REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE AND MAJOR FUNDING MECHANISM OF THE NATIONAL AIDS RESPONSE

1. REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE AND MAJOR FUNDING MECHANISM OF THE NATIONAL AIDS RESPONSE Dr R L Adupa Funding Mechanism

2. OBJECTIVES OF FUNDING MECHANISM REVIEW OBJECTIVES • to review performance and contribution of development assistance and major funding mechanisms VS international agreements • to examine challenges and consider ways of improving harmonization and alignment of funding mechanisms to national planning and budgeting processes PARIS COMMITMENTS/GTT RECOMMENDATONS • Ownership and Leadership • Alignment • Harmonization • Managing for Results • Mutual Accountability Funding Mechanism

3. OWNERSHIP AND LEADERSHIP • Leadership in National AIDS Response • Ownership • Annual Priority Action Plan • Support for Integration of AIDS into PRSP • Economic Consequences of AIDS and Macro-economic and Public Expenditure Framework • USE OF SYSTEMS & TOOLS TO OWN, LEAD AND COORDINATE DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE ON HIV/AIDS IS WEAK Funding Mechanism

4. Leadership in National Response UAC = National AIDS Coordinating Authority by Act of Parliament • Political commitment at highest level • UAC Board and UAC Secretariat • Partnership mechanism for coordination –12 SCEs, PC and PF • Focal Point Persons – Line ministries and districts • District Task Force • Coordination Committees at line ministries and districts • Policy Committees: SC-MAP; NCC-GF and AC-PEPFAR • UAC Statue being revised • HIV/AIDS overarching Policy developed • NSF to be revised early 2006 Funding Mechanism

5. Leadership in National Response • Concerns • Differentiation in roles of Chair of Board and of DG not clear • 70% of staff are in administration and support services • TAs not seriously involved in capacity building • Weak internal management and coordination • Complaints in operations of 3 Policy committees • Overlap in membership to 3 Policy committees • Recommendations • Clarify lines of authority and accountability – UAC Board, Secretariat, OOP, PMO, MOH, Partnership Mechanism, Coordination Committees and Project management • High profile leadership of the Commission and of Secretariat, Partnership and coordination structures to be revamped • Decide on retaining all 3 policy committees, having one steering committee or subsuming them in Partnership Committee Funding Mechanism

6. OWNERSHIP - cont Funding Mechanism

7. Annual Priority Action Plan • Annual work plans: by FP persons • Annual Plans approved by differently – no harmonization • No strategic plans for many sectors/districts • Contribution of MAP and AIM/UPHOLD • First Annual AIDS Action Plan • JAR; January 06-June 07 • Recommendations • Harmonize plans of MAP, GF and PEPFAR • Sectors and districts develop strategic plans = NSF and respective sector and district long term strategies • UAC, sectors and districts to develop annual plans with vertical and horizontal linkages Funding Mechanism

8. Integration of AIDS in PRSP • PRSP=PEAP • HIV/AIDS is cross-cutting in PEAP • PEAP to National Plans • Plans developed by Sectors: HIV/AIDS=MOH • HIV/AIDS is multi-sectoral- affects MOH’s ceiling • MOH can’t address non-health issues • UAC working on shared planning for HIV/AIDS • Pre-supposes HIV/AIDS mainstreaming Funding Mechanism

9. Integration of AIDS in PRSP - cont Constraints to Mainstreaming HIV/AIDS • Inconsistent understanding • Opportunistic planning • Inadequate capacity of Focal points • Inadequate support by UAC • Lack of donor support • SWGs in general: • Not HIV/AIDS competent • Inadequately equipped with evidence based strategic information on HIV/AIDS and development in context of each sector • Recommendations • UAC to develop a comprehensive capacity building strategy for mainstreaming • ADP and UAC should increase advocacy for mainstreaming of HIV/AIDS in public sector and support production and harmonization of action plans Funding Mechanism

10. ALIGNMENT Multilateral institutions and international partners work with national AIDS coordinating authorities to align support with national strategies, policies, systems, cycles and annual priority AIDS action plans • Public Financial Management and Audit • Procurement system • Parallel Management Units • Capacity building ALIGNMENT IS WEAK AND SYSTEMS NEED REFORM Funding Mechanism

11. FINANCIAL AND AUDIT SYSTEMS Funding Mechanism

12. Financial Management and Audit Systems • Issues • Diversion of funds • Access to funds by CSOs is problematic • CAOs not involved in resource allocation and accountability of CSOs • Capacity of AG’s Office is inadequate • US-Agencies accountability/audit report not shared • IFMS most welcome • Recommendations • Accounting officers enforce financial discipline • Donors support capacity building and sharing of information on FM and audit Funding Mechanism

13. PROCUREMENT SYSTEM Funding Mechanism

14. Procurement -- cont Concerns • Procurement laws good but slow • Lack of procurement policy on HIV/AIDS supplies • Overlap in procurement across projects • NMS performance is low • Pooling system vs project procured supplies • Lack of participation in proc of TAs • Off-shore procurement debate Recommendations • Gov comes with clear policy on proc of HIV/AIDS supplies • All spending agencies should adhere to agreed procurement plans • Use of NMS and pooling system need to be rationalized • Stock at NMS need to be distributed expeditiously • Off-shore procurement be further explored by MOFPED, MOH, UAC and ADPs Funding Mechanism

15. Parallel Management Units • MAP: PCT, TRN, $600,000 per annum • GF: PMU, HIV/AIDS Technical working Group; $? • PEPFAR: PEPFAR Secretariat, US-Country Team; US-Agencies; Unknown amount in mgmt in USA+US-Agencies • Institutional memory lost • No continuity and use of experience • High administrative/transaction costs • Duplication of processes and systems – resource implications? Recommendation • Current opportunities for streamlining parallel structures need to be utilized Funding Mechanism

16. CAPACITY BUILDING • MAP: Advisor to MOGLSD; training project driven; civil work allowed • GF: Long term TA?; Training donor driven; civil work? • PEPFAR: TA to UAC – PEPFAR Secretariat; training project driven; civil work minimal • Low capacity in programmes, finances, M&E • Lack of coordinated national strategy • Donors hard on long term training and civil works Recommendations • UAC to produce comprehensive CB strategy while synchronizing current CB efforts of MAP, GF and PEPFAR • Donors consider supporting selective long term & civil works Funding Mechanism

17. HARMONIZATION Global Fund, WB and other multilateral institutions and international partners committed to harmonizing and better coordinating their programming, financing and reporting. • Selection of Grantees • Funding Mechanism • Joint Activities LITTLE EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE FOR HARMONIZATION OF MODALITIES OF ADPS Funding Mechanism

18. SELECTION OF CSO GRANTEES Funding Mechanism

19. Grantees - cont. • Lack of coordination and sharing of strategic information on support to CSOs • Duplication: questionable synergy, complementarity • Many unsynchronized criteria with limited adherence • Many CSOs whose roles vs Gov and comparative advantage not known • Poor geogrpahic and thematic coverage Recommendations • Donors, gov and CSOs agree on roles of CSOs vs Gov agencies • Modalities for engaging different types of CSOs be rationalized and adhered to Funding Mechanism

20. FUNDING MECHANISM Funding Mechanism

21. Funding Mechanism

22. FUNDING MECHANISM • Recommendations • UAC should document experiences in channeling funds through various mechanisms by GF, MAP and PEPFAR • ADPs should explore further a virtual Uganda AIDS Funds at UAC with an agreed modality for access by CSOs • The mandate of UAC to coordinate HIV/AIDS response including funds should be strengthened and supported Funding Mechanism

23. JOINT ACTIVITIES • MAP: Joint supervision mission & Reviews of MAP • GF: ??? • PEPFAR: Jointly with other US funded support on SO8 • Joint Annual reviews of sectors not including HIV/AIDS • SCEs (UN Agencies & Bilaterals) & ADPG with TOR • JAR jointly supported by ADPs taking place now Recommendations • A mechanism for promotion and provision of incentives for harmonization among stakeholders be worked out by UAC • ADPs need to publicize, advocate for and adhere to their TOR and mutually monitor its implementation • UAC to insist on joint activities by ADPs Funding Mechanism

24. MANAGING FOR RESULTS Multi-laterals and partners strengthen national M&E mechanisms and structures for oversight and problem-solving MANAGING FOR RESULTS IS STILL WEAK • UAC lacks M&E staff • M&E framework not operationalized • MAP: strong capacity for M&E; in-house software • GF: weak capacity for M&E; no system • PEPFAR: stronger capacity for M&E through subcontracting; web-based platform Recommendations • UAC spearheads capacity building in M&E • M&E systems be synchronized between projects and gov departments Funding Mechanism

25. MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY National AIDS coordinating authorities to lead reviews of performance of multi-laterals and international partners and national stakeholders • Involvement of Parliament • Funding Commitment and Predictability • Joint Review MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY IS WEAK Funding Mechanism

26. Involvement of Parliament • SCE-Parliament • Standing Committee on HIV/AIDS • HIV/AIDS in Sessional Social Services Committee • Standing Committee visits to MAP project • Chairperson of Standing Committee on HIV/AIDS is member of 3-SCs • Standing committee visit/oversight on project basis • Budget Act 2001 provision on accountability of AID not enforced Recommendations • Facilitate a coordinated visit of Parliamentarians to HIV/AIDS projects/programmes • The two Committees should demand accountability as stipulated Funding Mechanism

27. Funding Commitment and its Predictability • MAP • WB support to GOU mainly through PRSP that has been reduced from $150m-135m per annum • PEPFAR • $142m for 2006 • Support beyond 2008? • Other Partners • Basket funding • ADPs e.g. DCI Euros 1.97m to 2m; Funding Mechanism

28. Funding Mechanism

29. MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY cont Joint Review • Partnership Forums held annually – this being 4th one • JAR held in December 2005 to provide technical input to Partnership Forum Recommendations • MOFPED and UAC should advocate for short and medium term funding; UAC should facilitate process by annually tracking availability, allocation, utilization and accountability of funds to both public and CSOs • Donor to be more transparent in their commitments and disbursements • GOU needs to begin reflecting on sustainability issues • UAC to institutionalize JAR in order to influence planning, resource mobilization and allocation, management of resources and implementation for results Funding Mechanism

30. Credibility of the national response is compromised By-passing central government by providing aid through vertical projects Agenda becomes donor-driven and often inconsistent with the “one national framework”. Impossible to scale-up the response in this environment Distortions in human capacity, policy dialogue, focus, partnership… Undermine quality of governance and capacity of the public sector & CSOs Stakeholder confidence levels fall Costs of Continued Weakness in Ownership, Alignment, Harmonization, Managing of Results and Accountability Funding Mechanism

31. FOOD FOR THOUGHT Dr Peter Piot – UNAIDS Executive Director in December 2005 at ICASA Conference in Abuja Nigeria observed that • “We need to make money work for the people on the ground and reach every single person with effective HIV/AIDS prevention and control programme.” This requires: • “.. all of us to be trully committed to inclusive ownership, efficient management, transparency, accountability and coordination” • “Donors to stop funding grants for AIDS programmes without a strong capacity building component and governments and CSOs should stop accepting them”. NATIONAL OWNERSHIP/LEADERSHIP, ALIGNEMENT, HARMONIZATION, MANAGING FOR RESULTS AND MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITY Funding Mechanism

32. THANK YOU ALL Funding Mechanism