Co stewardship towards universal access

Co-stewardship of the Road
to Universal Access: The
Philippine Civil Society
Experience
ROBERTO A.O. NEBRIDA
Philippine HIV&AIDS NGO Support Program, Inc.
ICAAP, Colombo, Sri Lanka//28August 2007

ALLIANCE against AIDS in the PHILIPPINES supporting community leadership and stewardship

OUTLINE
 Context and background
 The ongoing UA journey
 Gains from the process
 What have we learned?
 Moving forward: challenges and actions


BACKGROUND
A. Pre-UNGASS/UA Period
 Active and vibrant civil society sector (that
started even during the colonial period)
 Creation of PNAC in 1992 and enactment of the
AIDS Law in 1998 with strong CSO involvement.
 Peak of nationwide implementation of HIV&AIDS
projects through NGOs (1990s to date)
 Formation of Pinoy+ and PAFPI ( latter part of
1990s) and Babae+ (recently)


B. UNGASS and UA Period
 Workshop to contextualize UNGASS in civil
society sponsored by RAF and PHANSuP and
facilitated by APCASO (late 2002)
 PNAC engaged WHCFI in developing the M&E
manual and HAIN to be its report collection
and consolidation arm for the NGO sector
 PNAC/UNAIDS engaged Pinoy+ and RAF in
facilitating the process of developing the UA
targets and roadmap (Dec 2005)
 AMTP4 formulated with inputs (e.g., text) from CSOs
 CSOs as Global Fund PRs, SRs and SSRs
 Strong representation and involvement of
CSOs in CCM and PNAC proceedings


THE UA PROCESS WITH CSOs
1. Country consultation (Jan 2006): 52% of pax
were CSOs. Draft targets prepared by a TWG
were refined. Also, crucial issues in scaling up
that were identified in previous assessment
exercises were confirmed.
2. Selected CSO leaders attended the regional
consultation in Thailand and the LPC
conference in Mongolia.
3. Country report submitted on March 2006.
4. Subsequent refinement of the AMTP4 done.


GAINS
 Consensus on the working definition of UA in the
Philippine context; key terms in the working
definition also defined.
 Targets set on selected core and process indicators;
strategic action points identified to address key
obstacles and produce desired results.
 Country report during the LPCs conference in
Mongolia cited as class 1 for its strong CS
involvement.
 Instrumental in harmonizing, refining, fleshing-out
and costing the country operations plan for 2008-
2010 (based on AMTP4)
 Clarified links with the M&E system.


LESSONS/INSIGHTS
1. Engaging credible CS leaders/organizations in key
critical steps/activities in the UA process ensured
optimum involvement not only of civil society but other
sectors as well.
2. Long history of partnership with government enabled
CSOs to take greater, more meaningful roles in the
HIV&AIDS response.
3. Technical and facilitation support of UNAIDS was
crucial in fleshing out strategic and operating details.
4. Favorable country policies related to CS participation
encouraged participation.
5. Co-stakeholdership engenders co-stewardship of the
entire journey to UA.


PARTICIPATION STEWARDSHIP
LADDER
ENGAGEMENT • sits as co-chair of
CCM/PNAC
• serves as chair in
INVOLVEMENT some committees
• implements own
initiatives consistent with • sits as member of
• attends functions and national plan other key governmental
activities per invitation bodies
R • implements projects/
O • receives information activities under contract • initiates strategic
L
E and other capacity or grant actions using own
S building assistance resources
• sits as member of
• provides inputs during CCM and PNAC • shares accountability
consultation processes

R
E • opinions, comments and • innovations and models • shared policies, plans and
S recommendations programs
U • project plans/designs
L • shared successes
T • specific deliverables based
S on contract/grant

PROVIDE/SHARE space support power


ELEMENTS OF STEWARDSHIP
PARTICIPATION
ENGAGEMENT

INVOLVEMENT

competencies competencies competencies competencies competencies
N
E
E resources resources resources resources resources resources resources
D
S
appropriate policies appropriate policies appropriate policies appropriate

F
O
U COMMON CAUSE AND AGENDA
N
D
A STAKEHOLDERSHIP
T
I
O MUTUAL RESPECT
N


CHALLENGES
1. Sustaining the interest and
active, meaningful
involvement of in-country
stakeholders. How to
“cascade” the targets to
individual stakeholders and
make them accountable?
2. Transforming a generally
consultative process to a
“self-driven”, sustained
multi-stakeholder initiative.


3. How to generate the investments (both
external and internal) required to make
things happen especially in the context of
“low prevalence”?
4. How to scale-up without sacrificing
quality and effectiveness of specific CS
services?
5. How to mainstream CS UA-related
initiatives in the overall development
framework of the country amidst
changing political environment?


ON THE
ROAD 2UA

 Make CS initiatives integral parts of the
community health system to increase its
capacity: from pilot projects to regular
service delivery mechanisms.
 Ensure sustained funding support for
continuity of services.

 Build the leadership and stewardship capacity of
grassroots organizations by providing
appropriate technical support.
 Streamline and strengthen the capacity of
tertiary CS organizations to support grassroots
action. Encourage them to focus on strategic,
complimentary competencies instead of trying to
outdo each other and, worse, competing with the
frontline/grassroots organizations.
 Balance CS involvement in the area of policy
advocacy and of project implementation.


Can we make it there?


leadership
and
stewardship


Co stewardship towards universal access

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

Destacado (9)

Similar a Co stewardship towards universal access

Similar a Co stewardship towards universal access (20)

Más de Roberto A.O. Nebrida

Más de Roberto A.O. Nebrida (12)

Último

Último (20)

Co stewardship towards universal access