Aug/Sept 2012

FEEDBACK REQUESTED

Who is really affecting the Global Fund decision making processes? This new working paper assesses how accountable the Global Fund Country Coordinating Mechanisms (CCMs) are to women, girls and LGBT populations in Southern Africa.

Featuring perspectives from more than 80 interviews and online survey respondents, from 5 Southern African countries, this working paper reveals some of the intricacies and nuances of how CCMs operate in terms of the participation and representation of these key populations. At this stage, with research still on-going, your feedback on the work is incredibly valuable.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE WORKING PAPER

AAI will be publishing a chapter from the paper every day for the next week. Please send your feedback to gemma [at] aidsaccountability.org

• GOV = Government
• ML/BL = Multilateral or Bilateral Donors
• FBO = Faith-Based Organizations
• PS = The Private Sector
• EDU = Educational Institutions
• NGO = Non-Governmental Organizations
• PLWD = People Living with Diseases
• KAP = Key Affected Populations
• OTH = Other

The most recent data from the Global Fund on the average composition of Southern African CCMs is from the 4^th quarter of 2011 (Figure 1). Compared to the global averages of CCM composition, Southern Africa has higher government representation at 37% (global average is 35%) and lower NGO representation at 17% (global average is 23%). Curiously, the Southern African average of 6% for people living with diseases represented as a constituency is lower than the global average of 8%. The rest of the constituencies are fairly well-aligned with global averages.

The main issue that the Global Fund highlights is that “the challenge is to balance the role of government with those of other constituencies.”[i] With this in mind, there are certain examples of Southern African CCMs which are very far from the regional average, in terms of composition, and far from the Global Fund’s requirements of government/non-government balance. For instance, in Swaziland, Government representation on the CCM is the highest in the region, at 47% (Figure 2). Second to Swaziland are Angola at 43% seats for government on the CCM, and South Africa at 39%. At the lowest end of the spectrum in terms of government representation is Namibia at 26%, which is 11% lower than the regional average.

Informing this data, the Global fund also suggests that “Membership of CCMs should comprise a minimum of 40% representation of the non-government constituencies (multilateral and bilateral partners are not counted within this 40%)”[ii], which means that GOV and ML/BL taken together should not comprise more than 60% of seats. There are two countries in the region that are not meeting this requirement: Malawi and Angola. In terms of multilateral and bilateral representation, Malawi is by far the highest in the region at 30%. Taken together with its government representation of 35%, it its non-governmental constituency representation cannot possible reach the 40% that is recommended by the Global Fund. Angola also exceeds this 60% GOV & ML/BL ceiling with 43% GOV and 18% ML/BL.

Another consituency that varies quite a bit in terms of representation is the NGO sector. Malawi is by far the lowest in this regard, with only 9% NGO representation, 8% below the regional average. Botswana is also relatively low at an NGO representation level of 11%. At the other extreme, NGO representation makes up 26% of the Namibian CCM, which is 9% above the regional average. Other than these anomolies, most other countries in the regional hover around the average for NGO representation.

When it comes to the populations that this project is particularly concerned with – women, young girls and sexual minorities – there is also stark variation across the region. In terms of key affected populations, which the global fund says “Key population groups include: women and girls, men who have sex with men, transgender persons, people who inject drugs, male and female and transgender sex workers and their clients, prisoners, refugees and migrants, people living with HIV, adolescents and young people, vulnerable children and orphans, and populations of humanitarian concern.”[iii] In this regard, Botswana is by far the most inclusive when it comes to KAP representation, with this constituency making up 16% of their CCM.

Second to Botswana in this regard, is Mozambique, with 5% KAP representation, and Lesotho at 4%. When compared to other countries in the region, this really demonstrates Botswana’s leadership in terms of marginalized people being represented on the CCM. For instance, Angola, Malawi, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe all have 0% KAP representation on their respective CCMs.

Another way to measure the participation of women on the CCMs is to look at how many members are actually female. While they might not be representing women’s groups, per se, they may be more inclined to advocate for women’s issues. The average in the region is 58% men and 42% women, sitting on CCMs (Figure 3). Most countries in Southern Africa do seem to be achieving a balance between male and female representatives, with the exception of Lesotho, which has a CCM of 60% women (the highest in the region), and Zambia which has a CCM of 24% women (the lowest in the region) (Figure 4). Otherwise, most other countries are relatively even, with both South Africa and Swaziland achieving a male: female ration of 50:50. Namibia is not far off either, with a ratio of 48:52 and neither is Mozambique with 53: 47.

It should be noted that percentage data and ratios can often hide things that pure numbers reveal. The size of CCMs in Southern Africa also varied greatly, which percentages do not expose. For instance, the Zimbabwean CCM has 40 members, compared to South Africa’s which has 18. So while South Africa looks like it has many more PLWD representatives than Zimbabwe (11% compared with 5%) they actually both have 2 seats for this constituency. Similarly, Zimbabwe also has the highest absolute number of multilateral/bilateral seats on its CCM (8 representatives), despite having close to average ML/BL representation, percentage-wise.

In addition to the discrepancy between percentage and absolute representation, there are a whole host of limitations that come with this comprehensive quantitative data on representation. For example, some countries allow alternates to join for meetings, while others do not, so this skews the comparability of representation between countries. Secondly, and more importantly, numeric representation data tells you nothing about who actually shows up for meetings. Moreover, it also tells you nothing about who participates in a meaningful way, by speaking, challenging and actively advocating for one’s constituency. For this reason, the majority of this project is dedicated to honing in on these more qualitative evaluations of Southern African CCMs. To get at this more effectively, AIDS Accountability International used online surveys and field visits for face-to-face interviews, to get at what is really happening in terms of representation and participation on Southern Africa’s CCMs.