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

January 31st, 2006 Funding Mechanism 1

REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE AND MAJOR

FUNDING MECHANISM OF THE NATIONAL AIDS RESPONSE

Dr R L Adupa


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


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


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


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


OWNERSHIP - contISSUES MAP GF PEPFAR

Nature Loan Grant Grant

Contribution 5% by GOU - -

Negotiations MOFPED, Parliament, UAC, MOH

- -

Mechanism Budget Support Budget Support Non-budget support

Design/Proposals GOU agencies, CSOs, districts

GOU agencies, CSOs, districts

US-Country Team and US-Agencies

Principal Recipient MOFPED/UAC MOFPED/MOH US-Agencies

CONCERNS •Different ownership•Proposal driven by availability of funds

RECOMMENDATIONS

•UAC to continue advocacy on ownership


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


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


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


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


FINANCIAL AND AUDIT SYSTEMS

ISSUES MAP GF PEPFAR

Financial System Government Government US-Agency & CSO’s

Disbursements to CSOs

Problematic at district

Lead Agencies Problematic

Not problematic

Response Time (Disbursement/Account)

•PCT slow•Slow Accountability

•PMU slow•IAs slow

•US-Agencies prompt•IAs prompt

Diversion Sometimes diversion by Gov Agency

Sometimes diversion by Gov Agency

Possible with CSOs

Auditors Auditor General Auditor General USG Approved auditors


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


PROCUREMENT SYSTEM


System Gov & WB Gov US-Agency & CSOs with TA provided

Guidelines Provided to IAs Not provided to IAs Own guidelines

Procurement Plan Drawn but not adhered to

Drawn but not adhered to

Plan by IA

Restrictions None None Some: ARVs, Travel

Distribution Delays Delays? No delays

Procurement of TAs

Participatory Participatory? By US-Agency


Procurement -- contConcerns• 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


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


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


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


SELECTION OF CSO GRANTEES


CSO •National CSOs•CHAI Groups

•Lead Agencies•CSOs

•US-Agency & CSOs

Gov Involvement •PCT•District AIDS Comm.

•PMU•CAOs sign proposals

•US-Country team•Not clear

Criteria •Own criteria•Limited adherence

•Own criteria•Limited adherence

•Own criteria•Strict adherence

Affirmative Action •National component•CHAI component

•46% of Round 1 HIV/AIDS to CSOs

•CSOs major beneficiary


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


Mechanism Budget support Budget support Non-Budget support

Public sector support

•Health Sector ceiling vs non-health funds•MOH vs OoP for UAC

•Health Sector ceiling vs non-health funds•MOH vs OoP for UAC

•None

CSO Frustrated by districts

Frustrated by Lead Agencies

Frustrated sometimes by US-Agencies


MAP GF PEPFAR PF OTHERS

UAF(UAC)

BUDGET SUPPORT

NON-BUDGET SUPPORT

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

(MTEF)CSOs

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

(NON-MTEF)CSOs

CSOs(PEPFAR)

OPTIONS FOR FUNDING HV/AIDS ACTIVITIES


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


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


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


MUTUAL ACCOUNTABILITYNational 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


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 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;


Current Funding Commitments and Projected Funding Indications

0.00100.00200.00300.00

2001

/2

2003

/4

2005

/6

2007

/8

2009

/1Financial Years

Fund

s (Mi

llion

US$) Series1


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


Costs of Continued Weakness in Ownership, Alignment, Harmonization, Managing of Results and

Accountability

By-passing central government by providing aid through

vertical projects

Impossible to scale-up the

response in this environment

Undermine quality of governance

and capacity of the

public sector & CSOs

Distortions in human capacity,

policy dialogue, focus,

partnership…

Agenda becomes donor-driven

and often inconsistent with the

“one national framework”.

Credibility of the national

response is compromised

Stakeholder confidence

levels fall


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


THANK YOU ALL

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

Documents

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