The Anglophone Africa Civil Society and Communities CCM

The Anglophone Africa Civil Society and Communities CCM Shadow Report and Scorecard Initiative

About AAI We are an independent research and advocacy think tank holding leaders accountable for the commitments they have made to respond to health needs. Stronger leadership is required in order to ensure that universal health rights and services are provided that are accessible, affordable, acceptable and quality in nature.

AAI Accountability Framework AAI use our 3 step Accountability Framework as a lens on all of our work. The framework suggests a way to ensure that the principle of accountability is translated from rhetoric into action. Increasing accountability AAI believes that strong and accountable leadership is necessary to ensure effective responses to health needs. We do this by increasing transparency, promoting dialogue and supporting action to improve the response.

Transparency, Dialogue & Action 1. Transparency Data, full, relevant, correct, accurate and unbiased data that is methodologically sound, periodically collected and collectively reported, discussed and reported as well as transparent about its failings and limitations is a vital starting point for any discussion on developing a response to health problems. 2. Dialogue should mean all relevant stakeholders can meaningfully and freely participate, without fear, in the discussions and de- bates on the delivery and performance of health by public servants, especially in relation to the commitments that they as governments and leaders have made. 3. Action is necessary for public servants to improve their delivery of health, share their successes and learn from their failures making for quality, improved, sustainable and human rights based health access for all a reality. All leaders, not just governments, need to act to ensure transparency and dialogue are part of the health development process.

Making Data Accessible Take incomprehensible data, challenges and recommendations in datasets and put it into an easy-to-read, simple-to understand format Malawi Eritrea Botswana Nigeria South Africa Mozambique A B C D E No data reported

Our Scorecards

AAI Scorecard Development 2006: Country Rating Initiative created as a response to the need for a grading on UNGASS reporting 2007: Development of the “Relative Response Model” 2008: Country Rating Advisory Group (CRAG) feedback on RRM: only south focused; not broad enough

AAI Scorecard Development 2008: Working Paper Series No. 001 • Rating what and how? by Chris Desmond • A Review of Existing Indicators and Methodological Aspects by Anna Mia Ekström • Monitoring the UNGASS Declaration by Per Strand • An overview and comparative analysis of HIV/AIDS Declarations and Commitments by Chiseche Mibenge (gender review) 2008: Country Scorecard Development Team, led by Dr. Jaran Eriksen 2008: AAI Advisory Committee and CRAG provided a round of feedback at IAC, Mexico City 2009: Expert Panel and first methodology was developed and approved

AAI Scorecard Development Officially 91 experts, but over 120 in reality, covering communications, HIV, key populations, epidemiology, governance, grassroots activists, etc. played a role in developing methodology. The colours were even discussed!

1. Percentage based 2. Quintiles 3. Logic AAI Scorecard Grades

CCM Research Prelim Findings 9 Country Reports Overall Scorecard and Excel calculations: Available to download: at www. aidsaccountability. org

Research Prelim Findings 1/2 • CCM Roles, mandates and actions not widely understood by most stakeholders: Comms and consult • CCM functionality low: Capacity and availability • CSO and KP Collaboration, comms and consult: budget for comms and capacity building • Conflict of Interest “dealt” with bureaucratically but not in reality: need to change system • PRs/CCM seat conflict: Requires good governance • Govt/CCM seat conflict: Acceptance determined by nature of govt attitude and performance esp with regard to KPs

Research Prelim Findings 2/2 • Civil society exclusion usually on basis of criminalisation (& moral policing) or social marginalisation: Advocacy required • CSO strength affects power in CCM spaces: HIV and Faith based higher in power whilst TB. Malaria and KPs not meaningfully included • Extension of regional mandates: Opinions very varied and a case by case basis better method • CCM Hub and even CCM unknown by many: Geneva considered technically good but remote from the real issues • Geneva excludes local: CCM also bypassed as GF Country teams bypassed CCM and dealt with PRs • Dissonance between GFATM policies and local law, especially wrt KPs • Logistics: Countries require stock-outs support

Research Prelim Graphs 1

Research Prelim Graphs 2 • Are Key Populations (KPs) able to. . . Attend meetings? Speak & be heard? Participate meaningfully? Affect decisions?

Research Prelim Graphs 3

Research Prelim Graphs 4

Research Prelim Graphs 5

Research Prelim Graphs 6

Research Prelim Graphs 7

Using Scorecards for Advocacy • Know your epidemic; Know your response! Facts! • No data is also a finding: a sign of no commitment to the issue. • Data reveals commitment; political, budgetary, implementation and tracking level. • Scorecards rate against competitors and force engagement: Nobody likes to be the worst! • Scorecards have increased rates of reporting (and thus transparency) as well as performance. • Clear and simple methodology: no need to be a statistician. • Better identification of regional best practice. • Easy, accessible and powerful advocacy tool. • Improves process: Civil society and govt can work together to get data, sharing knowledge. • Guides CSOs and funding partners response to improve their own work. • Transparency – Dialogue – Action!

Participatory Action Research 1/2 • Research and action must be done 'with' people and not 'on' or 'for' people • The researched becomes the researcher • Insider understanding and experience versus outsider othering • Trust and greater access to respondents honest answers • Builds capacity in non-researchers thus empowering more people to do research • Nurtures a love of research in non-researchers because they control/influence/develop • Works on the understanding that doing research is in of itself an act of advocacy • Has at its essence the collective not individual enrichment • Community co-develops questionnaires, reports, captures data and provides analysis.

PAR 2/2 "Do not monopolise your knowledge nor impose arrogantly your techniques, but respect and combine your skills with the knowledge of the researched or grassroots communities, taking them as full partners and co-researchers. Do not trust elitist versions of history and science which respond to dominant interests, but be receptive to counter-narratives and try to recapture them. Do not depend solely on your culture to interpret facts, but recover local values, traits, beliefs, and arts for action by and with the research organisations. Do not impose your own ponderous scientific style for communicating results, but diffuse and share what you have learned together with the people, in a manner that is wholly understandable and even literary and pleasant, for science should not be necessarily a mystery nor a monopoly of experts and intellectuals. “ Orlando Fals Borda

Survey Monkey and final reports The final questionnaires that we all develop at the end of this workshop will be captured online into Survey Monkey. AAI will send you a link when the questionnaires have been completed. You will enter data from your interviews online into Survey Monkey. Country Teams will DHL questionnaire hard copies to Phil in Brussels. AAI will do first analysis, and send the reports to country level for your feedback. Country teams must input into recommendations, etc. as you know best after doing so many interviews, what the next steps should be.

Steps Expected from Government

AAI Scorecard Elements These are informed by Policy, Programming, Implementation and Impact (M&E). Proposed Elements for this scorecard: 1. Policy on SRHR 2. Programming on SRHR 3. Implementation on SRHR policies 6. Young women and girls 7. LGBT 8. Migrants 9. Funding Partners 4. Adolescents and youth 10. Civil society engagement 5. People Living with HIV 11. Budgeting in Policy

1979 The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), UN General Assembly 2. 1986 The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (Banjul Charter) 3. 1990 African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACRWC or Children's Charter) 4. 1993 The World Conference on Human Rights (Vienna) 5. 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (Cairo) 6. 1995 Beijing Declaration, Fifth World Conference on Women 7. 1997 SADC Declaration on Gender & Development 8. 2000 Millennium Development Goals 9. 2001 Abuja Declaration on HIV/AIDS, TB and other related infectious diseases 10. 2001 UNGASS: Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS. United Nations General Assembly Special Session 11. 2003 Maseru Declaration on HIV and AIDS/ Maputo Declaration on Gender Mainstreaming/ Maputo Declaration on HIV/AIDS, TB, Malaria 12. 2003 The Protocol Relating to the Peace and Security Council (PSC) of the African Union (especially around violence) 13. 2004 -2005 Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (Maputo Women Protocol) 14. 2004 Solemn Declaration on Gender Equality in Africa (SDGEA) 15. 2005 Continental Policy on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights, (Maputo Plan of Action related) 16. 2006 Maputo Plan of Action, Plan of Action on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights 2007 -2010 (renewed till 2015) 17. 2007 High Level Meeting on Sexual and Reproductive Health Policies in Africa (Barcelona) 18. 2007 Africa Health Strategy: 2007 - 2015 19. 2008 Southern African Development Community Gender and Development (SADC–GAD) 20. 2008/2009 Campaign on Accelerated reduction of Maternal Mortality in Africa (CARMMA/MPOA) 21. 2009 African Union Gender Policy 22. 2010 UN Secretary-General’s Global Strategy for Women’s and Children’s Health, (New York) General Assembly meeting 23. Various Regional Economic Communities (REC) commitments 24. Various national commitments Govt commitments on SRHR 1.

AAI Development Teams We have had about 11 DTs in 10 years. Composition is by invitation only; based on area of expertise of the individual, not the organisation; try to get experts that cover the scope of work (comms, stats, youth, kps, gender, etc. Time expected: review of the methodology when completed; and a review of the draft report all by email or skype. DT members are acknowldeged in Scorecard as DT memebers and not as authors Final decisions rest with AAI, final responsibility for errors and omissions rest with AAI.

Contact details www. aidsaccountability. org phillipa[at]aidsaccountability. org Phillipa Tucker +27 (0)82 225 1598