GLOBAL FUND EVALUATION WORKSHOP

Coalition on HIV and AIDS among girls and women in Swaziland

Cape Town February 18-22, 2008

Presentation Outline

• Process

• Outcome

• Coalition response

• Lessons learned

• Recommendations

Process/1

• Post Johannesburg briefing meeting of coalitions founding members - The meeting identified a consultant, a partner who would manage resources from OSISA, agreed to expand the coalition from three to eleven members and identified the additional members

Process/2

• Briefing meeting for additional coalition members on the project – The meeting agreed to consult grass-root women that are being served by coalition members, agreed on a program for the meeting, speakers, date, venue and invitation method

Process/3

• Briefing of HIV and AIDS Consortium members under the Assembly of Non Governmental Organization (CANGO) - A member of the coalition participated in the meeting and briefed participants on the project

Process/4

• Consultation meeting with grass-root women – Participants were briefed on the project, issues were generated and an agreement was made to give feedback to the women at end of the country proposal development process

Process/5

• Planning and development of coalition proposal – A coalition meeting was convened at which objectives and interventions areas and activities were articulated and an agreement was made to meet with the consultant who was putting together the national GF proposal. An Osisa representative undertook to finalize the proposal and circulate it for review by members before submission to the consultant

Process/6

• Consultation with consultant – A meeting which included the National GF proposal consultant, an OSISA representative and representative members of the coalition was held. During the meeting the consultant was familiarized with the intentions of the coalition to which he was very receptive. An agreement was made to submit the coalition proposal at a given time

Process/7

• Circulation of draft coalition proposal – The draft proposal was circulated to members of the coalition. Comments were made where possible and the proposal was forwarded to the National GF consultant for inclusion into the national proposal

Process/8

• Generation of draft National GF proposal – A draft National GF proposal was generated by the consultant with the support of a CCM subcommittee and representatives of the Principal Recipient. The draft incorporated a majority of inputs from the coalition proposal. Constituencies were asked to review the document. Upon review of the document the coalition submitted very minor comments.

Process/9

• Generation of final National GF proposal - A final National GF proposal which excluded most of the coalition inputs was generated and circulated.

Outcome

• Coalition inputs were left out of the final Round 7 National GF proposal - An alternative framework for funding activities which were left out of the National GF proposal was developed jointly by the coalition and the CCM.

Coalition Response/1• Review of proposal by coalition – The

meeting was briefed and it observed that the majority of its inputs which were reflected in the draft had been removed from the final proposal.

• The coalition with support of OSISA wrote a protest letter to the Chairperson of the CCM. All but one coalition member signed the letter. International advocacy was mobilized. The meeting also agreed to give feedback to grass roots women

Coalition Response/2

• Briefing of grass-root women – A well attended meeting of grass-root women was briefed to the effect that non of the inputs had made it into the final proposal even most inputs had made it into the draft proposal and that a protest letter was sent. The meeting endorse the action which the coalition had taken and resolved to sign a petition which was to be submitted in case of a negative response from the CCM. The response to the petition was overwhelming

Coalition Response/3

• Response from the CCM – The response from the CCM was prompt and reconciliatory. A meeting was proposed between the CCM and members of the coalition. The CCM observed that the inputs were not reflected as in the draft. The Principal Recipient submitted some were included in the work plan component of the proposal. The meeting agreed to review the work plan and identify coalitions activities.

Coalition Response/3

• Very few related ones were located. Alternative sources of funding were suggested by the principal recipient. The coalition was asked write an acknowledgement letter reflecting the agreement. It was also agreed that a joint press statement be made

Lessons learned

• Time to engage with the process was very short• Advocacy for the proposal was limited and did

not cover all critical personalities and entities• The consultation process even through designed

to be transparent and fair, implementation has limitations

• Involving the Principal Receipt in the process of developing the proposal compromises the entire proposal development process

Lessons learned

• The Swaziland process is not accommodative to out of the norm arrangements

• International community is useful and was readily available

• Having a partnership which includes a mix of activists and non activists adds value.

Recommendations

• Advocate for a genuinely consultative process• Start the process for round 8 early• Declare intention very early in the process to the

CCM• Identify all possible obstacles and address them

very early in the process• Identify alliances in the CCM and solicit their

support• Advocate for empowerment of the CCM to be in

control of the proposal development process