD/DAC

  12. Aid harmonisation refers to the creation of common arrangements for managing foreign aid. It requires that donors should work together to ensure that their systems and processes are standardised to reduce transaction costs to the recipient government . (AFRODAD, 2007).

  13. The adoption of common procedures: Use the national government budget process (direct budget support) Use the government accounting and procurement systems, Undertake joint: aid missions to a country diagnostic studies (sit.analysis) monitoring, auditing and evaluation processes

  14. 2002 Monterrey - conference on Financing for Development 2003 Rome: High-Level Forum on Harmonization 2003 ICASA: The Three Ones conceptualized 2003 Maseru: HIV/AIDS Summit 2004 Washington: Harmonization of International Funding 2004 Tanzania: Africa Region Workshop on Harmonization, Alignment and Results 2005 Paris: Declaration on Aid Effectiveness 2005 London: Global Task Team established 2005 Rio: Three Ones Consultative Workshop 2006 Paris:Innovative Financing for Development 2006 Rwanda: Harmonisation, Alignment and Aid Management

  15. goes beyond previous agreements by attempting to lay down a more practical, action- oriented roadmap to improve the quality of aid and its impact on development (AFRODAD, 2007). 5 five key principles: ownership alignment harmonisation managing for results mutual accountability establishes a commitment to track and set targets against 12 indicators of progress.

  16. Joint Assistance Strategies (JAS) or Development Aid Strategies (DAS) for aid mobilization, coordination and utilization (eg. Zambia, Malawi, Tanzania). Aim at increasing efficiency and effectiveness in the mobilisation and utilisation of aid to achieve development goals Number of reforms, such as the establishment of new aid coordination mechanisms, which causing an increase in the number of structures that that manage aid in the country. Aid and Debt Policies Public Financial Management (PFM) reform Support for the PFM agenda/ Action Plan Regular stakeholder dialogue forums, partnership forums Increasing joint approaches: Planning, Reviews and analytical work, SWAp, Direct budget support, Pooled funding common funds.

  17. Plenary Session Wed!

  18. Spending Priorities 2005 HIV- and AIDS-Related Research Community Development & Enhanced Environment 1,200,000,000 1,000,000,000 Social mitigation 800,000,000 Human Resources for HIV and AIDS activities Pula 600,000,000 Prog.Devmt & HSS strengthening 400,000,000 Orphans and Vulnerable Children (OVC) 200,000,000 Treatment and care components Total 0 Prevention Programmes Public sector Internat.Orgs Grand Total

  19. Strengthen Legal & Ethical Enviro. 0 0.5 Psychosocial & Economic Impact 17 22.2 NSF Goals Mgmt of National Response 7 14.4 Care & Support (incl ARVs) 54 49.4 10 Prevention 13.6 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 % 40.0 50.0 60.0 NSF % Actual Spending %

  20. Factors undermining One National Framework: NSP is often disregarded by the various actors National target setting might be unrealistic May be due to accommodating civil society demands NSP are not well costed, leading to an under- or over-estimation of resources required Donors continue to fund direct projects, which may be on or off the plan, and which they may or may not report on Civil society groups may not buy-in to the NSP nor feel the need to report on their activities and expenditure

  21. Factors undermining One National Coordinating Authority Donors still have their own agendas and interests, not consulting with NACs Duplication and parallel systems of CCMs and National AIDS Authority Staff shortages and gaps in the NAC, in the MoH and MoF Civil society has role to hold govt and donors accountable, but should also be accountable to NAC Power is not given to NACs to manage the funds

  22. 250,000,000 200,000,000 150,000,000 125,448,618 External Agents Other Local Agents Public Agents Amount 100,000,000 95,275,143 33,975,810 50,000,000 19,005,985 48,484,816 26,285,518 0 2005 2006 Year

  23. Factors undermining One M&E system: Lack of capacity in M&E Financial reporting weak - Many NACs are not aware of what has been spent on the HIV/AIDS national priorities Donors continue to have individual programme monitoring & reviews, and separate auditing requirements imposed on recipient Governments Failure of national budget & accounting systems to link expenditure with HIV/AIDS priorities The activities & outputs of civil society are generally not included in the national M&E system (eg. Swaziland has specifically developed the SHAPMoS but CSOs are resisting)

  24. Factors undermining unified systems and procedures: The Public Finance Management reform is progressing slowly, leading to a lack of trust in Govt. systems & donor cynicism The national procurement, auditing and accounting systems are weak, or perceived to be weak by donors Some donors systems are inflexible, preventing rapid alignment Governments do not provide clear guidelines on scheduling and conduct of missions, nor demanding joint missions Creating an optimal combination of DBS, Sector Support, Basket Funding (what really contributes to harmonisation?)

  25. NAC/ governmental roles: NSP should be a living document that guides the national response (responsive, involving all stakeholders, buy-in, engendered) Governments to own and lead the response to HIV/AIDS Governments to better define the rules of engagement with partners Develop a clear agenda for action, reflecting mutual accountability, building on countries' own systems, with clear allocation of responsibilities for all parties (govt, donors, civil society) NSP should be realistically costed, and expenditure against the priority activities should be tracked Establish and maintain structures for regular dialogue with all stakeholders

  26. Increase/ demand for more joint approaches: Planning, Reviews and analytical work, Direct budget support, SWAp, Pooled funding, baskets Government and donors and civil society to agree on a common framework for financial performance monitoring, strengthen economic governance systems Design and implement a system of assessing donors based on Paris Declaration norms eg. Donor Score Card Government to formulate and implement an Aid Coordination Calendar (donors to align their fiscal year) Sector ministries to articulate work plans for their contribution to the HIV/AIDS national priorities All levels of govt to enhance their own accounting, reporting and transparency regarding fund utilisation this will increase donor confidence and willingness to align and encourage civil society accountability

  27. ICPs roles Increase predictability of donor funding (longer-term commitments), with greater flexibility More funding for general health systems strengthening More support for the construction of solid national authorities and coordination capacity Emphasis on human and institutional capacity building Accept and use the national M&E and reporting systems Harmonize reporting requirements, tools and indicators Donors to use national systems for procurement, accounting and auditing Closer exchange and effective dialogue between Global Fund and UN Emphasis on strengthening govt. financial information systems, so as to enable electronic timeous reporting on expenditure and easily available data (computerised systems reporting according to NASA categories)

  28. SADC Roles: Strengthened communication channels and mechanisms for sharing info across SADC and between NACs sharing best practices Strengthened position if negotiating as SADC Spearhead the development of a Code of Conduct for all partners, particularly relating to ICPs alignment with NSPs (eg. Donor Score Card) Fund for the response to HIV/AIDS? Hold joint annual reviews of progress towards harmonisation and alignment with all stakeholders Request regular commitment & expenditure reports from Members to create the regional funding picture Regional group to consider/ monitor regional funding issues Encourage Members use of the RNE, NASA and CHAT tools

  29. Civil Societys roles: Civil society could broaden its advocacy focus to include processes such as alignment and harmonization Generate more public debate on alignment to drive the access agenda delivery of Universal Access relies on effective architecture making the money work Demand the govt and ICP reveal their actual expenditure in-country Reveal their own activities and expenditure leading to improved governance and greater transparency (eg. recent Declaration on Good Governance and Leadership) Demand greater transparency of adherence to promises Increased financial contribution from the private sector

  30. International Health partnership and related initiatives (IHP+) is a collective commitment to work together in more effective ways to improve health care Rationalising of the health architecture Change in the way donors work together with partner countries through coordinated efforts of all stakeholders the strengthening of in-country health system services under the leadership of the Government, acting with the representatives of civil society

  31. To prove the impact of the IHP+ will require strong, transparent financial information & accounting systems by governments. Spending of pooled funds is difficult to track to the specific donor ~ adoption of single reporting by govt without individual outputs reflected. Public contributions to health are key to sustainability of programmes, and therefore donor-dependency must be addressed. Evidence of basket funding for HIV/AIDS and Partnership Forums donors maintain dominance in determining spending priorities, and can gang up against govt. Are donors ready to allow governments full determination of the use of funds? Will funding for critical NGO services reduce?

  32. Teresa Guthrie Centre for Economic Governance and AIDS in Africa teresa@cegaa.org +27-82-872-4694

More Related Content

giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#