Mbn hiv/aids evaluation final report Team of consultants

4.2.1. State of affairs in relation to the three judgement criteria

4.2.1.1.The issue of HIV/AIDS is incorporated in the dialogue between CFA and counterpart

This judgement criterion concerns in particular the partnership relation between CFAs and their counterparts. Against the policy background of the co-financing system and formulated as such in all CFA-business plans (2003-2007), the role of the CFAs is particularly that of a financier. CFAs did not interfere directly in policy development, strategic thinking and the organisational development of counterparts. To that end, local expertise could be contracted and funded, linking and learning initiatives can be organised and capacity building processes stimulated (hence indirect support).

According to their role of financier, dialogue with partners concerns mainly programme implementation, monitoring and financial follow up. Obviously when HIV/AIDS is part of the contract, discussions on HIV/AIDS are intrinsic to the follow up of the counterparts. Novib included HIV/AIDS in their appraisal system, the toolbox. Overall, the evaluators had the impression that one-by-one dialogue (a programme officer and a counterpart) did not always address in-depth discussions on HIV/AIDS-related strategies, policies and bottlenecks (see country papers, annex 7). On the other hand, especially in high prevalence regions (only recently in India), several initiatives have been taken by the CFAs to enhance HIV/AIDS competence of the CFA’s counterparts, organising workshops, linking counterparts to networks, facilitating exchange of experiences, facilitating participation at regional and international conferences and supporting capacity building processes (see table below). Most of the counterparts visited did participate in these events.
In the region of South Africa where the epidemic started 20-25 years ago, one could say that the CFAs (generalist organisation) missed opportunities to discuss HIV/AIDS impact and mainstreaming with counterparts in a pro-active way. These missed opportunities happened in the HIV period when the impact was invisible but the prospects were very negative. It took time for all donors, including the CFA’s and for the counterparts to realise the impact of HIV/AIDS on development. The CFA’s reacted when the impact was already felt in the communities (mainstreaming discussions started early 2000) and the counterparts started coping with HIV/AIDS.

In India, where the epidemic is still “young”, one could say that the CFA’s reacted more pro-actively than in South Africa, having learned from South Africa experiences. One example is the discussion on workplace policy, which is donor-driven. The need for “being donor driven” is based on the lessons learned from South Africa: if you don’t bring it up in a pro-active manner, the impact of HIV/AIDS on the staff is not discussed and thus not managed.