1 / 22

The Investment Framework and the community response Mike Podmore, IHAA Aug 2012

The Investment Framework and the community response Mike Podmore, IHAA Aug 2012. Contents. Civil Society Engagement in the IF CS Meetings UNAIDS/ICSS CM&IF Meeting APCASO IF Seminar CS Documentation Why does the Investment Framework matter for Civil Society

ginger
Download Presentation

The Investment Framework and the community response Mike Podmore, IHAA Aug 2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Investment Framework and the community response Mike Podmore, IHAAAug 2012

  2. Contents • Civil Society Engagement in the IF • CS Meetings • UNAIDS/ICSS CM&IF Meeting • APCASO IF Seminar • CS Documentation • Why does the Investment Framework matter for Civil Society • What are the Limitations of the Investment Framework

  3. Civil Society engagement in the investment framework

  4. 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

  5. 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.

  6. Outcome Document recomms. • All credible expressions of country interest in uptake of the Investment Framework should be supported. • Ensure people living with HIV and communities at greatest risk of infection are equal partners • The Investment Framework must become a living document • Ensure an effective role for civil society in implementation • Outlined support needs from global networks, UNAIDS, Global Fund and PEPFAR

  7. APCASO’s Introductory SIF Seminar 26 April 2012, Bangkok Participants from 12 national-level HIV organisations from 10 countries in Asia, 7 regional KAP networks and others. Total participants: 25 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

  8. 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. (APCASO Introductory Seminar, 26 Apr’12, Bangkok) Expected outcomes 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.

  9. (APCASO Introductory Seminar, 26 Apr’12, Bangkok) Civil Society – Suggestions and Expectations Also What role can Global Fund play for SIF at national level?

  10. (APCASO Introductory Seminar, 26 Apr’12, Bangkok) Follow Up Needed Possible Country Activities • 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 Moi Lee Liow moileel@apcaso.org APCASO, 22 Aug ’12 check out www.apcaso.org for our proceedings report

  11. 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

  12. Why does the Investment Framework matter for civil society?

  13. 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.

  14. 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

  15. 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)

  16. 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

  17. 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

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

  19. What are the limitations of the Investment Framework?

  20. Gaps and further explanation needed: • 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)

  21. 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)

  22. Thanks Contact: mpodmore@aidsalliance.org

More Related