Mbn hiv/aids evaluation final report Team of consultants

5.2. Conclusions on the partnership relation (EQ 2)

To what extent and how successfully did each CFA perform in enabling the different counterparts to contribute to the fight against HIV/AIDS and to cope with the HIV/AIDS epidemic?
The relationship between CFAs and their counterparts

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. According to the counterparts visited, dialogues were not always inspiring. 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 their counterparts, organising workshops, linking counterparts to networks, facilitating exchange of experiences, facilitating participation at regional and international conferences and supporting capacity building processes. However participation at conferences and trainings is one thing, implementation in practice is another matter. The follow up – by CFA’s or third parties - of this “translation’ process was rather weak.

The programme officers of the CFA’s pay an average of one visit per year to their counterparts or to their country offices (PLAN). The regional country officers of HIVOS, Plan and the joint Oxfam programmes visit their counterparts more frequently. The question whether the dialogue between CFA and counterpart is carried out efficiently also depends on the time allocated to the dialogue. The dialogue is based on different communication channels: visits, e-mail discussions, telephone conversations, workshops, etc.
In Southern Africa, where the epidemic started 20-25 years ago, 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”, the CFA’s reacted more pro-actively than in South Africa, having learned from South Africa experiences.

The CFAs demonstrated a certain degree of flexibility with regard to budget spending, for example through opting for budget support schemes. This enabled counterparts to adjust programmes and budgets according to the needs of their beneficiaries, which is essential in a rapidly changing HIV/AIDS context
Internal mainstreaming by counterparts

All counterparts in Southern Africa have become aware of the importance of internal mainstreaming and are in the process of drafting a HIV/AIDS workplace policy (11 on the 32 counterparts visited have an active workplace policy and 10 other counterparts are in a process to draft such a policy). In India, the understanding of internal mainstreaming is still rather poor (with some exceptions), which is understandable in relation to the present stage of the epidemic. To support these processes the CFAs have challenged their counterparts through partner consultations and the organisation of workshops.

Most of the counterparts visited appreciated the additional support (separate ad hoc budgets for internal mainstreaming processes) for the elaboration of workplace policies, but feared a lack of funds to finance the implementation of these workplace policies. The adoption of the good donorship guidelines gives clarity for programme officers and counterparts on the support to internal mainstreaming. At the moment these donor guidelines are adopted for two pilot SAN! countries Uganda and India. Except Novib, who adopted them for all counterparts.
External mainstreaming by counterparts

Most of the generalist counterparts visited made a link with external mainstreaming and acknowledged the importance of integrating HIV/AIDS into their strategies/programmes and activities. However the majority of the organisations ‘added’ additional HIV/AIDS-related activities to their current programme and only a few modified their core activities to the changing context exploring in depth the link between their programmes and HIV/AIDS. It is a general trend that these processes were mainly initiated by the organisations themselves (unlike the elaboration of workplace policies that were mainly donor driven). But no HIV/AIDS analyses or community research (except in the JOPM programme, Novib) have been made to design mainstreamed programmes. The integration of HIV/AIDS activities was often based on the experiences of staff from their daily practices. In sum, external mainstreaming has been felt by counterparts as a difficult exercise that needs careful knowledge management and further support and funding.