Coalition of Southern African Civil Society Organisations:

April 2012

AIDS Accountability International (AAI),The African Men for Sexual Health and Rights (AMSHeR), Network of Africa People Living with HIV and AIDS for Southern Africa Region (NAP+SAR), Partners in Sexual Health (PSH), Southern African HIV & AIDS Information Dissemination Service (SAfAIDS), & The Sexual Health and Rights Initiative South Africa (SHARISA)

Download the pdf version: ICPD+ Questionnaire feedback

SECTION 1: OVER-ARCHING
The coalition would like to see the inclusion of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and/or LGBT added to 1.6, 1.14, 1.18,1.19 and 1.27; inclusion of language or measures of accountability in 1.11. A section should be included that asks whether the questionnaire is being completed by government alone or in consultation with civil society. The names of the organisations consulted should be captured as a means to understanding how representative of the national experience the data in the forms actually is, especially with regard to any recommendations, challenges and barriers. The representativeness and accuracy of data in similar reporting tools is inadequate and the ICPD+ process is an opportunity to improve this exclusion of civil society and their ability to assist governments in accurately identifying lack, solutions and the way forward.

SECTION 2: GENDER EQUALITY, EQUITY AND EMPOWERMENT OF WOMEN
The coalition strongly supports the inclusion of option: Hate crimes in relation to sexuality, sexual orientation and gender identity in Q 2.23. Please ensure it remains.

SECTION 3: CHILDREN AND YOUTH
None

SECTION 4: REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS AND REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH
The coalition supports the inclusion of MSM, WSW and transgender people, as well as PLHIV in Q 4.15. Please ensure its continued inclusion.
Q 4.20 should include Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, as well as HIV status as an option.
Q 4.19 should include information on which laws, regulations etc and whether anything is being done to change them.
Q4.32 should include lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender men people as an option.
Implementation and impact indicators in this and previous section seem weak. The coalition would like to see more accountability in terms of budget allocation, programming, planning and implementation, not just policy. More numerical coverage data and emphasis on the need for that data to have minimum standards in terms of quality.

SECTION 5: HEALTH, MORBIDITY and MORTALITY
The coalition supports the inclusion of MSM, WSW and transgender people as well as PLHIV in Q 5.7. Please ensure continued inclusion.
Similarly for previous sections comments, very policy orientated, not measuring action and impact.

SECTION 6: HIV/AIDS
This section should ask whether the country still has any punitive or otherwise discriminatory laws, policies or practices on HIV exposure, and what is being done to remove them.
Versions of Q 6.7 in this section should be replicated in all other applicable sections as it is a more useful tool to gather actual actions and results.

SECTION 7: POPULATION DISTRIBUTION, URBANIZATION AND INTERNAL MIGRATION
None, not applicable to our area of expertise.

SECTION 8: INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION
None, not applicable to our area of expertise.

SECTION 9: EDUCATION
None, not applicable to our area of expertise.

SECTION 10: CRISIS SITUATION AND POPULATION CONSEQUENCES
None, not applicable to our area of expertise.

SECTION 11: PARTNERSHIPS WITH THE DONORS, NGOs, THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND COMMUNITY GROUPS
The coalition supports the inclusion of this section yet re-iterates that it does not address our concern raised in Section 1. We include it here for emphasis: A section should be included that asks whether the questionnaire is being completed by government alone or in consultation with civil society. The names of the organisations consulted should be captured as a means to understanding how representative of the national experience the data in the forms actually is, especially with regard to any recommendations, challenges and barriers. The representativeness and accuracy of data in similar reporting tools is inadequate and the ICPD+ process is an opportunity to improve this exclusion of civil society and their ability to assist governments in accurately identifying lack, solutions and the way forward.

SECTION 12: MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ICPD-PoA
The coalition supports the use of questions that include accountability and Q 12.5 begins to address which mechanisms are being used: parliament, ngos, etc. This question should be strengthened by asking for  examples or recommendations of what can be done to further ensure accountability, and identifying what best practices have been used.

SECTION 13: DATA FOR DEVELOPMENT
The coalition supports the inclusion of “sexuality and gender roles” in Q 13.5. Please ensure its continued inclusion. It could be strengthened with the use of sexual orientation and gender identity. As a means to improving data on marginalised groups, including especially the quality of data, and the universal inclusion of groups such as lgbt, an option in Q 13.6 or Q13.7 could speak to sensitization of staff to needs of and issues in accessing vulnerable populations from a methodological perspective. This would go some way to increasing and improving data reporting on MSM, WSW, and TG men and women. The coalition would also like to see data reported in these M&E reporting process that had more robust sample sizes, and this should be captured if possible.

SECTION 14: FACTORS AFFECTING NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ICPD PoA RECOMMENDATIONS and THE ICPD+5 KEY ACTIONS
Q14.4.9 includes “Problem of Accountability” as an option as an “economic and financial constraint”, this should be moved to Q4.13 or Q4.15. Accountability is not an issue of economics or finances but a socio-political and governance issue. This will fail to capture useful information and somewhat confuse accounting with accountability.

FINAL COMMENTS

In conclusion the coalition would like to highlight 3 points:  1.The questionnaire is comprehensive although not entirely inclusive of all marginalised groups all the time. 2. How and who completes the report needs to be captured as a means of understanding the quality and accuracy as well as ownership of the data reported, and whether it reflects only the opinion of one government bureaucrat or a highly paid consultant commissioned by the govt, or whether it’s a collective, informed working group of govt, csos and other experts as it ideally should who will truly reflect the country’s scenario. 3. Accountability needs to be highlighted if any action is going to be measured and data is a strong tool, and this survey focuses too strongly on policy and does not collect performance related quantitative data. Additionally Accountability is incorrectly located under financing and not under governance where it belongs.

Questions, comments, feedback please contact Phillipa Tucker at phillipa[at]aidsaccountability.org or +27 (0)82 225 1598