Swiss Centre for
International Health
UNDP Regional Cooperation Framework for The AsiaPacific Region: HIV/AIDS Cluster
An Independent Outcome
Evaluation
By
Kate Molesworth
Kaspar Wyss
January 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3
1. INTRODUCTION
The HIV situation and context in the Asia-Pacific region
Evaluation objectives
6
6
7
2 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND ITS LIMITATIONS
Methodology
Methodological Limitations
Report Structure
8
8
10
11
3. OUTCOME ANALYSIS
Contributing factors and constraints to progress in the
Asia region
Progress towards outcome 3 in the Asia region
Contributing factors and constraints to progress
in the Pacific region
Progress towards outcome 3 in the Pacific region
12
12
4. PROJECT OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS
Positioning of HIV/AIDS within UNDP corporate strategy
Importance of responding to HIV/AIDS relating to UNDP strategy
Building Regional HIV Resilience
Pacific Regional STI/HIV/AIDS and Development Programme
Regional Empowerment & Action to Contain HIV/AIDS
(REACH): Beyond Borders
18
18
19
20
26
5. PROJECT – OUTCOME LINK
39
6. CONCLUSIONS
43
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
45
8. LESSONS LEARNED
47
13
15
17
33
ANNEX 1. REFERENCES AND DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
ANNEX 2. ACTIVITIES AND MEETINGS
ANNEX 3. TERMS OF REFERENCE
ANNEX 4. LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS
ANNEX 5. QUESTIONNAIRES EMAILED TO PPRS AND HIV FOCAL PERSONNEL PRIOR TO
FIELDWORK
ANNEX 6. FINANACIAL DATA SUPPLIED BY RBAP ON 26.10.06
1
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AIDS
APN+
ASEAN
ATFOA
CARAM
CIDA
CO
CSEARHAP
DFID
FJN+
FSM
GFATM
GIMP
GIPA
GMS
HIV
IDUs
IJALS
IOM
MDGs
MFA
MOA
MOU
MSM
MYFF
NGO
PPR
PLHWHA
RBAP
RCC
RCF II
SARDI
SCIH
SEA
SPATS
SRF
TOR
UNAIDS
UNDP
UNDP HQ
UNGASS
UNRC
UNRTF
Acquired Human Immunodeficiency Syndrome
Asian PLHA Network
Association of South- East Asian Nations
ASEAN Task Force on AIDS
Coordination of Action Research on AIDS & Mobility
Canadian International Development Agency
Country Office
Canada Southeast Asia Regional HIV/AIDS Programme
(British) Department for International Development
Fiji Network of Positive People
Fiji School of Medicine
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria
Greater Involvement of Mobile Populations
Greater Involvement of People with HIV/AIDS
Greater Mekong Sub-Region
Human Immunodeficiency Virus
Injecting Drug Users
Institute for Justice and Applied Legal Studies
International Organization for Migration
Millennium Development Goals
Migrant Forum Asia
Memorandum of Agreement
Memorandum of Understanding
Men who have Sex with Men
Multi-Year Funding Framework
Non-governmental Organization
Principle Project
People Living with HIV/AIDS
Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific
Regional Co-ordination Centre
Second Regional Cooperation Framework for Asia and the Pacific
South Asian Research and Development Initiative
Swiss Centre for International Health
South East Asia
South Pacific Association of Theological Schools
Strategic Results Framework
Terms of Reference
Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS
United Nations Development Programme
United Nations Development Programme Headquarters
United Nation General Assembly Special Session
United Nations Resident Coordinator
UN Regional Task Force on Mobility and HIV Vulnerability Reduction
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the spring of 2006 the UNDP Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific commissioned
three independent teams to evaluate the Second Regional Cooperation Framework for
Asia and the Pacific (RCF II). The duration of RCF II from 2002 to 2006 was nearing
completion and one of the purposes of the evaluation was to inform the planning and
design of the next Regional Cooperation Framework. The wider evaluation considers
three intended outcomes of RCF II namely:
Outcome 1. Through a participatory process and with due consideration of the impact of
globalization and of sustainable human development concepts, anti-poverty strategies to
achieve the MDGs developed.
Outcome 2. Through special attention to access to justice, human rights, parliamentary
development, public administration reform, transparency and accountability; democratic
governance in the region fostered.
Outcome 3. To plan and implement multi-sectoral strategies for limiting the spread of
HIV/AIDS and mitigating its social and economic impacts, institutional capacity built and
strengthened.
This report concerns evaluation of outcome three.
In the 35 days assigned to the evaluation of outcome three a desk review was made of
documents relating to three regional projects on which field work for the evaluation
would be based and a field questionnaire developed. In May 2006 a meeting was held
between the three evaluation teams, the Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific and
the Evaluation Office at UNDP Headquarters. Between May and June, field visits were
conducted in Thailand, Fiji, Sri Lanka, Nepal and India. Semi-structured interviews were
conducted with a range of UNDP regional and country officers and wider development
partners including national government officers, multi- and bi-lateral agencies, faith- and
community–based organisations and NGOs. Further documentation was gathered and
reviewed relating to the three regional projects to plan and implement multi-sectoral
strategies to limit the spread of HIV/AIDS, mitigate its socio-economic impacts, and
strengthen institutional capacity to this end. These were: RAS/02/200 Building Regional
HIV Resilience (SEAHIV); RAS/02/301 Pacific Regional STI/HIV/AIDS and Development
Programme (PRHP); and RAS/02/03/A/01/31 Regional Empowerment and Action to
Contain HIV/AIDS (REACH) Beyond Borders.
The evaluation indicates that responses to the epidemic conducted within RCF II have
been highly variable in terms of management and partnership strategies, outputs,
achievements and sustainability as assessed from the five field visits and documentation
review. This has been largely due to individual differences in project management
practices and personal issues that the institutional structure failed to address and
mitigate, combined with reductions in budgeted project funding.
The overall approaches of UNDP to planning and implementing multi-sectoral strategies
to limit the spread of HIV/AIDS, mitigating its socio-economic impacts, and strengthening
institutional capacity towards this outcome have addressed the gap in the knowledge
base and multi-sectoral responses to the epidemic in the region. Projects assessed
3
appear to have been effective in placing HIV vulnerability on the wider development
agenda and moving responses beyond the confines of the health sector. Given the
importance of regional economic gradients and the reliance of substantial numbers of
people on migration to support their livelihoods, cross-border mobility is a crucial yet
neglected factor driving the epidemic in the region. This is further compounded as many
unofficial and unregistered migrants are marginalised from information and medical
services of their receiving countries and “fall through the safety nets” available to
nationals working within their own countries.
The majority of nations within the region, prior to interventions under the UNDP Regional
Cooperation Framework, had failed to address the broader socio-economic, gender and
human rights issues driving migration and the epidemic. The politically unpopular, and in
some countries illegal, nature of unregistered cross-border labourers rendered them a
risky cause for elected politicians to champion. UNDP country offices in their role of
supporting host nations’ own development agendas are in a limited position to push
politically sensitive causes. The regional approach has been crucial and highly effective
in facilitating countries to act collectively on cross-border issues that previously few
wished to take on responsibility and the financial liability for.
Project activities within intended outcome three of RCF II have initiated a platform for
countries to discuss the epidemic, its drivers and wider consequences as a regional
issue. Capacity building and targeting of leaders in awareness-raising and information
workshops has improved regional governmental understanding of HIV/AIDS as a broad
development issue. Responses to socio-economic, human rights, gender and health
issues surrounding regional mobility and its consequences have clearly evolved in
recent years, and activities towards outcome three have catalysed wider development
partners to work with mobile populations in response to the wider socio-economic and
cultural drivers of the epidemic.
Under RCF II there have been variable efforts and results to fully include affected groups
in activities and more creative efforts are required to realise the spirit of GIPA and GIMP.
However, overall inadequate emphasis has been placed on gender issues that mediate
forced migration and violations of human rights that compound women and girls’
vulnerability to infection.
Partnership strategies have been highly effective in tapping into local expertise to
conduct research into legal, human rights, stigmatisation, migration and other areas
presenting gaps in the knowledge base. Specialist partners have also added to policy
development processes and the engagement of socially influential institutions such as
the faith-based organisations in the Pacific Islands has had a positive impact towards
limiting the spread of HIV/AIDS, mitigating its socio-economic impacts, and
strengthening institutional capacity at the community level towards this outcome.
The evaluation recommends a number of management, financial and project
approaches to be taken up in the next Regional Cooperation Framework. These include
project archiving and preservation of products that relate to sustainability. Most
importantly, it is recommended that UNDP more fully commits financial resources to its
HIV response and takes steps to protect committed funds from abrupt reductions.
4
1 INTRODUCTION
THE HIV SITUATION AND CONTEXT IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION
The Asia-Pacific region is experiencing one of the most rapid increases in the HIV
epidemic globally. In terms of absolute numbers, eight million people in Asia are
estimated to be infected with the virus (UNDP Regional Centre Bangkok 2005 Annual
Report), which is the largest number after Africa. For much of the brief history of the HIV
epidemic, responses have been medical and epidemiologically focussed. While these
approaches are valuable components of the response, experience from the grass-roots
and more formal research have shown the forces driving the epidemic to be a complex
interplay of broad social, cultural and economic factors that vary in different regions of
the world. Under its second Regional Co-operation Framework (RCF II) for Asia and the
Pacific, UNDP has initiated three projects to holistically address the complexity of sociocultural and economic factors driving the epidemic and to mitigate the impact of the virus
through strengthened national and interregional capacity-building.
In Asia many rural communities have for generations supported subsistence agriculture
with seasonal labour migration both at the national level to urban areas, and across
borders to countries in the region where income generating opportunities are perceived
to be more favourable. With the fast pace of social and economic change, the need for
cash has risen abruptly and greater proportions of people engage in economic migration
with time. Poverty and inequalities in access to resources, work and services are often
accompanied by exploitation and infringement of human rights. Many migrants find
themselves in debt to international labour agents and with little prior knowledge of living
costs in host nations, are only able to return low proportions of their earnings in
remittances to their families (UNDP/UNOPS 1999), which maintains the most
disadvantaged in the region within the poverty-migration cycle.
The demographic profile of people crossing borders within the Asia region has shifted in
recent decades with younger people and increasing numbers of women and girls
becoming international migrants. This has been reflected in the shape of the epidemic,
which is increasingly impacting both directly and indirectly on women. Not only are
women more biologically and socially vulnerable to infection and less empowered than
men to negotiate safer sexual practices, they also bear the brunt of supporting their
relatives with the death of family members, while caring for those sick and orphaned by
AIDS. Given the lower status of women and empowerment of women in many countries
in Asia and the Pacific, they are also more vulnerable to the impact of social
discrimination surrounding households where one or more members are known to be
infected (UNDP Regional Development Report: HIV/AIDS in South Asia 2003).
In the Pacific Island Countries (PICs), apart from the high incidence of HIV in Papua
New Guinea, the number and proportion of recorded cases of HIV-infection is low
(UNAIDS Update 2005). However, the high levels of sexually transmitted infections,
early pregnancies and extra-marital sex (Pacific Regional HIV/AIDS Project Document
2002), indicate a prevalence of engagement in sexual behaviours that place people,
especially the large youth population, at high risk of contracting the virus. This in turn
indicates a high potential for a rapid increase in the epidemic in the Pacific region.
5
A number of high risk occupations predominate in Pacific Island Countries including
fishing and seafaring that are associated with multiple-partners and high risk sexual
behaviours. Linked to this is a growing sex industry, both in terms of casual sex to meet
immediate economic and food security needs among the region’s very poorest, to more
regular, organised sex work. The demand for commercial sex has even resulted in a
number of sex workers from countries in Asia working in a number of PICs (Pacific
Regional HIV/AIDS Project Milestone 2 HIV/AIDS situation and responses in seven
Pacific Island Countries January 2005). This not only increases the pace of diffusion of
the virus into the region, but also between islands within the Pacific.
Repressive social attitudes combined with the initial judgemental and condemning
position of the strong Christian Church in the region hampered dialogue at the
community level on HIV and obstructed information to enable risk reduction.
Discrimination against HIV positive people was also an issue that discouraged people
from seeking counselling and testing for fear of stigmatisation. In spite of legislation
prohibiting such discrimination, such as the Fiji Industrial Relations Bill of 2003, in many
PICs the industrial and commercial sectors were uninformed of the legal rights of seropositive people. As a consequence the economic vulnerability and social victimisation of
HIV positive people persisted. (Fiji National HIV/AIDS Strategic Plan 2004-2006)
Homosexuality, for example, was until recently illegal in many PICs. This maintained the
practices of men having sex with men covert and therefore high risk. In combination with
these factors, PICs have to contend with alcohol and substance abuse as well as a high
incidence of gender-based sexual violence, which place women particularly at risk of
infection.
Poverty which pushes and pulls people, especially the young and women, into high risk
situations is a prevailing aspect of vulnerability in the region. Combined with interregional
mobility and a high turnover of comparatively wealthy incomers with the tourist industry,
Pacific Island Countries are extremely vulnerable to a sharp rise in the epidemic in the
near future.
EVALUATION OBJECTIVES
As the second Regional Cooperation Framework for Asia and the Pacific 2002-2006
(RCF II) is nearing completion of its mandate, this evaluation was initiated both to
assess outcome three of RCF II, as well as contributing to the wider process of
designing the Regional Programme Document (RPD).
Outcome three was defined to be: To plan and implement multi-sectoral strategies for
limiting the spread of HIV/AIDS and mitigating its social and economic impacts
institutional capacity built and strengthened.
According to the terms of reference, set out in Annex 3, the outcome evaluation was to
assess the following:
(i) outcome analysis - what and how much progress has been made towards the
achievement of the outcome (including contributing factors and constraints);
(ii) project objective analysis - the relevance of and progress made in terms of the UNDP
projects (including an analysis of both project activities and soft-assistance activities);
6
(iii) project-outcome link - what contribution UNDP has made/is making to the progress
towards the achievement of the outcome (including an analysis of the partnership
strategy).
To this end UNDP selected five sample countries (Thailand, Fiji, Sri Lanka, Nepal and
India) for field evaluation of the three regional projects on which the evaluation was
based: RAS/02/200 Building Regional HIV Resilience (SEAHIV); RAS/02/301 Pacific
Regional STI/HIV/AIDS and Development Programme (PRHP); and RAS/02/03/A/01/31
Regional Empowerment and Action to Contain HIV/AIDS (REACH) Beyond Borders.
This evaluation was formulated to provide an analysis of progress towards the
achievement of outcome three, the relevance of the progress of projects and UNDP’s
contribution to achievement of the outcome. This is reflected in the focus of this
evaluation report, which rather than evaluating individual activities and outputs, provides
an overall analysis of approaches and contributions of UNDP projects to achieving the
intended outcome.
2 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND ITS LIMITATIONS
METHODOLOGY
Project documentation and related literature was reviewed prior to fieldwork and used as
reference and triangulation materials throughout the evaluation process. Throughout
field visits, additional documents and audio-visual media relating to the projects were
gathered, reviewed and incorporated into the evaluation.
In accordance with the TOR, prior to the fieldwork component of the evaluation, the team
developed a questionnaire based on project documentation and the TOR with
adaptations for application to difference stakeholder groups and UNDP personnel.
Following submission of the questionnaire to UNDP HQ it was subsequently decided in a
meeting of the three outcome evaluation teams with UNDP HQ that all evaluation teams
would adopt a common methodology of semi-structured interviews and open-ended
stakeholder discussions, combined with a brief written questionnaire to be sent to UNDP
regional and country offices. These were subsequently developed and sent via email to
PPRs and HIV focal personnel prior to fieldwork (Set out in Annex 5)
Semi-structured interviews (SSIs) formed a major part of the field methodology, and
were based on issues arising from pre-field meetings and documentation provided by
UNDP HQ. SSIs were used in key informant interviews and focus group discussions.
Interviews were conducted with UNDP regional, sub-regional and country officers,
together with a range of government, I/NGO bilateral and multi-lateral development
partners selected by UNDP HQ in collaboration with regional and country officers.
In line with the UNGASS GIPA1 initiative (Greater Involvement of People with AIDS) the
team evaluating outcome 3 requested additional meetings with sero-positive groups and
their representatives. This was agreed upon with UNDP HQ and facilitated at the field
1
Declaration of the Paris Summit, 1 December 1994
7
level by UNDP country regional focal offers who arranged meetings with individual and
groups of stakeholders previously agreed at the New York meeting in May 2006.2
Field visits determined by the TOR for each of the three projects varied in their scope
and number. For RAS/02/200 Building Regional HIV Resilience (SEAHIV) a single visit
to Bangkok was made. Similarly evaluation of RAS/02/301 Pacific Regional
STI/HIV/AIDS and Development Programme (PRHP), a single visit was made to Fiji.
For RAS/02/03/A/01/31 Regional Empowerment and Action to Contain HIV/AIDS
(REACH) Beyond Borders, three visits were made, to the regional centre and other
stakeholders in Colombo and to Kathmandu and Delhi.
The following table summarises the number of formal interviews held in each country
with different categories of stakeholders. Thirty-one of these were with a single individual
and twelve were attended by groups of stakeholders. Additionally a number of
community and non-governmental organisations, donor representatives and
independent advisers were engaged in informal discussions at the CEARHAP
conference in Bangkok held in May 2006.
Project
Country
visited
HIV +ve
groups
Govt
UNDP
Other donors
Fiji
CSO/
NGO/
Independent
advisers
4
Pacific
HIV
AIDS
1
1
2
2
SEAHIV
Thailand
23
2
1
2
2*
REACH
Sri Lanka
Nepal
India
2
1
2
11*(25.5%)
1
1
1
6 (14%)
1
1
2
6 (14%)
3
2
2
11 (25.5%)
1
2
2
9 (21%)
total
Figure 1. Summary the number of formal interviews held in each country with different
categories of stakeholders
Overall all categories of stakeholder agreed by UNDP HQ and the evaluation team were
interviewed in all countries, and a reasonable proportional distribution of different
categories of stakeholders interviewed in each country. While this distribution reflects
that of stakeholders selected by UNDP HQ in collaboration with country and regional
offices (together with additional PLWHA groups requested by the evaluation team) it was
also determined by the availability of personnel throughout the course of the evaluation
process. Figure 1 shows that a quarter of interviews conducted in the course of the
evaluation was comprised of interviews with UNDP staff whose responsibilities related
directly to the three regional projects, or were country HIV focal points. A further quarter
2
The revised list of stakeholders prepared by UNDP HQ is set out in Annex 4.
A number of individuals were also engaged in informal discussion at the CEARHAP conference
in Thailand, all others were formally interviewed.
3
8
of those interviewed were with I/NGOs, CSOs and HIV/AIDS independent advisors.
Twenty-one percent of the evaluation interviews were conducted with other donors. HIV
positive groups and government officers responsible for national HIV/AIDS activities
each made up fourteen percent of those interviewed.
METHOLOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS
A number of factors limited the evaluation process:
Difficulties inherent in arranging meetings between evaluators, stakeholders and UNDP
staff were naturally encountered in the course of the evaluation and the timing of the
fieldwork coincided with the absence of international staff attending to duties out of
country. This combined with short-notice of absence of government officials and
development partners, led to last minute cancellation of some arranged interviews and
difficulties in accessing certain key personnel, both directly and remotely by telephone
and email. This contributed to the variation in the number and proportion of different
stakeholders accessed for formal interview during the course of the evaluation that is set
out in figure 1.
In addition to this, the regular movement of international staff to new postings within and
outside UNDP itself contributed in an interruption in the flow of project information and
institutional memory. Given that the SEAHIV project had closed in 2004, accessing
internal and external informants who were familiar with, or had worked directly on the
projects, was markedly constrained.
The timeframe of the overall evaluation process of 35 days to cover preparation,
fieldwork and reporting also restricted the depth and scope of the evaluation, which
would have benefited from additional post-field analysis time investment to enable more
in-depth assessment of large quantity of documents and audio-visual materials
collected.
Given that a number of key UNDP and external informants were absent from their offices
during field visits, additional time to enable post-field follow-up would have been
valuable. Similarly time resources to enable the tracking and contact of certain focal
informants that had moved posts and organisation would have enabled a more informed
and balanced evaluation, especially in the case of the SEAHIV project.
Access to project documentation, its organisation and quality varied within the three
projects. Some of the project names differed throughout project documentation and as a
consequence of the lack of systematic referencing documents confused projects and
were unclear about dates and authorship, which obscured clarity and hampered
progress of the evaluation. The availability of project data and documentation also varied
from the large volumes of documentation and audio-visual materials from REACH and
PRHP and scarce information on the SEAHIV project.
Throughout fieldwork and the post-field analysis and reporting phase there was a lack of
access to financial data. These were only supplied by UNDP HQ after the evaluation
had been completed on 26 October 2006 and the controversial opinions on funding flows
expressed by regional and RBAP after the end of fieldwork hampered conclusion of the
reporting phase.
9
Shifting responsibility and geographical location of regional project management lines
also impacted upon the efficiency of the evaluation process as many internal UNDP
officers referred questions posed by the evaluation team to other colleagues (and vice
versa). In spite of reminders to regional and country offices, none of the pre-field
questionnaires were completed and returned to the evaluation team. This together with a
lack of monitoring systems embedded at the project level weakened the scope of the
evaluation. As a consequence, evaluation of the economy with which the HIV responses
(intended outcome three) of RCF II have been implemented has been made qualitatively
on the basis of project and programme documentation combined with broader findings
regarding project implementation and sustainability.
The sample five countries selected by UNDP HQ for field visits in the course of
evaluation of the three regional HIV projects naturally have limited representation of
outcome three as it is perceived and achieved within all Asia-Pacific countries included
in RCF II. Considered in the context of limited country visits, the findings presented in
this report provide an evaluation of achievements, constraints and lessons learned within
the limitations described.
REPORT STRUCTURE
This report is structured to address the major focus and key questions set out in the
TOR regarding the effects of the three projects upon intended outcome three.
The introduction in section 1 sets out the complexity of factors that drive the epidemic in
the Asia-Pacific region that determine a holistic and cross-sectoral response to the
epidemic. In section 2 the rationale of the evaluation methodology and its limitations are
set out.
In section 3 the outcome analysis evaluates the progress that has been made in the
Asia-Pacific region towards planning and implementing multi-sectoral strategies for
limiting the spread of HIV/AIDS, mitigating its social and economic impacts, and
strengthening institutional capacities towards this outcome. This section also evaluates
contributing factors and constraints to progress towards the intended outcome in the
region.
Section 4 provides an analysis of the relevance of and progress made in terms of the
UNDP regional project activities towards planning and implementing multi-sectoral
strategies to contain the epidemic and mitigate its impacts. It grounds UNDP’s HIV/AIDS
inputs within the organisation’s corporate strategy and analyses the relevance and
progress of each of the three regional projects.
Evidence emerging from field interviews, project and wider documentation of direct links
between project activities and planning and implementing multi-sectoral strategies to
limit the spread of HIV/AIDS, mitigating its socio-economic impacts, and strengthening
institutional capacity towards this outcome are set out in section 5.
Conclusions are presented in section 6, and while a number of recommendations and
lessons learned are highlighted in bold as they logically occur throughout the text of this
report, they are again listed in sections 7 and 8.
10
3 OUTCOME ANALYSIS
This section of the evaluation reports on the progress that has been made in the AsiaPacific region towards planning and implementing multi-sectoral strategies for limiting
the spread of HIV/AIDS, mitigating its social and economic impacts, and strengthening
institutional capacities towards this outcome. It sets out the contextual factors that
determine the appropriateness of UNDP’s approach to the intended outcome in
responding to HIV/AIDS and also mediate achievements.
Contributing factors and constraints to progress in the Asia region
In Asia the magnitude and visibility of the epidemic is far greater than in the majority of
islands in the Pacific (other than Papua New Guinea). As discussed in the introduction,
cross-border mobility has a long tradition in Asia and has been an important seasonal
strategy to maintain fluctuations in food production and household income. With rising
consumerism, poverty and the need to access cash, regional labour migration has
increased over the last few decades, both in terms of the numbers of people crossing
borders and the length of time they remain away from their homes.
Trafficking of girls and women in particular has risen to meet international demands for
exploitive labour, particularly in the organised sex industry. This is driven by gender gaps
in access to education, livelihood opportunities and skills development, the low status of
women in many countries and extreme poverty, especially in rural areas.
Research has shown that people, whether forcibly or voluntarily displaced from their
families and familiar spheres, have a higher risk of engaging in activities and being
placed in situations that directly and indirectly increase their vulnerability to HIV, other
infections and ill-health. Among the situations that economic migrants encounter are
financial debt and low pay. It has been widely reported that migrants in many countries
have their identification papers and passports removed by employers, landlords and
labour agencies as a form of control and guarantee for loans and debts. Deprived of
their documentation, migrants’ access to basic services is obstructed and they fall into
the “grey” area of unregistered and often illegal people whose rights are vulnerable to
further abuse. Poverty, exploitation and the disregard of basic human rights are more
complex and difficult to deal with when people feel foreign, do not speak the local
language and feel they have no right to legal protection in their host nation. The
combination of these social and economic factors is linked to emotional distress
associated with increased risk of substance abuse including alcohol and psychoactive
drug use and dependency. These vulnerabilities are also closely associated with high
risk sexual behaviour and transactional sex that increase vulnerability to HIV infection.
The responses of governments and international agencies to the epidemic in the Asia
region have been largely within the medical and public health sectors. Given that the
main drivers of the epidemic lie outside these domains, it became imperative that a more
11
integrative and holistic approach was taken to the epidemic, that rendered crucial
UNDP’s support of planning and implementing multi-sectoral strategies for limiting the
spread of HIV/AIDS, mitigating its social and economic impacts, and strengthening
institutional capacities towards this outcome.
Under the three UNDP service lines relating to HIV/AIDS a number of results have been
achieved in the Asia region, that have made progress towards HIV/AIDS containment
and mitigation of its impact in UNDP programme countries in the Asia region.
Progress towards outcome 3 in the Asia region
Service line 5.1: Leadership and capacity development to address HIV/AIDS
 A number of transformational leadership workshops have been held in the Asia
region under RCF II. In Nepal, however, the rapid pace of political change diluted
the initial impact of this programme as leaders selected for capacity-building
sometimes lost (and also sometimes regained) their leadership positions.
Service line 5.2: Development planning, implementation and HIV/AIDS responses
 Through partnerships at both regional and country levels, UNDP provided
assistance in advocating multi-sectoral responses and mainstreaming HIV/AIDS
in the strategies of regional partners. This included regional organisations such
as ASEAN and SAARC that enabled policy development towards integrative
responses at the country-level.

Support was provided in policy development to protect highly vulnerable groups
including migrants and trafficked people through the UN Regional Task Force on
Mobility (UNRTF).

A regional co-ordination mechanism was established and supported to take
forward a regional application to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria
(GFATM) and develop regional cross-border responses to the epidemic.

Forced migration was addressed through the Trafficking and HIV Programme in
partnership with DFID India.

Community responses were encouraged and enabled to be linked with national
integrated planning processes. The inclusion of HIV positive groups was variable
in different contexts and is elaborated in the Project Objective Analysis.

Milestone agreements were reached following the UNDP-organized ASEAN
workshop on Population Movement and HIV Vulnerability in Chiang Rai in
November 1999 (known as the Chang Rai Recommendation) were taken forward
into national planning for holistic responses to the epidemic. Mobile populations’
concerns were integrated in national plans in a number of countries including
Nepal and India.

Through strong advocacy and bringing together country leaders from the region
under the SEAHIV project, the Chang Rai Recommendation was formalised in a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the agreement between the Kingdom of
Cambodia, the People’s Republic of China, the Lao People’s Democratic
12
Republic, the Kingdom of Thailand, the Union of Myanmar and the Socialist
Republic of Viet Nam was signed in September 2001.

With support of UNDP regional support ASEAN governments adopted a common
policy recommending the integration of HIV prevention programmes as a
precondition for construction and infrastructure development contracts bidding
and approval.
Service line 5.3: Advocacy and communication to address HIV/AIDS.
 Considerable advocacy and communications outputs to address the containment
of the epidemic through awareness and mitigating social impacts of infection
were achieved in advocacy and communication to address HIV/AIDS Asia in
partnership with specialist communications I/NGOs such as PANOS, television
networks such as the Asia Broadcasting Union and private production
companies.

A large body of knowledge materials were produced in different media
(Television, video, DVD, print media including books, pamphlets and magazines)
to address a wide range of issues and themes relating to the virus and the
epidemic. These advocacy and communication materials targeted a variety of
audiences form infected and affected people, to policy makers, development
practitioners and the wider public.

Research was supported and disseminated on the socio-economic drivers of
migration and vulnerability within the region (No Safety Sign Here. REACH 2004;
Migration and HIV in South Asia 2004; From Challenges to Opportunities:
Responses to Trafficking and HIV/AIDS in South Asia).

A study was supported on the legal and social environment of the epidemic in
Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Sri Lanka in partnership with national legal
specialists and I/NGOs (Law, Ethics and HIV/AIDS in South Asia 2004).

In partnership with UNAIDS, a special Regional Human Development Report on
HIV/AIDS and Development was produced in 2003 that highlighted the multifaceted drivers of the epidemic and appropriate policy responses in the regional
context.

A regional HIV/AIDS portal was establishes and maintained that met a wide
range of needs including access to information on the virus, risk factors and legal
issues. It also provided a platform for sero-positive people and encouraged the
formation of networks of PLWHA.

In the course of RCF II, UNDP support encouraged the formation of twelve
national PLWHA groups and strengthened 11 nascent groups.

Under REACH, the Asian PLWHA Network capacity was strengthened to
network and provide support to existing and new groups and associations of HIV
positive people in the region. This was achieved through a combination of inputs,
including the leadership workshops under service line 5.1, support for PLWHA
13
representatives to travel to regional meetings and also though the internet
information portal detailed in the following section.

Many groups were supported to conduct inter-country exchanges and to provide
south-south support via internet websites and groups.
Within the HIV/AIDS practice area, in the last few years under RCF II programme
country demand within in the Asia-Pacific region has been most frequent in service lines
5.1 and 5.2 (2004 Results Report for UNDP in Asia and the Pacific; RBAP 2005 Results
Report). This reflects UNDP’s regional project efforts in creating demand through
dialogue with national governments for support in planning and implementation multisectoral HIV/AIDS responses as well as project efforts to support these processes with
capacity-building to address the epidemic. Given that this trend has also increased
leadership capacity, once all UNDP programme country strategies are completed (as
many have already been) in the next RCF there is likely to be a rising demand for
regional support for advocacy and communication to address the epidemic (under the
current service line 5.3). Although from 2006 UNDP assistance in the HIV/AIDS
practice area will be based on three thematic service lines (RBAP 2005 Results
Report),4 regional and country officers should be prepared to meet the expected
demand to support achievements under service lines 5.1 and 5.2 with advocacy
and communications support.
It is of concern that country demand for HIV/AIDS service lines overall fell between 2004
and 2005 (RBAP 2005 Results Report). Given the nature and magnitude of the epidemic
in the region it is crucial that UNDP continues efforts to raise demand for multi-sectoral
responses to the epidemic in programme countries. To support this, funding for this
practice area must be both adequate and protected from wider shocks and acute
changes in budget allocations.
Contributing factors and constraints to progress in the Pacific region
Given the relatively low incidence of reported cases of HIV in the Pacific region (Pacific
Regional HIV/AIDS Project Document 2002), governments of PICs such as that in Fiji,
(which formed the field visit site for the evaluation of UNDP’s HIV initiatives under RCF
II) concentrated efforts on more visible health concerns. This had severely constrained
national responses to the epidemic in key sectors including health and law and justice.
As a consequence, rather that optimising the window of opportunity for strengthening
social, community and public structures to reduce vulnerability to the virus, the lack of
perceived urgency and effective responses left islands in the region at risk of the
epidemic developing to the proportions evident in Papua New Guinea (Pacific Regional
HIV/AIDS Project January 2005).
The high incidence of sexually transmitted infections and early, unplanned pregnancies
among many PIC communities indicate these communities to be at high risk of an
increasing epidemic. Socio-economic and cultural factors including gender inequalities,
4
From 2006, UNDP assistance will be based on three thematic services lines as agreed at the
corporate level: HIV/AIDS and Human Development; Governance of HIV/AIDS Response; and
HIV/AIDS, Human Rights and Gender.
14
poverty, limited livelihoods options, increasing substance abuse, together with social
censure surrounding sexual norms and illegality of homosexuality and low availability of
HIV testing, contributed to the risk of rapid diffusion of the virus in the region.
Given the situation of generally low prevalence, yet high risk towards the virus in the
Pacific region it was crucial that governments and civil society were engaged in active
and timely responses to factors placing PIC populations at risk. While many PIC
governments regarded HIV to be a medical issue and development partners responded
to that aspect of the epidemic, it was crucial that the broader elements driving the
epidemic were address in a holistic and cross-sectoral manner.
Within RCF II, the Pacific Regional STI/HIV/AIDS and Development Programme (which
is set out in detail in the Project Objective Analysis) was launched in 2003 as a holistic,
UNDP-led joint UN agency programme of initiatives with the objective to: “Increase PIC
capacity for a more effective and sustainable response to the spread of HIV/STI and the
care for those with AIDS.” UN agencies took the lead in their specialist domains. For
example, WHO took responsibility for the capacity-building staff and infrastructure for the
medical response, UNAIDS took the lead in monitoring and reporting, ILO led a review of
workplace legislation and training and UNFPA took responsibility for condom promotion,
social marketing and distribution. UNDP’s aim was to effectively fill fundamental gaps in
social and human rights issues that inhibited the regional response to the epidemic at
both the social and institutional levels. The organisation provided capacity-building and
institutional strengthening to support holistic and cross-sectoral responses to the
epidemic that included addressing human rights and legal issues hampering acceptance
of HIV positive people that impacted negatively on voluntary testing and lowering risk
behaviours. To further support this, UNDP’s response in the Pacific under RCF II
engaged the Christian Church as a focal social structure to address changing attitudes
to promote acceptance of sero-positive people and to support them and their families in
dealing with the social and economic impacts of the virus. This was an important and
effective approach within the PIC context where the Church is a fundamental social
institution that strongly guides community attitudes and responses. By forming a
partnership with the Church, UNDP project inputs had the potential to engage all levels
on society to the grass-roots level in a compassionate and effective response to the HIV
epidemic and mitigating its human impacts.
Given that the drivers of the epidemic, as the introduction sets out, are the consequence
of a complex interplay of socio-cultural and economic factors, UNDP’s approach in
responding to the epidemic in the Pacific responded to needs at the regional, national
and local levels and filled a number of crucial gaps in other development partners’
responses. UNDP under RCF II also supported and developed information education
and communications (IEC) materials to support mainstreaming of HIV/AIDS across
sectors and within civil society (that are specified in the Project Objective Analysis).
In terms of progress made under RCF II towards the outcome of planning and
implementing multi-sectoral strategies for limiting the spread of HIV/AIDS, mitigating its
social and economic impacts, and strengthening institutional capacities, a number of
concrete achievements were made in the region. Data on programme outputs were
obtained from a combination of sources that included interviews with UNDP regional and
country officers, governmental and non-governmental development partners and review
of regional annual reports and RBAP results reports listed in Annex 1. These are set out
15
as they relate to UNDP’s three HIV service lines5 that are elaborated in the Project
Objective Analysis.
Progress towards outcome 3 in the Pacific region:
Service line 5.1: Leadership and capacity development to address HIV/AIDS
 Leadership was developed at all levels of political, institutional and civil society
with a strong emphasis on the Greater Involvement of People with HIV/AIDS
(GIPA) through UNDP’s initiation and support of a number of transformational
leadership workshops. For example, in 2005 eighty identified leaders from PIC
countries attended workshops under the PRHP project that stimulated and
supported the championing of HIV/AIDS advocacy among leaders in the
community, faith-based organisations, the media, political life and civil
organisations (Asia-Pacific Regional programme 2005 Results Report).

In accordance with the GIPA principle, sero-positive people were supported to
establish organisations such as the Fiji Network of Positive People. These
organisations were provided with capacity building in organisational
management, information and leadership.

The Fiji School of Medicine was contracted as a partner to develop civil society
organisations’ capacity to advocate and respond to the epidemic. This resulted in
outputs including the drafting of a training manual to guide NGOs to effectively
collect and use information on the epidemic in the region. This partnership also
supported NGOs to write small grants proposals to implement research projects
to identify and strengthen knowledge on the dynamics of the epidemic drivers in
the region.
Service line 5.2: Development planning, implementation and HIV/AIDS responses
 Having identified a number of legal and rights issues relating to the epidemic in
the region, in the Pacific Island Country Strategy, UNDP formed a partnership
with the University of the South Pacific’s Institute for Justice and Applied Legal
Studies (IJALS) to review legislation in three pilot countries – Fiji, Tonga and
Kiribati. The outcome of this review was the development of the Regional Human
Rights Strategy. This supported containment of the spread of the epidemic by
providing the legal basis on which acceptance of HIV positive people would be
increased and discrimination reduced to mitigate the social and economic
impacts of the virus.

After sharing the process and products of the pilot project with host governments
of programme countries within the region, a further six countries requested
5
Under the current Multi-Year Funding Framework (MYFF) that articulates UNDP strategic goals
and is used as a tool to direct strategic management and monitoring, there are three service
lines5 relating to the fifth UNDP core goal of responding to HIV/AIDS. These are: 5.1 Leadership
and capacity development to address HIV/AIDS; 5.2. Development planning, implementation and
HIV/AIDS responses; and 5.3. Advocacy and communication to address HIV/AIDS. These are
elaborated in the Project Objective Analysis.
16
UNDP support in effecting legal change to strengthen human rights and gender
issues relating to HIV/AIDS and to mitigate the wider human impacts of the virus.

UNDP supported a broad-based and multi-sectoral approach to the epidemic in
its support to the development of the Pacific Strategic Plan on HIV/AIDS and the
Fiji National Strategic Plan on HIV/AIDS. Both processes benefited from UNDP’s
capacity building and support of the inclusion of sero-positive people.
Service line 5.3: Advocacy and communication to address HIV/AIDS.
 An advocacy approach to mitigating the social economic impacts of the virus and
to improve acceptance of infected people was taken by UNDP in partnership with
the South Pacific Association of Theological Schools. This resulted in a review of
the Church’s approach to the epidemic and dialogue on its role in supporting
infected people and their families at the community level.

The outcome of UNDP’s capacity building of theological school teachers in
HIV/AIDS and its drivers resulted in the partnership developing modules in the
curriculum of all theological colleges in the PICs that relate directly to mitigating
the socio-economic impacts of the epidemic. A result of this partnership is that all
ministers emerging from theological colleges in the PICs will have taken formal
courses to build their capacity both to mitigate impacts of the virus in the
communities they serve, but also to open dialogue on the epidemic and driving
factors such as gender-based and sexual violence and alcohol abuse. In this
way, this approach has formed the basis for action at the community level to
support national and local responses to the epidemic.

Advocacy for HIV positive people and support for greater acceptance of seropositive people in society was supported by the PRHP project through the
production of audio-visual materials in partnership with a private production
company in Fiji that included a DVD documentary for mainstream television
broadcast and distribution.
4 PROJECT OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS
In this section an analysis is made of the relevance of and progress made in terms of the
UNDP project activities towards planning and implementing of multi-sectoral strategies
to contain the epidemic and mitigate its impacts. This section begins by grounding the
regional projects under evaluation within the context of agreed global development
objectives and UNDP’s development framework and goes on to examine their relevance
to UNDP corporate strategy and regional contexts.
Positioning of HIV/AIDS within UNDP corporate strategy
In 2000 UNDP adopted the Multi-Year Funding Framework (MYFF). This articulates
UNDP strategic goals and is used as a tool to direct the strategic management,
monitoring and both internal and external accountability (Second Multi-Year Funding
Framework, 2004-2007). The first MYFF (2000-2003) consolidated and harmonised the
global development agenda set out in the Millennium Declaration and focused in the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) with the grass-roots realities, national policy and
17
required responses in UNDP programme countries. During this first MYFF phase the
UNDP monitored the shift in focus to results-based management under the corporate
Strategic Results Framework (SRF) and assessed outputs in terms of increasing the
programmatic focus; the efficacy of country offices’ support of national policy
development through dialogue and advocacy; and the success of partnerships to effect
positive change. Sharpening of programmatic focus under the SRF was reflected in a
more consolidated effort towards a reduced number of development outcomes, which
are selected in line with global development consensus and national and donor priorities.
Intended outcomes for each programme country are determined though a discursive
process with national government and non-governmental stakeholders.
Within the MYFF UNDP country offices support an average of 8-9 programme outcomes
that are agreed with national governments and donors. To support development
activities within these frameworks, UNDP has practice areas that provide specialised
support to programme countries. The 2004-7 MYFF aims to align practice areas with the
MDGs and unify them into a single framework. It has five core goals:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Achieving the MDGs and reducing human poverty;
Fostering democratic governance;
Managing energy and environment for sustainable development;
Supporting crisis prevention and recovery; and
Responding to HIV/AIDS.
Importance of responding to HIV/AIDS relating to UNDP strategy
While the overarching vision guiding UNDP corporate development responses is
embodied in the MDGs, HIV/AIDS emerged as one of its five core goals under the
second MYFF due to threats that the epidemic poses to wider socio-economic
development goals and human security.
Recognising the complexity of factors driving the epidemic and the urgent need for a
range of responses beyond the public health and medical domains, UNDP has taken a
multi-sectoral and holistic approach in its response to the epidemic. Under the second
MYFF, there are three service lines6 relating to the fifth UNDP core goal of responding to
HIV/AIDS. These are:
5.1 Leadership and capacity development to address HIV/AIDS, whereby the
organisation supports the development of national HIV/AIDS strategic plans that engage
action and leadership at all levels of society and its political framework. Through this
service line UNDP works to effect positive social change guided by principles of
inclusion, gender equity, broad participation and human rights.
5.2. Development planning, implementation and HIV/AIDS responses. Within this
service line, UNDP supports and encourages governments in programme countries in
multi-sectoral planning and holistic inclusion of development partners within government,
national and international NGOs, multi- and bi-lateral organisation and civil society. In
this way HIV/AIDS is mainstreamed into development planning and budgeting at all
levels of government and civil society.
6
Overall UNDP-supported programmes are engaged in 30 service lines in the course of the
second MYFF (see Second Multi-Year Funding Framework, 2004-2007 for the whole list).
18
5.3. Advocacy and communication to address HIV/AIDS. This service line promotes
improved understanding of the HIV/AIDS, the epidemic and affected people to both
contain diffusion of the virus and mitigate its human impacts. In particular the advocacy
and communication service line addresses stigma associated with infection, aspects of
gender dynamics that place women and girls at risk of infection and its wider socioeconomic impacts. This service line also supports advocacy for legal reform, dialogue
towards policy change towards prevention of infection, and legal changes that form the
basis of mitigating social and economic impacts of the infection.
Project activities towards HIV/AIDS outcomes were also guided by a number of
approaches that support all UNDP programmes in contributing to effective development
at the national level. These include: developing national capacities; enhancing national
ownership; advocating and fostering an enabling policy environment; promoting gender
equality, and forging partnerships for results.
BUILDING REGIONAL HIV RESILIENCE (SEAHIV) RAS/02/200
SEAHIV was designed in response to the rapid increase in HIV prevalence in South East
Asia and the role that the considerable volume of cross-border movement and its
complex socio-economic factors play in driving the epidemic. Given that international
migration, both formal, informal and illicit is projected to increase in the future, the
SEAHIV project responded with a strategy to build regional resilience to the virus
through three main strategies to assist nations in the region to work in an integrative way
to realize the Millennium Development Goals and the objectives set by UNGASS. These
were: (i) promoting an enabling policy environment though improved governance; (ii)
building the technical knowledge base and capacity regarding mobility systems in
multiple sectors in order to reduce HIV vulnerabilities associated with development; and
(iii) building community HIV resilience through fostering multi-sectoral partnerships and
integrating gender, destigmatisation and greater involvement of people with AIDS (GIPA)
to HIV prevention, within a framework linking source, transit and host communities
through devising inter-country collaborative responses (SEAHIV Project Document).
Relevance of the project to regional context and corporate strategy
During the mid-1990s there was increasing acknowledgement of the important role of
mobility within the region and the emerging patterns of the epidemic. In Thailand a
number of consultations had taken place around these issues and some studies were
conducted on migrant populations such as refugees from Myanmar. In spite of the
resulting body of models of regional HIV transmission, however, until the launching of
SEAHIV there had been little policy level discussion and no regional responses to
migration as an epidemic driver. Although a number of NGOs were implementing
activities in border territories and with migrants, without policy support their efforts were
hampered, especially working within the borders of countries in the region such as
Thailand, where certain formal migrant organisations were reported to be illegal. This
appears to be related to the lack of political will on the part of individual countries to deal
with the politically unpopular reality of cross-border movement and economic migration.
The SEAHIV project, under service line 5.2 played a role key in taking forward the
milestone agreements reached following the UNDP-organized ASEAN workshop on
Population Movement and HIV Vulnerability in Chiang Rai in November 1999 (known as
the Chang Rai Recommendation) that HIV/AIDS policy and programming should
19
integrate mobile populations since mobility, poverty, illicit drug use and the gap in
economic growth among neighbouring countries are widely acknowledged to directly and
indirectly drive the diffusion of HIV/AIDS in the region. The Chang Rai Recommendation
was formalised in by the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and the SEAHIV
project was responsible for the signing of the agreement between the Kingdom of
Cambodia, the People’s Republic of China, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, The
Kingdom of Thailand, the Union of Myanmar and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam that
was signed in September 2001. The key foci of the agreement was to facilitate access
and reduce obstacles to information and services for mobile populations; that
governments would support I/NGOs, civil society and local authorities to collaborate with
cross-border MOU signatories; that prevention intervention and services such as
behavioural change communication, sexually transmitted infections services including
counselling and condom promotion be provided to mobile populations including fisher
folks, entertainment facility workers, factory workers, transport operators and
construction workers from sending, transit and receiving communities; and “that ASEAN
governments adopt a common policy recommending the integration of HIV prevention
programmes as a precondition for construction and infrastructure development contracts
bidding and approval”.
At the time policies within the region tended to focus on injecting drug users, sex
workers and men who have sex with men. The SEAHIV project with its poverty reduction
and mobility approach is regarded by many development partners to have balanced the
previous epidemiologically-focussed approach to the epidemic in the region. In this way
SEAHIV introduced a wider development paradigm into the discussion and initiated a
greater systems approach (i.e. mobility systems). The project was also innovative in its
focus on advocacy within the context of national programmes concerning migrants. Its
approach was strengthened by its drawing on the evidence base of formal and informal
research on the ground. Given the degree of mobility within and across borders within
the region that has been driven by political and economic trends, and which is likely to
be maintained in the foreseeable future, this was a crucial response to the realities of
human movement and the related social and economic pressures determining routes of
transmission of the virus.
Project impact, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability
According to the Project Document, the SEAHIV project was originally intended to run
for four years from September 2002 and complete in August 2006, however, it was
discontinued in December 2004. A decision was made to shift the HIV/AIDS practice
area to the new Regional Co-ordination Centre in Colombo, and UNDP regional
HIV/AIDS responses later came under the 2005 Regional HIV and Development
Programme for Asia.
Evaluation of the SEAHIV was constrained by the general lack of systematic archiving of
project documentation and knowledge products produced in the course of the project.
The overall lack of project records, documentation and memory appears to have
stemmed from a combination of individual and institutional issues that failed to preserve
project records and investments following a tense and difficult period towards the end of
2004.
Efficiency and effectiveness relating to staffing issues
Interviews in the course of this evaluation revealed strongly-held opinions on the
SEAHIV project and its outcomes. This appears to stem from strong views in relation to
20
approaches of key project personnel. Although in the course of interviews informants
(both internal and external to UNDP) expressed certain views highly critical of the
conduct of certain key project staff, it is crucial to note that although UNDP offered to
request an interview and provide contact with key staff who had since left the
organisation, this was not forthcoming.
A shared theme among many international development partners was that certain
project staff had not been fully collaborative and had displayed overly-strong personal
ownership. As such, in the course of the SEAHIV project, UNDP became a leading
regional organisation of HIV and mobility issues, however, this is regarded by many
development partners to have been at the expense of creating a process of broad
interagency ownership of the initiatives.
Certain interpersonal issues between key project staff and those in other agencies and
organisations are regarded by many partners to have resulted in certain key players and
countries being excluded from the SEAHIV initiatives. Criticisms voiced to the evaluation
team included that key SEAHIV staff had taken highly selective and personal
approaches to cooperation and funding of external development partners’ initiatives.
Such personality problems in the opinion of development partners hampered and
distracted project activities from efficiently and effectively realising the planning and
implementing multi-sectoral strategies for limiting the spread of HIV/AIDS, mitigating its
social and economic impacts, and strengthening institutional capacities towards this
outcome.
Although key SEAHIV project staff came under heavy criticism from all informants
consulted in the course of the evaluation, it is also clear that the drive and motivation of
the individual contributed to raising the profile of regional HIV issues and driving forward
the agenda towards the intended outcome. Certain policy level achievements, such as
the MOU and taking forward the Chang Rai Recommendation are attributable to
SEAHIV activities and the tenacity of the Programme Manager, whom many
development partners interviewed in Bangkok considered to have moved the HIV
agenda forward and personally persuaded some governments to sign the MOU.
SEAHIV is also regarded by wider development partners to have achieved crosssectoral discussions and responses to address regional HIV in the face of a tradition of
inter-sector competition rather than co-operation and integration.
Given the lack of regional and cross-border action on HIV driven by migration, interviews
development partners and documentation relating to the UNRTF indicate that SEAHIV
was a crucial catalyst in establishing policy level discussion and regional responses to
cross-border diffusion of the virus and the underlying poverty and development issues
driving the epidemic.
Task Force on Mobility and HIV Vulnerability Reduction
Under the SEAHIV project UNDP convened a regional multi-sectoral Task Force on
Mobility and HIV Vulnerability Reduction (known as the UNRTF) between 2002 and
2004. The Task Force represents UNDP “soft assistance” that includes advocacy, coordination, discussion and policy advice that had the intended outcome of influencing
positive changes in the development environment that would enhance resilience to HIV
vulnerability (in line with service lines 5.2 and 5.3 of the MYFF). The first task force was
convened by UNAIDS in 1997 (UNAIDS Task Force on Migrant Labour and HIV
Vulnerability 1997-99), and the second was convened by UNDP in 2001 UN Regional
21
Task Force on Mobile Populations and HIV 2000-2001). These task forces were formed
in response to the vulnerability linked to cross-border movement within the regional of
south-east Asia and southern China (the Greater Mekong Sub-Region or GMS). The
UNRTF realised part of a wider UN regional commitment to convene a number of
themed task forces7 to address HIV in south-east Asia. Essentially a think tank to
develop appropriate and effective responses to reducing vulnerability to the virus, it
incorporated a broad range of development partners from multi- and bi-lateral agencies,
NGOs, civil society, thematic specialists and national government bodies.
Throughout the 2002-2004 phase with which this evaluation of the SEAHIV project is
concerned, the mandate of the Task Force was to “address a broad range of research,
analysis, policy and program development issues, including HIV prevention and care;
maintaining and developing enabling policy environments; and identifying and
encouraging appropriate human development strategies that will reduce HIV vulnerability
associated with mobility.”(United Nations Task Force on Mobility and HIV Vulnerability
Reduction Meeting Report: Reconstituting the Task Force Bangkok, 24-25 February
2005). The Task Force was mandated to use existing mechanisms to assist countries to
move forward international and regional agendas (for example UNGASS, UN
conventions, and regional MOUs to strengthen HIV resilience).
Development partners widely regard UNDP’s convenorship to have successfully
supported the UNRTF as a mechanism for collaborative drafting of the 2004 Regional
Strategy on Mobility and HIV Vulnerability Reduction in the Greater Mekong Sub-Region
that evolved out of the earlier strategy document produced between1999-2001. The
process of strategy development was initiated by the Asian Development Bank and
carried forward by the UNDP South East Asia HIV and Development Project. The Task
Force was the mechanism for facilitating a collaborative process of strategy
development. This was intended to inform and guide programming and policy
development concerning HIV issues relating to transient and migrant people in the
Greater Mekong Sub-Region. This achievement under service line 5.2 was key to raising
the political profile of the HIV-vulnerability of mobile communities and facilitated dialogue
on this neglected regional issue.
Beyond the drafting of the regional strategy document, however, the UNRTF both
internally and externally was regarded to have worked with a poorly defined mandate
and suffered from a lack of direction. Under SEAHIV convenorship, Task Force
meetings are regarded by some to have been confined HIV/AIDS networks with a highly
academic approach: For example, although the Task Force discussed migrant issues
and the GIPA principle, it failed to include these groups in the discussion process. This
represents a dual missed opportunity to capitalise on the knowledge and experience of
directly affected people and to work towards the GIPA and Greater Involvement of
Mobile Populations (GIMP) initiatives.
Although the Task Force was regarded by evaluators in 20048 to have been directed by
countries within the region and facilitated rather than led by the SEAHIV project,
interviews conducted in the course of this evaluation indicated otherwise. A common
7
For example, UN Task Forces have been convened to address specific HIV vulnerability themes
such as youth, mother to child transmission and condom use.
8 Independent External Evaluation of the UN Regional Task Force on Mobility and HIV
Vulnerability Reduction 2002- 2004.
22
theme emerging from international development partners who participated in the UNRTF
was that rather than fostering a sense of broad ownership, the Task Force was very
firmly controlled by key SEAHIV staff, who determined who participated and led the
agenda. Many informants interviewed expressed the view that this strongly influenced
the Task Force membership and that wider opinions and inputs were given little space to
be heard.
Another strong theme gathered from interviews in the region was that the Task Force
under SEAHIV was effectively very weak in terms of action and became a networking
forum, with a theoretical rather than practical approach. During this period, development
partners feel that there was inadequate action that was also influenced by a lack of
continuity in both country and international task force members. Over time the Task
Force dwindled in size. Towards the end of the SEAHIV project Task Force business
was reported to have been distracted by disagreement on convenorship (that also had
an internal UNDP component).
UNRTF effectively disintegrated after the end of 2004 and was later revived with funding
provided by CIDA and a “no-cost” extension to enable UNDP Bangkok to continue
management of the UNRTF, with the Resident Representative as the senior project
manager.
Knowledge management and advocacy
Service line 5.3 was strongly in evidence under the SEAHIV project, judging by the
volume of knowledge and advocacy materials produced throughout the life of the project
and development partners’ comments upon them. However, most international
development partners and concerned UNDP staff interviewed commented that the
quality of products was variable. This was also the opinion of the evaluation team,
however, overall, these provoked discussion and debate on a wide range of topics
relating to HIV, mobility and development as well as forming south-south linkages
between Asia and Africa.
The volume of knowledge products in the form of short themed discussion papers
commonly referred to as the “Blue Books” was considerable with over 50 being
produced throughout the life of the project. Subjects covered by the Blue Book
discussion papers directly and indirectly provided an accessible knowledge base to
support taking forward both the MOU and cross-sectoral responses to vulnerability to
HIV/AIDS, particularly among mobile populations. Themes ranged from discussion of
“Borderless Strategies Against HIV” and “HIV Policy Formulation and Strategic Planning
For the Communication, Transportation, Post, Construction and Tourism sectors” to
“African-Asian Agriculture against AIDS”.
Interviews conducted in the course of this evaluation indicated that while the Blue Books
were electronically accessible, many development organisations used them as resource
documents. National and international non-governmental development partners regularly
accessed these documents via the SEAHIV website (elaborated below) to view the
newly produced discussion papers to keep abreast of themes published. Government
partners interviewed were, overall, less familiar with this resource base, although this
may reflect changes is government personnel as much as use of the Blue Books by
national governments under SEAHIV. The Blue Books are generally indicated to have
been widely accessed and cited by international development partners in Asia and have
been credited with being instrumental in drawing attention to and providing information
23
on neglected areas of HIV/AIDS vulnerability, particularly among mobile and crossborder populations. Many development partners regard this aspect of the project to have
provided balance to the material produced and disseminated by the majority of donors
that is constrained by highly focussed approaches to HIV/AIDS. In this way SEAHIV
provided a resource centre that enabled actors and organisations access to debate and
information on a broader livelihoods approach to HIV/AIDS vulnerability and resilience,
especially among mobile populations in the region. The Blue Books are also regarded to
have generated interest in broader HIV/AIDS issues and the region and provided a
highly accessible source of potential entry points for regional interventions. However, the
quality of these papers is widely criticised to have been variable, the lesson from this
being that higher quality production of fewer papers might have provided a more
cost-effective implementation and higher quality of the evidence base to support
regional activities. Some hard copies and electronic versions of the Blue Books are
held by UNDP Bangkok were made available to the evaluation team. However, their
degree of accessibility to development partners and the general public has not been
sustained as they are no longer accessible via the internet. It is recommended that
this valuable resource be incorporated into the new HIV portal (set out under the
REACH Project below) to sustain public accessibility and cost-effectiveness of
this investment.
The website www.HIV.development.org, set up under the SEAHIV project, was the only
substantial information source on mobility and HIV in the region at that time. Interviews
conducted with development partners indicated that the website provided a highly
accessible source of electronic exchange and information sharing on mobility and HIV
across the region. There was evidence from interviews that many non-government
development partners regularly accessed the site to keep abreast of current themes and
information on HIV/AIDS and development to support their own primary areas of
business. Development partners commented that the electronic versions of the Blue
Books available through the site enabled them to rapidly access detailed data,
information, case studies and research conducted in the region (and elsewhere) on HIV
and AIDS relating to a broad range of development themes. This both enhanced their
own work directly and indirectly involving HIV/AIDS and provoked dialogue and
discussion on neglected themes. The site also enabled public access to a variety of
information and documentation including, the minutes of the Task Force on Mobility and
HIV Vulnerability Reduction, details of the Task Force delegates and the MOU. The
Regional Strategy on HIV was posted in English, Thai, Vietnamese, Laotian and
Cambodian languages, which enabled a wide range of development partners,
government officers and the public to access information and documents in their own
language. Widely regarded to be an excellent knowledge resource and transparent
window into project activities, the website collapsed with the premature closure of
SEAHIV around the end of 2004.
Sustainability
UNDP staff and donors who had invested in the project who were interviewed in the
course of the evaluation reported that efforts to revive the website and maintain the
information memory and its accessibility were thwarted by the lack of handover
procedures with staff turnover. The general failure to systematically lodge records and
pass information to new colleagues or responsible partner organisations led to a total
loss of information regarding the service provider and failure to sustain the website and
knowledge products it hosted. This not only represents a great loss of the knowledge
base on HIV and mobility, but also its abrupt demise represent a poor investment for
24
donors, as much of the material is no longer publicly accessible and certain contents are
effectively lost.
Collapse of the website also has very public negative impacts upon UNDP’s reputation
for sustainable project investments, as internet searches continue to highlight electronic
documents from the website. Browsers seeking material on HIV, migration and
development are guided to the expired site. The lesson learned from this experience
is that UNDP as an institution should contractually require staff to systematically
secure and store project documents and products to ensure sustained project
outputs and maximise investments. In this way individual and personal issues and
shortcomings will be minimised by institutional procedures.
GIPA
Although only one country, Thailand, comprised the sample for the SEAHIV evaluation,
interviews with sero-positive people and their representatives revealed that people living
with the virus do not feel that the spirit of the GIPA initiative was fully taken up by the
project. Informants expressed the view that the project, like many others, involved HIVpositive people and groups very much in a token manner. This information was
triangulated with views expressed by some senior staff of other development agencies
based in Thailand, that sero-positive people among migrant groups tend not to be well
educated and skilled in expressing their views and opinions, which limits the degree to
which the GIPA initiative can be realized in regional projects with a focus on poor crossborder migrants. The evaluation team, while appreciating the educational issues of
disadvantaged groups, are of the opinion that greater and more creative efforts
should be made to capacity-build migrant and HIV positive groups to enable their
holistic inclusion in the realisation of outcome three and the GIPA initiative.
Gender issues
There was similarly no evidence that gender issues pertinent to migration and nonvoluntary cross-border movement of women and girls across borders was fully
addressed in the course of the project. Given that women and girls comprise the
majority of people trafficked for exploitive purposes including the international
sex trade in the region, gender issues need to be more fully addressed within the
regional framework of activities in response to the situation on the ground.
Following the informed logic of the GIPA and GIMP principles, women who have
experienced trafficking should be brought into the dialogue and planning of regional
responses to address this substantial cross-border issue that not only drives the
epidemic, but violates the human rights of thousands of women and girls each year.
PACIFIC REGIONAL STI/HIV/AIDS AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME RAS/02/301
RAS/02/301the Pacific Regional STI/HIV/AIDS and Development Programme was
commonly referred to as the Pacific Regional HIV/AIDS Project (PRHP) which is used in
this evaluation. PRHP commenced in 2003 building on the earlier programme
“Assistance in Developing a Multi-sectoral Response to the Spread of HIV/AIDS in the
Pacific Island Countries”. It represents a joint UN agency programme of initiatives to:
“Increase PIC capacity for a more effective and sustainable response to the spread of
HIV/STI and the care for those with AIDS.” (RAS 20-301 Pacific HIV Project Document)
25
At the time of the evaluation in May/June 2006, the programme was nearing completion,
expected later in the summer. Pacific Island Countries (PICs) addressed by the
programme activities include: Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati,
Marshall Islands, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga,
Tuvalu & Vanuatu.
In common with the other projects under evaluation, RAS/02/301 takes a multi-sectoral
approach to HIV vulnerability and a holistic, socio-economic perspective encompassing
poverty, gender, governance and employment issues. Importance is given to
government and political support as well the need to engage civil society. UNDP
activities under this programme focus upon two of the seven objectives set out in the
2002 Project Document. These incorporate Immediate Objective 3: “To create a more
caring and compassionate environment for people living with HIV/AIDS and their
families, including working with HIV positive people through engaging them more directly
in programme delivery, the formulation of activities; and to enhance STI counselling
capacities of PHC/STI service providers” and Objective 1: “To create a better
understanding of the linkages between development problems in the region and the
spread of HIV/STI/AIDS.” (Pacific HIV Project Document).
Relevance of the project to regional context and corporate strategy
Throughout the life of the project the situation of the epidemic in the PICs developed.
The generally low recorded incidence of HIV infection in PIC countries other than Papua
New Guinea (where approximately 90% of these territories infections are reported)
began to increase. Given the low population of the small PICs combined with poorly
developed surveillance systems, the total number of reported sero-positive cases was
regarded by many PIC health ministries to be low and of less urgent concern than other
infectious diseases such as malaria. However, as indicated by the high rates of broader
sexually transmitted infections, in recent years the proportion of detected HIV positive
cases per island territory population has risen (UNAIDS 2005). UNDP and partner
agencies have developed strategies to raise awareness of the vulnerability of PIC
communities to infection and its socio-economic consequences, with Papua New Guinea
providing a case in point. In this way the project aims to gain firm commitment and active
national and regional responses to the epidemic through a broad range of development
sectors.
UNDP’s role in the joint UN project takes an approach involving civil society in the
mainstreaming of HIV/AIDS in national policy formulation processes (service line 5.3 of
the MYFF). Under service line 5.2 the project also provides support to national strategic
planning with a strong emphasis on analysis of existing legislation in relation to human
rights linked with HIV vulnerability and approaches to addressing HIV and its impacts.
This includes UNDP support to activities focused on the development of a regional law,
ethics, human rights implementation strategy to address the low, but potential rapid
increase in HIV in the region. It also set out to strengthen the understanding of factors
such as social acceptance and workplace issues relating to HIV positive people and
development of a multi-country HIV Law, Ethics and Human Rights project. The
University of the South Pacific law research institution the Institute for Justice and
Applied Legal Studies (IJALS) was commissioned as a specialist partner to implement
these activities that included a report on human rights issues surrounding HIV positive
people in the region and a situation analysis of legislation and ethical codes of a number
of PICs. This was especially importance as certain legal issues surrounding sexual
orientation is of pertinence to HIV responses and the realisation of human rights.
26
The project also aims to enhance the understanding and awareness of the virus as a
broad development issue. The project aims under service line 5.3 to provide assistance
in the form of a grants scheme to strengthen the knowledge base on the dynamics of the
virus, its impacts in the PICs and to effectively address behaviour change to reduce
vulnerability to infection. As part of its strategy to improve acceptance, reduce stigma
and to foster a broad positive attitude among civil society to the epidemic, the project
partnered with media organisations that produced documentaries on HIV and effectively
brought public figures such as celebrity rugby players into the public campaign.
Recognising the social importance of the Christian church in PIC life, project approaches
targeted involvement of the religious infrastructure.
Project impact, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability
Effectiveness of partnership with the South Pacific Association of Theological
Schools
Judging from interviews and a review of documentation produced by the South Pacific
Association of Theological Schools (South Pacific Association of Theological Schools
2005. HIV/AIDS: Hope, Healing and Wholeness in the Context of HIV/AIDS. Curriculum
for Theological Schools in the Pacific; SPATS June 2005. South Pacific Association of
Theological Schools 2004; Enhancing Quality Theological Education in Oceania.
SPATS 2005-2009) in terms of objective 1, UNDP’s partnership the Church under
service line 5.3 within the project has had an effective impact that is currently set to be
highly self-sustaining and self-multiplying.
Under the PRHP UNDP has partnered with the South Pacific Association of Theological
Schools (SPATS) to discuss and formulate approaches to issues of sexuality and the
role of the Church in supporting those affected by HIV, mitigating its socio-economic
impacts and reducing vulnerability and stigma. In the course of the field evaluation,
ministers acknowledged that when the epidemic became an issue of wider discussion in
the PICs, the Church response was generally judgemental, which it recognises,
compounded stigmatisation and blame targeted towards infected people. This,
respondents suggested, was often a consequence of a lack of awareness and
appreciation of the broader dynamics driving the epidemic.
In the course of interviews during this evaluation, it emerged that in the last 10 years a
number of national and international agencies have included the Church in their
response to the epidemic in PICs, which has effected a clear change of outlook and
broadening of approach on the part of church leaders, groups and ministers. Church
groups interviewed acknowledged that this approach has produced the added value
outcome of bringing the previously taboo subject of human sexuality into the church
context, and this theme into the pastoral domain. This enables faith-based groups to
provide wider support to their congregations and communities and also enhances their
own capacity to respond at the community-level to impacts of the epidemic.
The Protestant Church of the Netherlands began supporting SPATS in international
exchanges with practicing priests to develop the PIC churches’ position on HIV. In the
process, SPATS applied to UNDP for funding and support, which took the form of local
technical advisers assisting SPATS improve its knowledge base on HIV and its broader
social and economic implications. The South Pacific Association of Theological Schools
set up its HIV committee to co-ordinate HIV activities with the UNDP HIV focal officer
27
and convened a high level workshop to draft modules into the theological colleges’
curricula with the aim of training a more informed, compassionate and responsive cadre
of church ministers. According to an interview with the General Secretary South Pacific
Association of Theological Schools, the response was successful in that all theological
colleges included their teacher staff responsible for social issues. The profile of the June
2005 meeting was raised by the ceremony being conducted by UNDP closed by the Fiji
House of Representatives Speaker. A broad collaborative process was achieved as the
drafting process included a number of ministries and the Human Rights Commission.
Development of the South Pacific theological schools’ curriculum was guided by
materials developed by the World Council of Churches as well as UN materials on
lessons learned from the Africa context.
During the course of the fieldwork conducted in Fiji, it was evident from debate in the
daily press that certain church activists were opposed to aspects of HIV awareness and
prevention, particularly surrounding the issue of the legality of men who have sex with
men. UNDP’s choice of partner in SPATS has proven highly effective as the association
has become strongly committed in its breadth of response to the epidemic and
innovative in its strategies to bring all churches on board. SPATS used PIC data on the
likely course of the epidemic in the region to convince more opposed church groups and
ministers, although certain human rights issues (such as MSM) require a more
concerted effort to gain acceptance some are addressed through current modules in the
curriculum of the associated theological schools. UNDP in partnership with SPATS has
responded to the rising epidemic and capitalised on the positive shift in attitudes of
church ministers by providing further funding for a complimentary outreach programme
that will broaden the project’s scope to reach qualified practicing ministers beyond the
PIC’s theological colleges. In Fiji, the multi-sectoral approach fostered by UNDP
encouraged the government to support SPATS’ curriculum development with technical
assistance from the legal, health and education sectors.
Overall the partnership between UNDP and SPATS has been highly effective in reaching
agreement among all PIC theological schools on development and inclusion of HIV and
related issues in the current curriculum. According to interviews, this appears to be a
consequence of the combined high level of commitment of the UNDP HIV focal officer
and the SPATS Secretary General. Given that SPATS reported that this partnership was
the first the association of theological schools has entered into with a UN agency, the
positive outcome bodes well for future faith-based support of the UN joint HIV response
in the region. Several indicators are visible of the sustainability and self-multiplying
impacts of the UNDP/SPATS partnership. One being that the SPATS curriculum
development supported by UNDP has expanded beyond a focussed approach to
HIV/AIDS and included development of a number of modules relating to rights-based
and broader development approaches to the epidemic to include wider teaching and
discussion on human sexuality and gender-based violence. The high level of
engagement of the associating in contributing to the PICs response to the epidemic is
reflected in SPATS’ application for funding for a representative to attend the AIDS
Conference in Toronto this year. Given the central role of churches and ministers in
PIC life, it is recommended that UNDP continue to support to SPATS to review and
develop aspects of the curriculum to encompass broader facets of human rights
relating to drivers of the epidemic. It should also expand its partnerships with
faith-based organisations to increasingly bring on board ministers that began
practicing prior to development of the curriculum. Given that at this stage in the
epidemic some ministers are being faced with supporting their communities
28
through the diagnosis of HIV and socio-economic, medical and cultural impact of
the virus on infected individuals and their families, UNDP should consider an
expanded approach to more rapidly supporting church groups and ministers at
the grass-roots level.
Transformational leadership workshops
Under the project in accordance with MYFF service line 5.1 UNDP initiated and
supported transformational leadership workshops, whereby identified leaders at all levels
of political and civil society were invited to participate in capacity-building to support a
multi-sectoral response to the epidemic. The approach was designed to have
progressive stages, whereby participants were to return to follow-up workshops to
discuss and receive support for HIV-related activities they were to implement within their
own organisations after the initial capacity-building workshop. While interviews with
government and non-government development partners indicated that the workshops
had a strong impact in raising awareness of the epidemic and placed its cross-sectoral
relevance firmly on the development agenda, the lack of follow-up due to acute
budgetary cuts, has reduced the effectiveness of the initiative. It is also important to
acknowledge that when international agencies driving the HIV agenda fail to follow up on
initiatives, this gives negative messages to potential development partners about the
importance of action and sustaining responses to the epidemic.
GIPA
UNDP activities in support of the GIPA initiative have encountered a number of
obstacles in the form of internal issues within the Fijian organisations of sero-positive
people. Under all three service lines, UNDP was instrumental in establishing the Fiji
Network of Positive People (FJN+) to support sero-positive people to participate in policy
development and a UNDP-supported the transformational leadership workshop. As a
consequence of internal personal issues there was a fracture in the leadership of FJN+
and the fallout from this created tension with the NGO the AIDS Task Force, which one
of the core members joined after departure from FJN+. The capacity of FJN+ has proven
to be poor with regard to financial management and transparency and there appear to
be strong conflicts of personal and organisational interests. Compounding this, an
experienced and vocal ex-senior civil servant became established within FJN+ which
capped the voice and action of the younger HIV positive FJN+ representatives.
Although UNDP and UNAIDS endeavoured to facilitate the return of agency and
ownership to HIV positive members (a key founding principle of the organisation) and to
heal the rift with the AIDS Task Force, the situation reached an impasse. As a
consequence, UNDP’s efforts to implement the GIPA initiative have been hampered and
it releases funds through the AIDS Task Force, which has at least four sero-positive
members, to take the GIPA initiative and advocacy and awareness-raising activities
forward.
Within these difficult constraints UNDP continues to provide regular contact and support
to both NGOs and has achieved inclusion of FJN+ in the workshop to develop the Pacific
strategic plan HIV/AIDS, the Fijian National Strategic Plan on HIV/AIDS (Fiji National
HIV/AIDS Strategic Plan 2004-2006), and also in the development of SPATS curriculum.
However, until the management situation of FJN+ is resolved and ownership returned
fully to HIV positive members, UNDP would not be acting in the spirit of the GIPA
principle if it was to direct funding through that organisation. The 2005 Review of PRHP
by Robert Condon presented a range of options for addressing the GIPA initiative in Fiji
which are being developed into the next phase of the regional programme (Pacific
29
Regional STI/HIV/AIDS and Development Programme RAS/02/301: Review of Principal
Achievements and Summary of Lessons).
Partnership with the Fiji School of Medicine
The Fiji School of Medicine (FSM) was contracted by UNDP to conduct a number of
activities aimed to strengthen civil society organizations to more actively participate in
policy formulation, play an effective role in advocacy of a multi-sectoral response and in
the development of a national policy consensus. This began in partnership with UNAIDS
with the FSM drafting a training manual for NGOs in the Pacific Region (Collecting and
Using Information to Strengthen NGO Programs for Non-Government Organizations
fighting against HIV/AIDS in the Pacific Region. UNAIDS, Suva: January 2006) to assist
them in collecting and using information to support their HIV responses. Based on the
manual, five day training workshops were held for NGOs and civil society organizations
in Fiji and Vanuatu on research methods and designing and implementing research
projects on STIs and HIV/AIDS. The workshops also supported NGOs in writing
research proposals and encouraged NGOs to apply skills gained through the workshops
to develop funding proposals an their initiatives and submit applications to their National
AIDS Councils, pooled UN funds and also for UNDP PRHP Small Grants.
The capacity building exercise was successful in that 21 proposals were submitted (ten
from each country) for technical assessment and funding approval. The funding
mechanism, however, was convoluted. Although UNDP contracted the FSM to conduct
the workshops and provide support for the small grants applications, the finances were
handled by UNAIDS through the UN Technical Working Group as the agent for
approving and releasing the UNDP small grants funds through completion of standard
Memoranda of Agreement and monitoring the availability of funds. This proved to be an
inefficient and protracted procedure. The technical review outcomes on many occasions
were not communicated to the FSM or the NGO applicants. The process took a year to
complete and the technical feedback to applicants was regarded to have been
inadequate. UN response was regarded to have been extremely poor and demotivating
for the NGOs. Only six NGOs were informed that they would receive funding for their
projects. This was due to a difference between the number of proposals approved by the
UNAIDS Technical Working Group and the available small grants fund in the project.
The UNAIDS Technical Working Group was reported to have had inadequate funds for
the six projects approved and although UNDP proceeded to sign Memoranda of
Agreement (MOA) with some of the NGOs, due to an unexpected and abrupt reduction
in its funding, it was not in a position to honour all MOAs and failed to provide the agreed
funding to a number of the NGOs (3-4). This has not only placed the FSM in a difficult
position, but the slow UN process, poor response and funding failure has projected a
demotivating message to NGOs and community organisations that might otherwise
develop into innovative partners and valuable agents in realising intended outcome three
of the RCF.
Funding issues relating to project progress and cost-effectiveness
The PRHP’s inability to honour the MOAs it signed was a direct result of an abrupt
70,000 USD reduction in released funds from the project budget. In addition to reducing
the cost-benefit of the transformational leadership and capacity-building workshops
contracted through the FSM, the project is unable to publish the training manual
commissioned under the project to support NGOs HIV responses and complement the
workshops. It is recommended that the regional bureau reconsider its funding
30
priorities and mechanism to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of
project initiatives.
As part of project objectives of engaging HIV positive people more directly in activities
and creating a more caring environment under service line 5.3 of the MYFF, UNDP
commissioned a local production company to make an advocacy and awareness-raising
documentary. Interview with Vanua Productions indicated that the company overcame
initial difficulties in identifying HIV positive people who were willing to be among the first
to speak publicly of their HIV status. The documentary developed a story line around the
lives of HIV positive people and issues surrounding stigmatisation in Fiji. The 30 minute
documentary was completed 2 months before the evaluation and was due to be
launched on television. The Speaker of House of Representatives introduces the
documentary and is complemented by church leaders and other advocates, however,
the main presenters are HIV-positive people themselves. It features an HIV-positive
couple who discuss how families can stay together and are not necessarily fractured by
HIV. Messages and information about safer sexual practices in the Fijian cultural context
are presented by medical experts and a psychologist. Commentaries are spoken by
people in their own language with English subtitles, which enables the documentary to
be used both as a general advocacy tool and also to raise awareness among the
international development communities of the grass-roots realities of HIV positive
people.
The research by the production company indicates the documentary to be well received
by mainstream Fijian people. It highlights the special issues relating to the Indian
community that need to be addressed by a further documentary formulated with their
specific cultural context in mind. It is recommended that in the next phase of its
activities UNDP analyses the response to the completed documentary and
evaluates the potential for targeting Asian PIC communities produced by Asian
communities themselves.
Engagement with governmental partners
A number of national development partners interviewed in the course of the evaluation
raised issues regarding the project’s approach to engaging the government. In the
course of RCF II, both UNDP and UNAIDS tended to approach the Great Council of
Chiefs prior to formal government mechanisms. While it is important to engage both
traditional and formal governing structures, the protocol followed is likely to have diluted
government engagement. Given the general difficulties in engaging PIC
governments in responding to the epidemic and raising the importance of urgent
action across government sectors, it is important that future project initiatives are
directed first through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This should ensure more
timely and integrative governmental responses and address the slow pace of
UNDP/government interactions in the PICs that delay in activities in response to
the epidemic in the region.
REGIONAL EMPOWERMENT & ACTION TO CONTAIN HIV/AIDS (REACH): BEYOND BORDERS
RAS/02/003/A/01/31
The REACH project was designed in response to the rising HIV epidemic in South,
Southwest and Northeast Asia. Its objectives were to address the considerable crossborder migration across the region (both voluntary and forced) to contain the diffusion of
31
the virus and mitigate its impacts through integrative initiatives promoting principles of
gender equity, poverty reduction and good governance. According to the project
document, REACH set out to: (i) advocate for policy change and build commitment
among key stakeholders in the region to address HIV/AIDS as a development issue; (ii)
strengthen knowledge and capacity for a sustained multi-sectoral response linking
livelihoods, gender and HIV issues; (iii) protect dignity and human security of people
infected and affected by HIV through strengthened governance.
The project approach emphasised strengthening networks and innovative partnerships
with wider development partners including government agencies and civil society
organisations. Particular themes addressed by the project included the vulnerability of
mobile and migrant people, trafficking of women and children and discrimination against
HIV positive people. The project document set its alignment to the GIPA initiative while
initiating regional responses to the virus that were also intended to support and
complement national activities.
Although the project document indicates that REACH was intended to span February
2002 to December 2005, it was closed in 2004 as activities were merged with those
previously covered by SEAHIV (apart from management of the UNRTF9) as part of a
cost-cutting initiative for the remainder of the RCF II.
Relevance of the project to regional context and corporate strategy
Although migration has been a temporary and longer-term economic scoping strategy of
many of the region’s poor, rural communities for generations, the volume of human
movement across borders has been increasing rapidly over time. Displacement of
people from their families, networks and familiar spheres of action is widely
acknowledged to be associated with the adoption of behaviours that place mobile people
at greater physical and emotional health risk (for example increased substance abuse
such as alcohol and drugs, riskier sexual behaviours with new partners) and highly
vulnerable to exploitation (such as sexual coercion).
Interviews with the regional team and examination of the RCC’s reports, knowledge and
advocacy products indicate that in response to the dynamic relationship between the
epidemic in the region and wider socio-economic factors, the REACH Project Coordination Team took a human-centred approach, focussing on empowering
marginalised and vulnerable groups including CSW, IDUs, MSM and PLHWA. This was
with the objective of capacity-building these groups to advocate for themselves, to
engage in rights-based approaches and to have a sound understanding of the virus to
support their awareness-raising and advocacy activities based on service line 5.3 of the
MYFF.
The regional HIV team in addressing outcome three of RCF II through the REACH
project took the approach that regional migration was largely a direct strategy in
response to poverty and that substantial mobile populations were excluded from national
HIV responses, access to HIV information and care. Compounding the HIV vulnerability
of mobile groups the REACH project also aimed to address the infringements on
9
The UNRFT, as a South-East Asia (SEA) sub-regional task force and under UNDP’s
decentralised management remained under management from Bangkok to avoid any
misperception form stakeholders of UNDP’s South Asia Regional Office managing a SEA Task
Force.
32
migrants’ basic human rights such as the removal of their passports and financial and
sexual exploitation. Acknowledging that country UNDP officers were not in a strong
position to address the social, economic and human rights issues of people who often
illegally cross borders for work, these central foci of UNDP action and concern were
addressed by the REACH project on a regional basis.
Project impact, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability
Lack of knowledge, fear and stigmatisation surrounding the virus, was regarded by the
regional HIV team to present one of the greatest challenges to containing the epidemic.
REACH under service line 5.3 responded with project components to address the
knowledge gap and to “give a human face” to the virus, in an endeavour to reduce the
marginalisation of infected people, improve their security through heightened social and
legal tolerance, and in line with the UNGASS GIPA initiative, include them in the regional
response.
Establishing and supporting regional networks of PLWHA
The REACH project was active in establishing through seed funds and technical inputs,
regional groups and networks of HIV positive people. Focus group discussions and
interviews with sero-positive groups in Bangkok (ANP+, Raks Thai), Colombo (Lanka
Plus) Kathmandu (Nepal Plus) and Delhi (INP+, STOP), indicated this to be especially
important in the Asian context where the socio-cultural environment obstructs discussion
on HIV/AIDS and discourages individuals from disclosing their HIV status. As part of the
Asia Pacific Initiative for the Empowerment of PLWHA, REACH implemented the
establishment of networks of HIV-positive people, strengthened their organisations and
capacity built advocacy and leadership skills (From Involvement to Empowerment:
People Living with HIV/AIDS in the Asia Pacific. UNDP 2004). This was conducted in
partnership with the Asia Pacific Network of PLWHA (APN+) and the Indian Network for
PLWHA (IPN+). REACH provided direct support to 17 regional groups and capacitybuilding included leadership skills and incorporated support for representatives to attend
conferences and meetings with network partners throughout the region. The project also
facilitated HIV positive groups to form partnerships with wider civil society groups,
government, NGOs, and donors enabling them to have a multiplier effect on their
funding resources, technical support and initiatives. Interviews with sero-positive groups
in each of the five evaluation sample countries indicated that this strategy of the project
forged regional solidarity of HIV positive individuals and groups. This together with the
project’s capacity building approaches under service line 5.1 had enhanced the
confidence, coping strategies, positive outlook and empowerment of PLWHA in the
region, according to focus group discussions and interviews with sero-positive people.
Realisation of the GIPA principle
All HIV positive groups met in the course of the evaluation commented on the way in
which many organisations pay lip service to the GIPA principle, inviting them to
participate only in later stages of discussion processes and policy development and not
fully involving them in the spirit of GIPA. Many voiced the opinion that through UNDP’s
strengthening of regional networks and financially supporting them to attend capacity
building workshops to enhance their own skills and organisational practices they have
been more assertive and proactive in getting their opinions heard by the wider
development community and government partners, however, the degree to which this
has been realised varies in different countries. In two of the five countries, members of
HIV network groups supported by the REACH project commented that they felt that their
personal capacity and empowerment had developed markedly as a consequence of
33
testing positive for the virus as a direct outcome of the personal support they had
received from peers through the network. In general the PLWHA groups interviewed
expressed the opinion that the regional team managing the REACH project were highly
committed, however, they were also clearly over stretched. Furthermore concern was
expressed over the continuity of UNDP inputs and central financial commitment to
secure funding for regional HIV initiatives as this has been chronically eroded and
acutely reduced over time.
Web-based information portal
To fill the gap in accessible HIV information and services of the region, and to act as a
regional platform for networking of PLWHA, as well as providing a platform for advocacy
and strengthened multi-sectoral and civil society response to the epidemic REACH
invested in establishing a web-based portal for Asia and the Pacific both for the general
public (www.YouandAIDS.org) as well as a special platform for Networks of PLWHA
(PLWHA.net). The internet site provides local contacts and addresses for medical and
broader support and care services both for individuals and groups concerned with and
affected by the virus. Among its interactive services it offers rapid one-on-one
anonymous advice by medical, counselling and legal practitioners to individuals’ queries
and concerns regarding risk, testing, treatment and legal issues. Online counselling and
treatment guidance are provided in partnership with WHARF a Mumbai-based NGO
formed by Harvard Medical International and healthcare and pharmaceutical company
Wockhardt.
These are fully capitalised upon both by disseminating the anonymous questions and
responses on the web-based portal and selected issues are further disseminated
through the printed “You and AIDS Magazine”
Under service line 5.3 of the MYFF the portal has a broad scope that includes a free,
accessible virtual library on HIV/AIDS. The Research Section provides access to
selected research reports from the region on HIV/AIDS and related issues and
incorporates an online form for researchers to submit details of their own related
research. This approach has been a highly cost-effective and efficient method of sharing
up to date information and lessons learned across the region that interviews indicated to
be used regularly by programme country development partners, host government
officers (particularly those in National AIDS Centres), UNDP country officers and seropositive people.
Advocacy, information and knowledge resources
The portal also provides access to many of the knowledge products produced under the
REACH project. These include a number of reports on research across the region such
as “No Safety Sign Here” (2004) and “Migration and HIV in South Asia” (2004) that
examine migrant trends in the region in the context of HIV vulnerability. Evidence of
sharing lessons learned and innovative approaches is apparent in the 2003 publication
“From Challenges to Opportunities: Responses to Trafficking and HIV/AIDS in South
Asia.” Best practices in supporting and empowering PLWHA are also indicated in a
number of publications under REACH including the 2004 report “From Involvement to
Empowerment: People Living with HIV/AIDS in the Asia Pacific” and “HIV and You: An
HIV/AIDS awareness programme among migrant industrial workers and surrounding
areas by PLWHA”. A number of DVDs were produced involving wider community groups
and artists in HIV awareness-raising and advocacy. These included the 2002 “Quiet
Storm”, a film of the lives of HIV-positive in Asia Pacific and the 2003 advocacy film
34
“Celebration of Life” disseminating the voices of leading Indian artists against stigma and
discrimination.
Supporting a rights-based approach to mitigate impacts of the epidemic
The REACH project’s achievement of broad dissemination of information and
knowledge-sharing on approaches to cross-sectoral and cross-border HIV responses is
evident in the large volume of quality resources that are publicly accessible via its webbased information portal and hard copies of reports. One example is the project’s
dissemination of the findings of studies conducted on social and legal issues relating to
the epidemic in the region. These were published in the 2004 report “Law, Ethics and
HIV/AIDS in South Asia: A Study of the legal and social environment of the epidemic in
Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Sri Lanka”. This provided an evidence base to support the
need for a rights-based policy approach and a shift in social values to effectively address
the epidemic in South Asia. The project also raised the profile of HIV as a broad
development issue beyond the health sector by producing the 2003 Human
Development Report “HIV/AIDS and Development in South Asia”. This emphasizes the
range of socio-economic factors driving the region’s HIV/AIDS epidemic relating to
human deprivation and vulnerability to the epidemic. It also presented to a wide
audience a range of approaches through which these issues can be addressed multisectorally.
Leadership for Results
Recognising the importance of social change and a shift in attitudes to effectively
addressing the epidemic, under service line 5.1 the project incorporated a Leadership for
Results approach in pilot countries. By identifying leaders throughout all levels of
political, public and civil society, this tool was used to influence change in attitudes and
understanding of issues relating to HIV vulnerability to support multi-sectoral responses.
Pilot workshops have revealed positive impacts on attitudes among government leaders
shaping policy and national responses and for informing sectors including education,
transport, industry and security forces of the importance of their epidemic to their sector
and ways in which they can effectively act to reduce vulnerability within their spheres of
action. It is recommended that this approach be scaled-up both in terms of its regional
coverage, but also that it be rendered more accessible to community leaders in rural
areas of the region, by being offered in more local languages at more locations.
Gender
Among the three projects under evaluation, the REACH project provided evidence of the
strongest initiatives to include gender issues in the UNDP’s regional HIV response.
Project work with migrants, for example, highlighted the vulnerability of women and
children in cross-border migration, trafficking and the regional sex industry. The project
produced awareness-raising and informative knowledge products in the form of reports
such as the 2002 “The Nexus of Vulnerability: Prevention of Trafficking of Women and
Girls and HIV/AIDS in South Asia” and DVD films such as “Casting Curious Shadows in
the Dark, and “The South Asia Court of Women on the Violence of Trafficking and
HIV/AIDS”. In the course of the REACH project, the regional HIV team felt it had also
brought to the attention of UNDP management and other development agencies issues
of feminisation of epidemic related to trafficking and female economic migration.
Greater Involvement of Mobile Populations
The REACH project visibly achieved a high level of inclusion of migrant groups in its HIV
responses and initiatives. This was evident in interviews with development partners in
35
the region who widely regard the project to have pioneered a focus on the vulnerability of
cross-border migrants, together with the efficacy of rights-based and livelihoods
approaches. In the course of interviews with international and regional development
partners such as SAARC, REACH was regarded to have successfully achieved raising
regional awareness of the links between the dynamics of economic migration and HIV
and of the crucial role of multi-sectoral responses to the epidemic and encouraged other
organisations to take forward a broad spectrum of migrant and trafficking initiatives.
Under the REACH project UNDP formed an effective partnership with the South Asian
Research and Development Initiative (SARDI). Based on the NGO’s pilot research,
UNDP fully funded SARDI’s “Innovative Partnerships to Reduce Migrant Workers
Vulnerabilities to HIV/AIDS in South Asia.” Launched in 2001, the project worked with
migrant communities in a number of countries in the region, collecting a body of data
and developing responses relevant to grass-roots realities in both sending and
destination countries. The project incorporated a range of approaches that developed a
dialogue on the particular risks faced by the informal migrant labour force with trade
unions that was developed to provide HIV support and awareness-raising.
An early lesson learned from the REACH project’s partnership with SARDI was
that a regional approach was crucial to addressing the broad factors driving the
epidemic relating to cross-border and internal economic migration. It not only
enabled a concerted effort to broaden the evidence base on the dynamic of
migration and HIV, but linked the isolated efforts of NGOs and community groups
to capitalise on their knowledge, experience and approaches.
Under REACH support this project incorporated a number of components: It launched a
regional virtual resource base on human movement and HIV vulnerability
“www.hivandmobility.org”. It provided research information and created a database of
organisations and consultants working with migrants and HIV responses. This
investment on the part of the REACH project is set to be sustainable beyond the life of
the project as it is maintained and has been further developed by the ownership of
SARDI.
In partnership with trade unions the project mapped out occupations that placed workers
at a high HIV risk. Working with migrants in both the formal and informal labour sector,
the project trained a cadre of trade union peer educators and achieved a wide degree of
outreach. In the course of this approach the project developed a toolkit for the training of
trainers to have a sustained and multiplying impact on peer educators and their capacity
to conduct outreach work. These activities were linked with more direct vulnerability
reduction approaches that included condom distribution by outreach workers and STI
testing, treatment and referral.
An important lesson to emerge from this partnership was that the high degree of
mistrust generated by the threat of deportation (particularly among Bangladeshi
migrants to India) obstructs unregistered workers seeking medical advice,
support, testing and treatment. By using peer outreach workers within the
workplace and fostering a sense of trust, the approach has reached a substantial
number of those most vulnerable to HIV infection in the region.
Co-ordination with country officers
Perhaps because evaluation of the REACH project involved wider interaction with UNDP
country officers (COs), issues relating to coordination between regional teams and
36
country HIV focal officers became apparent. Among these was a lack of coordination
and capitalising on the resources and knowledge held by COs. Some defined their roles
as servicing regional project activities by issuing contracts and payments and were of
the opinion that regional HIV projects were unlinked with national activities. The lesson
learned from this is that both country and regional teams should be more coordinated and have stronger support and knowledge-sharing mechanisms which
would benefit overall responses to the epidemic. This does not appear to be an
organisational issue, but more one of inadequate human resources. The regional
team is highly motivated but also over extended. UNDP’s achievement on
intended outcome three will be more effectively and efficiently achieved by
strengthening funding to enable an increase in the number of staff on the regional
team to facilitate improved co-ordination with country teams.
Conflicting staff perceptions regarding funding flows
Although financial documentation was not presented during the course of the evaluation,
some UNDP regional staff reported their perception that chronic and acute reductions in
funding had hampered their activities. While the REACH project achieved a high level
and broad range of quality knowledge products through commissioning partners to
conduct nationally based research for regional reports, the impact of these initiatives on
outcome three is difficult to assess as funding restrictions were reported by regional staff
to have constrained the opportunity for follow-up and monitoring of impacts. In the
opinions expressed by certain regional staff funding lines of regional HIV projects have
hampered full capitalisation of initiatives.
In common with the Pacific regional programme, interviews with RCC senior
management indicated that the REACH project had to absorb substantial budgetary cuts
and was placed in the delicate position of being unable to honour agreed payments and
MOAs.
In light of financial data sent by UNDP HQ to the evaluation team in October 2006 (set
out in Annex 6) and subsequent correspondence with Regional Bureau staff, views on
UNDP funding of HIV activities appear to differ between staff based in the regions and at
Headquarters. While interviews with regional and country officers (HIV Focal Persons)
indicated there to be a pervasive perception among certain regional and country office
staff that HIV projects do not receive funding priority, RBAP staff feel strongly that
systemic budgetary reductions have led to funding cuts across the board, not only to HIV
activities and budgetary cuts have been buffered by a gradual increasein non-core
funding.
Although RBAP has had to deal with budgetary fluctuations that impact widely on
diverse thematic activities, given the general lack of national cross-sectoral responses to
the epidemic in the region and UNDP’s central role in developing a broad development
response, it is recommended that UNDP develop a mechanism to prioritise regional
HIV-projects and provide them with added financial protection.
37
5 PROJECT – OUTCOME LINK
Although UNDP has strategically worked in partnership with other multilateral agencies
such as UNAIDS, ILO and WHO as well as bilateral, government and non-government
organisations, certain direct project links are visible to planning and implementing multisectoral strategies for limiting the spread of HIV/AIDS, mitigating its social and economic
impacts, and strengthening institutional capacities towards this outcome. The three
UNDP regional HIV projects considered under this evaluation have clearly been key to
initiating a cross-sectoral, holistic response to the epidemic in the Asia-Pacific region.
This is evident in the lack of engagement of programme countries in cross-border and
inter-sectoral responses prior to the projects’ initiation and is indicated by:
 A prior lack of regional strategy formulation on HIV and related cross-border
issues;
 A prior lack of engagement of political will and action on cross-border migrants at
the national level;
 A prior lack of legislation against discrimination in the workplace and social
stigmatisation of HIV positive people;
 A prior lack of demand for cross-sectoral and cross-border HIV and development
support from host governments in UNDP programme countries evident in the
Results Reports (Asia-Pacific Regional Programme 2005 Results Report; RBAP
2005 Results Report; 2004 Results Report for UNDP in Asia and the Pacific;
2004 Results Report for UNDP in Asia and the Pacific).
In this section, specific links are traced between project activities and a shift towards
planning and implementing multi-sectoral strategies to limit the spread of HIV/AIDS,
mitigating its socio-economic impacts within the Asia-Pacific region.
The second MYFF that guided RCF II reinforced the emphasis on strategic partnerships
as a key approach to achieving broader development outcomes from UNDP project
inputs that was set out in the first MYFF. Within the Asia-Pacific regional HIV context,
the engagement of national governments and development players at all levels, from
multi-lateral organisation to community and faith-based organisations has clearly
enabled the key pillars of UNDP’s HIV response under RCF II.
Partnerships with regional bodies such as SAARC and ASEAN, programme country
governments and national and international development partners have been central to
providing a cohesive regional strategy that addresses development issues embodied in
the MDGs that are fundamental to limiting the epidemic and its socio-economic impacts.
By engaging individual countries in regional efforts towards strategic responses and
political commitment, governments have been facilitated in addressing socially and
politically difficult themes such as HIV and migration that are politically precarious,
unpopular and were neglected prior to UNDP regional project activities under RCF II.
During RCF II, a number of national and regional achievements provide evidence of
projects’ efficacy in contributing to planning and implementing multi-sectoral strategies
for limiting the spread of HIV/AIDS, mitigating its social and economic impacts, and
38
strengthening institutional capacities towards this outcome. Examples are set out
according to the three HIV/AIDS service lines of the MYFF.
Under service line 5.1 (Leadership and capacity-development to address
HIV/AIDS) programme country offices requested support from regional HIV teams in
arranging transformational leadership workshops. These were held in a number of AsiaPacific countries including Nepal, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Viet Nam, China, Laos, India,
Malaysia, Mongolia, Papua New Guinea and Fiji.
The 2005 RBAP Results Report and interviews conducted in the course of the
evaluation indicate that the leadership workshops kick-started government and civil
society groups to work in partnership with development organisations to develop
HIV/AIDS responses at multiple levels. Using best practice defined by UNFPA (Culture
Matters: Working with Communities and Faith-based Organization: Case Studies from
Country Programmes, UNFPA 2004) a number of partnerships were initiated to enable
culturally appropriate responses in a number of settings where sexuality and HIV/AIDS
are extremely sensitive issues that had been difficult to broach in the past. For example,
Islamic community leaders in Malaysia were engaged in the development of a training
manual on Islam and HIV/AIDS: The published document addressed gender issues
relating to human rights and HIV/AIDS and provided culturally sensitive information on
aspects of the epidemic relating to the national situation. In India, HIV/AIDS sensitisation
of law enforcement agencies was piloted in one state and its success led to the training
being replicated in a further five.
At the country level a number of cases emerged from leadership workshops supported
by the regional projects. For example in Laos, a multi-sectoral capacity development
programme was agreed that included strengthening the capacity of provincial
committees to respond to the socio-economic causes and effects of mobility, trafficking,
drug use and behaviour relating to HIV vulnerability. To complement this, Laos Members
of Parliament received HIV/AIDS and gender mainstreaming in two workshops
organised with UNDP support.
Cross-sectoral and multi-stakeholder leadership capacity to respond to the epidemic was
evident in a number countries. For example, the UNDP country office in Papua New
Guinea conducted a leadership development workshop for leaders from a range of
sectors covering 25% of the country. This strengthened nation-wide working links with
the National AIDS Council and launched a “Break Through Initiative Support Fund” to
support the national HIV/AIDS response. In China, leadership training was provided to
provincial-level legislators and resulted in the integration of HIV/AIDS responses into
village development planning through community-based approaches.
Under REACH, the “community conversations” approach was used to open dialogue at
the grass-roots level on HIV/AIDS in Cambodia and Malaysia, as a means of reducing
stigma and discrimination encountered by HIV-positive people and their families. This
represented a crucial breakthrough in social norms that enabled and encouraged people
to discuss and solve problems relating to the epidemic in their own communities and
families.
Under service line 5.2 (Development planning, implementation and HIV/AIDS
responses): Prior to project initiatives under RCF II to plan and implement multi-sectoral
strategies for limiting the spread of HIV/AIDS and mitigating its social and economic
39
impacts, and building institutional capacity towards this outcome, there had been very
low engagement in multi-sectoral HIV responses in the Asia-Pacific Region. However,
this situation shifted following project intervention and the 2004 Results Report for Asia
and the Pacific indicates that support under service line 5.2 was most frequently
requested by host governments in UNDP programme countries.
Within the course of the three projects under evaluation, there was a marked rise in the
integration of HIV/AIDS into national development plans. This heralded a shift from
health sector-focussed responses to more holistic, multi-sectoral responses to the
epidemic. In Viet Nam, for example, UNDP was key in supporting development of the
National HIV/AIDS Strategy and action plans that address the social and economic
impacts of the epidemic. Impacts of the leadership workshops are evident in the multisectoral approach that strongly involves the participation of civil groups including
PLWHA, and emphasises the role of national leaders in HIV/AIDS responses.
Regional projects under RCF II supported country programme assistance to host nations
in their capacity building and strategic responses. For example, in Cambodia, UNDP
technical assistance was provided to strengthen the National AIDS Authority in its
country-wide response to the epidemic. UNDP also provided 12,000 community leaders
with advocacy materials on responding to HIV/AIDS at the local level. The UNDP subregional centre in Fiji supported a consultative process on new prisons legislation that
ensures the protection of human rights in the context of HIV/AIDS, which was endorsed
by the Fijian government.
Implementation of the UNGASS GIPA principle is evident in the outcomes of project
activities in a number of countries in the region. For example, in India, a GIPA strategy
was formulated and a funding mechanism established to support innovative initiatives in
response to the epidemic at the community-level. UNDP also facilitated and provided
technical assistance to mainstreaming HIV/AIDS and business policy in the private
sector along with the police and military forces.
Regional HIV teams also provided specialist support to a number of country HIV/AIDS
focal points (for example Myanmar) to strengthen Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and
Malaria (GFATM) country proposals to fill gaps in responses to the epidemic at the
national level.
Under the REACH project a meeting was held to initiate dialogue, mobilise resources
and develop regional strategy on cross-border issues driving the epidemic including
economic migration and trafficking. This was held in Islamabad in March 2004. Partners
included UNAIDS and the UN HIV Theme Group, a number of multi-lateral
organisations, senior programme country host governments, community organisations
and HIV-positive groups. One of the concrete outcomes of this project input was the
initiation of the South Asia Regional Coordinating Mechanism (RCM) to develop a
regional proposal on migration and HIV to the GFATM. Although the proposal submitted
to the GFATM under REACH did not receive funding, a number of RCM meetings have
been convened to make new applications to the Global Fund and enable a cohesive
regional response to HIV relating to cross-border socio-economic issues driving the
epidemic.
National Strategy Frameworks to address HIV/AIDS supported by regional project staff
were developed in Cambodia, India, Vietnam Nepal and Fiji. In India, project approaches
40
under REACH are visible in the draft National Framework, which takes a rights-based
approach, particularly includes issues relating to disadvantaged and disempowered
groups such as trafficked girls and women, and advocates for the UNGASS GIPA
principle. Initiatives to counter people-trafficking have been initiated in eleven Indian
states in partnership with the British government’s Department for International
Development (DFID). This included installing nine information booths along major
migratory and transit routes providing information aimed particularly at women and girls
to reduce their vulnerability to trafficking and exploitation that places them at risk of
infection.
Under service line 5.3 (Advocacy and communication to address HIV/AIDS):
Support to People Living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) and the GIPA initiative was
implemented by regional and sub-regional projects both directly and through assistance
to country officers and HIV focal staff. According to the 2005 Annual Report of the
Regional Centre in Colombo, support in line with the UNGASS GIPA initiative was
provided to HIV-positive groups in twenty-three countries to develop their inter-regional
and international networking, capacity and leadership.
Under the SEAHIV and REACH projects the evidence base of the epidemic within the
holistic development context was strengthened with a high output of knowledge products
that were made publicly available and widely used to support both multi-lateral, bi-lateral
and civil organisations and individuals in their responses to the epidemic. The REACH
project raised the profile of the impact of the epidemic at the human level by partnering
with artists in the region to develop advocacy materials in various media. The project
also achieved a partnership with MTV India a year long broadcast campaign on HIV and
development. Through popular culture of this medium, information was disseminated to
raise the awareness and acceptance of HIV among young people. This is widely
recognised to have had a strong impact in creating a more compassionate response to
infected individuals among Asian youth, reducing stigma and creating a more enabling
environment for dialogue and uptake of voluntary counselling and testing (VCT) services
supported by government and non-government development partners.
In the Pacific region PRHP’s partnership with the South Pacific Association of
Theological Schools has directly resulted in a curriculum module that prepares Church
ministers to support HIV positive people and their families in the community setting.
Given the central importance of the church in PIC life and society, it has provided the
basis for a compassionate and informed response to the human impacts of the epidemic
at the grass-roots level, while enhancing acceptance and reducing stigma.
A number of partnerships with both local (for example Vanua Productions, Fiji) and
international media organisations (such as Panos, MTV and the Asian Broadcasting
Union) have employed popular and accessible routes for HIV advocacy. This has played
an important role not only in raising awareness of HIV/AIDS issues, but in reducing
stigma and discrimination to enable more direct responses to contain the epidemic such
as VCT.
South-south exchanges were evidently achieved in the face-to-face and virtual
networking of HIV positive groups facilitated, particularly under the REACH project.
Exchanges between Asia and Africa under SEAHIV were also conducted in Thailand
and a number of African countries including Kenya and Botswana.
41
In support of UNDP’s approaches to HIV/AIDS under RCF II policy advocacy materials
on gender, HIV/AIDS and skill training were produced and disseminated in a number of
countries (for example Bangladesh). These supported the broad, multi-sectoral
approach of UNDP regional projects to planning and implementing multi-sectoral
strategies to limit the spread of HIV/AIDS, mitigating its socio-economic impacts, and
strengthening institutional capacity towards this outcome. They also strengthened wider
national activities to address MDGs particularly poverty alleviation.
6 CONCLUSIONS
UNDP’s comparative advantages in a holistic response to the epidemic
In the course of the evaluation of the three regional projects implemented under RCF II
to plan and implement multi-sectoral strategies to limit the spread of HIV/AIDS, mitigate
its socio-economic impacts and strengthen institutional capacity to this end, a number of
factors emerged to underscore the organisation’s unique strengths to achieve this
outcome. While other multi-lateral development organisations traditionally focus their
activities on relatively discreet reproductive health and medical aspects of the epidemic
(for example, WHO and UNFPA) UNDP’s broader development approaches provide it
with a number of comparative advantages in achieving multi-sectoral responses to limit
the epidemic and mitigate its broader socio-economic impacts.
UNDP’s co-ordinating role in many host countries places the organisation in a strong
position with many host governments and other UN organisations. In additional to its
broad development experience and cross-sectoral expertise, UNDP has a strong
partnership track record with the GFATM and is the Principal Recipient of grants in a
number of countries. UNDP is also a co-sponsor of UNAIDS which officially designated
UNDP as the convening agency for governance and development planning on
HIV/AIDS. Previous UNDP strategic experience in Africa to address the impact of the
epidemic on development and commercial sectors also places the organisation in a
unique position to provide expert technical guidance on the likely impacts of the
epidemic on human resources and institutional capacity in the Asia-Pacific Region.
UNDP is one of the most experienced UN agencies in multi-sectoral mainstreaming of
HIV/AIDS into government ministries, community and private sector organisations and is
best placed among international organisations to ensure a multi-level response. It also
has a proven track record in making policy recommendations in response to the
epidemic and its socio-economic impacts on multiple sectors; and supporting strategic
response planning and capacity building to support implementation.
As a co-sponsor of UNAIDS, UNDP’s role is crucial in establishing enabling bases for
national and regional HIV/AIDS responses concerning policy and legislation. UNDP’s
comparative strengths in these fields include its innovation and implementation of
methodologies for multi-sectoral transformational leadership at all levels of government
and civil society. UNDP also occupies the niche of expertise in applying holistic
approaches to address the primary drivers of the epidemic, which are strongly linked to
poverty, social inequalities and human rights issues. UNDP compared with other UN
organisations is a leading agency in strengthening capacities of government and civil
society organisations using participatory and inclusive approaches to effect positive
42
social and economic change to support effective responses to the epidemic at regional,
national, community and individual levels.
As a co-ordinating UN agency in many programme countries, UNDP holds a strong
position to advocate for legal reforms to prevent discrimination against sero-positive
people and is in a prime position to access multiple entry points for cross-sectoral
initiatives in response to epidemic from an integrated and a broad development
perspective. The organisation’s experience in rights-based approaches and gender
equality is crucial in leading a holistic, multi-sectoral and inclusive response to the
epidemic. Given its broad and central position in the development arena, UNDP is well
placed to monitor multi-sectoral responses to the epidemic and sustain their efficacy.
Conclusions on the evaluation of outcome three
1. Achievement of intended outcome three of RCF II to plan and implement multisectoral strategies for limiting the spread of HIV/AIDS and mitigating its social
and economic impacts and building and strengthening institutional capacity as
evaluated through the three projects in five sample countries is highly variable.
Evaluation and the attribution of impacts to inputs have been hampered by loss
of institutional memory from the SEAHIV project and an overall low degree of
systematic monitoring and evaluation.
2. RCF II’s support of cross-sectoral responses to the epidemic in the region have
been crucial in placing HIV on the wider development agenda. Previously there
was a general lack of multi-sectoral engagement in national and regional HIV
responses. Project approaches challenged the perception of those working
outside the outside health sector that HIV and its consequences were not within
their domain of concern and there has been greater engagement and action
towards a multi-sectoral response to the epidemic.
3. In certain nations in the region, commitment to an HIV response outside the
health sector has been poor and country offices were stymied in taking the
agenda forward when governments had no interest in financing such efforts. This
may have been for the combined reasons of low testing and consequent low
recorded incidence of the virus in certain countries, and particular nations
avoiding dialogue and a committed response to avert potential economic fallout
from acknowledging national presence of HIV. Given the impact of a number of
natural disasters such as the tsunami on many countries in the region, and
comparatively higher mortality rates associated with infections such as malaria
and tuberculosis, many nations have been reluctant to commit to responding to
the epidemic. These factors have severely constrained the efforts of UNDP
country officers to address HIV at the national level as the nature of their
engagement with host governments means that the success of their efforts
depends on the relationship with government partners, whose development
efforts they support rather than direct.
4. Within this context, UNDP’s regional approach in response to the epidemic has
been highly relevant as it has not been constrained in the way that country
offices actions are. Consequently regional approaches have taken more
innovative approaches in advancing the HIV response. UNDP’s approach under
RCF II has provided a platform for countries to discuss the epidemic, its drivers
and wider consequences as a regional issue. Given the potentially negative
43
political consequences for national government figures directly addressing
unpopular and legally grey issues such as migration, by facilitating regional
discussion fora and strategic responses, government actors were enabled and
encouraged to act nationally within a UN-supported and ratified regional
framework. By removing direct responsibility for this politically-sensitive issue
from elected individuals, government representatives have been enabled to
participate in regional initiatives with the added benefits of a collective response
across borders to most effectively address the wider socio-economic issues
driving migration and the epidemic.
5. Under RCF II, although there have been efforts to fully include affected groups in
activities, more creative efforts are required to realise GIPA and GIMP.
6. Inadequate emphasis was placed on gender issues that mediate forced migration
and violations of human rights and compound women and girls’ vulnerability to
infection.
7. Beyond internal UNDP HIV/AIDS mainstreaming, this initiative was not fully
realised within the timeframe of RCF II.
8. Country demand for HIV/AIDS service lines overall has fallen between 2004 and
2005, which is cause for concern given the nature and magnitude of the epidemic
in the region.
7 RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The SEAHIV experience set out in this evaluation report illustrates that the costeffectiveness and medium to long term sustainability of project investments is
highly dependant upon information preservation and accessibility. It is
recommended that in subsequent project phases all officers are required to
regularly lodge copies of all project documentation and key correspondence in a
central electronic file that is accessible to the wider organisation. In this way
project memory and sustainability will no longer depend upon individual practices
and will be protected by institutional procedures.
2. Greater attention should be paid to rigorous handover throughout staff turnover.
Procedures should be developed to ensure uniform and smooth handover and
minimal disruption of activities and loss of project memory.
3. Care should be given to the supervision of senior project staff and mechanisms
put in place to ensure that individual approaches do not create obstacles to the
achievement of outcomes. Clear lines of responsibility and monitoring
mechanisms should be put in place and feed back from wider project staff and
partners that are responded to in a proactive and timely way.
4. Monitoring mechanisms need to be more fully incorporated in project activities to
both to support implementing partners and to ensure project transparency and
accountability.
44
5. Gender based issues of the epidemic in the region should receive greater project
attention in RCF III. It is particularly difficult for women and girls to speak out and
efforts in the next phase should more fully focus on the specific needs, effective
support and destigmatisation of HIV positive women and girls. Given that women
and girls comprise the majority of people trafficked for exploitive purposes
including the international sex trade in the region, gender issues need to be more
fully addressed within the next regional framework of activities in direct response
to the situation on the ground.
6. Efforts should be made in the next phase of RCF towards realisation of the spirit
of GIPA and GIMP. There should be greater capitalisation of the knowledge and
resources that these groups can offer strategic development and project
initiatives.
7. Given the central role of churches and ministers in PIC life, it is recommended
that UNDP continues to support to SPATS to review and develop aspects of the
curriculum to encompass broader facets of human rights relating to drivers of the
epidemic.
8. Based on lessons learned from the Pacific Regional STI/HIV/AIDS and
Development Programme working with church organisations in PICs, in planning
the next regional framework, UNDP should expand its partnerships with faithbased organisations to increasingly bring on board religious leaders as
advocates, policy and implementation advisers. They should also capacity built to
effectively support their communities through the diagnosis of HIV and socioeconomic, medical and cultural impact of the virus on infected individuals and
their families.
9. The lack of education that is regarded by many project implementers to hamper
the voice and full inclusion of disadvantaged groups in project initiatives, requires
more concerted and creative efforts to capacity-build migrant and HIV positive
groups to enable their holistic inclusion in the realization of outcome three and
the GIPA, GIMP and gender equity principles.
10. Given the crucial stage of the epidemic in the region UNDP should consider
increasing funding to multi-sectoral HIV activities in Asia ad the Pacific to enable
more rapid responses to local innovations and adaptations to shifting situation.
This is necessary to raise project efficiency and momentum and to improve the
cost effectiveness of project inputs.
11. The fall in country demand for assistance under HIV/AIDS service lines indicates
that additional efforts are required to raise demand for multi-sectoral responses
to the epidemic in programme countries. To support this, funding for this practice
area must be both adequate and protected from wider shocks and acute changes
in budget allocations.
12. To improve efficiency and reduce the slow release of funds to project partners,
funding of initiatives should be simplified and made more direct. Rather than
routing UNDP funds to third-party agencies, projects managed by regional and
sub-regional centres should remain under UNDP or contracted implementing
partners’ control.
45
13. Negative perceptions of experience towards the end of the SEAHIV project have
compounded the loss on project investments and innovations as there has been
a general reluctance to build on some of the valuable contributions from that era.
Rather than distancing itself from the difficulties of the project, in the next RCF
UNDP should invest in locating and salvaging worthwhile SEAHIV knowledge
products that might be accessed via the Colombo managed website.
14. It is recommended that in the next phase of its activities UNDP conducts market
research on the impact of knowledge products to determine the most effective
strategies to inform future approaches. Examination should be made of public
responses to the different types of printed materials and advocacy films, the
documentary made under the Pacific Regional STI/HIV/AIDS and Development
Programme for example, should be analyses to evaluate the value of expanding
this approach to wider communities such as Asian PIC communities.
15. Existing tools should be modified and simplified to facilitate HIV/AIDS
mainstreaming beyond UNDP’s internal organisational structures and throughout
a broad range of development sectors and partners in the Asia-Pacific region.
16. Country and regional teams should be more co-ordinated and have stronger
support and knowledge-sharing mechanisms. As this shortcoming does not
appear to be an organisational issue, but more one of human resources, UNDP
should consider investing additional personnel to join regional HIV teams to coordinate and support UNDP country officers to work towards the achievement of
intended outcome three.
8 LESSONS LEARNED
1. The SEAHIV project was key in facilitating and guiding ASEAN governments to
adopt a common policy on the integration of HIV prevention programmes in
construction and infrastructure development initiatives and taking forward the
milestone Chang Rai Recommendation on Population Movement and HIV
Vulnerability. The efforts of the Project Manager were clearly evident in
persuading regional governments to sign the Memorandum of Understanding
formalising the Chang Rai Recommendation.
2. The strong character of key SEAHIV project staff seems to have been an asset in
terms of driving certain initiatives, however, it was at the expense of a fully
collaborative process that alienated certain development partners.
3. The SEAHIV project illustrates that effective institutional monitoring and timely
responsiveness to personnel issues is essential to reduce the impact of the
individual and personality factors that negatively impinge upon project activities
and achievement of outcome three.
4. Although in the course of the SEAHIV project a large body of information and
research material was produced to improve the technical knowledge base on
46
mobility and HIV vulnerability, in the absence of rigorous central electronic filing
and maintenance of websites, products have no medium or long-term
sustainability and represent highly cost-inefficient investments.
5. Quality of knowledge products should not be sacrificed for quantity of visible
outputs. Higher quality production of fewer products under SEAHIV might have
provided a more cost-effective implementation and higher quality of the evidence
base to support regional activities.
6. During its time under SEAHIV convenorship, although the UNRTF lacked a
sense of direction and impacts on the ground, it achieved a certain level of
successful in raising the profile HIV as a wider development and mobility issue.
The Task Force also maintained a high level of visibility at international
conferences, which was valuable in raising the international profile of regional
approaches to the epidemic.
7. UNDP’s partnership strategies were crucial in the implementation of its activities
within the Pacific Regional STI/HIV/AIDS and Development Programme as its
own role was advisory and core activities were sub-contracted to development
partners. Although in the course of the evaluation a meeting with the Fijian AIDS
Task Force was not possible, further information gathered indicated that UNDP
had acted in the best interests of taking forward the GIPA initiative and
circumvented a very difficult situation between and within certain HIV positive
groups. This illustrates the importance of regional project officers having the
confidence and institutional support to fulfil the spirit of GIPA through less
conventional routes when required by the existing situation.
8. UNDP has forged some well-functioning partnerships with SPATS (under the
Pacific Programme) being a best practice example of selecting a socially focal
partner with the capacity to provide information, care and support at the microlevel. Lessons learned from the SEAHIV project regarding partnerships, is that
individual staff issues must not be allowed to dictate inclusion and exclusion of
particular development partners.
9. Pacific Regional STI/HIV/AIDS and Development Programme partnership with
faith-based organisations has been extremely successful. This approach was of
the utmost importance in the Pacific Island Nations where the church is a focal
gatekeeper of community values and action. This highlights the importance of
assessing local socio-cultural and religious settings to bring on board influential
organisational structures and leaders firmly into the centre of project planning
and implementation.
10. While UNDP under RCF II has pushed the agenda for greater regional
commitment in responding to the epidemic, in both REACH and the Pacific HIV
programme, there was conflicting information from regional and RBAP sources
as to whether UNDP fully released budgeted funds to the two projects. Regional
staff were of the opinion that funding issues severely obstructed the projects’
progress towards the intended outcomes and acted to erode the motivation of
NGOs and civil groups in developing their own HIV initiatives. More in-depth of
analysis of the situation is clearly needed with full and timely access to financial
data to resolve this issue.
47
11. Documentation, organisation and quality varied markedly within the three
projects. Some of the project names differed throughout project documentation
and a as a consequence of the lack of systematic referencing documents
confused projects and were unclear about dates and authorship. This obscures
clarity and the reference value of documentation.
12. An important lesson to emerge from the REACH partnership with the South
Asian Research and Development Initiative was that the high degree of mistrust
generated by the threat of deportation (particularly among Bangladeshi migrants
to India) obstructs unregistered workers seeking medical advice, support, testing
and treatment. By using peer outreach workers within the workplace and
fostering a sense of trust, the approach can reach a substantial number of those
most vulnerable to HIV infection in the region.
48
ANNEX 1. REFERENCES AND DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
Project documents
 Second Multi-Year Funding Framework, 2004-2007 (2003).
 Substantive budget revision to allocate UNDP regional funds for activities
foreseen in the United Nations Regional Task Force on Mobility and HIV
Vulnerability Reduction in South-East Asia, 2005-2007
 United Nations Task Force on Mobility and HIV Vulnerability Reduction, Meeting
Report: Reconstituting the Task Force, Bangkok, 24-25 February 2005
 Regional Strategy on Mobility and HIV Vulnerability Reduction In the ASEAN
Countries and the Southern Provinces of China 2006 - 2008
 SEAHIV Project Document
 RAS 20-301 Pacific HIV Project Document
 RAS 20-301 Pacific HIV Report 2005
 Status Report on project Regional Empowerment and Action to Contain HIV/
AIDS (REACH): Beyond Borders (RAS/02/003)
 Pacific Regional HIV/AIDS Project Milestone 2 HIV/AIDS situation and responses
in seven Pacific Island Countries January 2005
 RAS/02/003/A/01/31 Regional Empowerment & Action to Contain HIV/AIDS
(REACH): Project Document
 UN Task Force on Mobility and HIV Vulnerability Reduction June 24-25, 2005 Siem Reap, Cambodia
 Strategy on Mobility and HIV Vulnerability Reduction in the Greater Mekong
Subregion 200-2004. UN Regional Task Force on Mobile Population and HIV
Vulnerability
 UNDP Regional Development Report: HIV/AIDS in South Asia 2003.
 UNDP Regional Centre Bangkok 2005 Annual Report.
 2005 Annual Report. Regional Centre Colombo
 Condon, R (2005) Pacific Regional STI/HIV/AIDS and Development Programme
RAS/02/301: Review of Principal Achievements and Summary of Lessons
Learned. 15 October 2005.
Results reports
 Asia-Pacific Regional Programme 2005 Results Report 11 April 2006. Prepared
by RSU, RBAP
 RBAP 2005 Results Report. April 2006. Prepared by RBAP Programme Results
Analysis and Oversight Group.
 2004 Results Report for UNDP in Asia and the Pacific. Summary Report , April
2005.
 2004 Results Report for UNDP in Asia and the Pacific. Main Report , April 2005.
 Results Oriented Annual Report (January – December 2003) REACH Beyond
Borders.
49
Development partners’ documents, project reports and knowledge products





















Asian Migrant Centre (2002) Migration needs, issues and responses in the
Greater Mekong Subregion. Hong Kong: Asian Migrant Centre/Rockefeller
Foundation.
Centre for Population and Policy Studies (2003) Cross-border mobility and
sexual exploitation in the Greater Southeast Asia Sub-region. Yogyakarta:
Gadjah Mada University.
Fiji National HIV/AIDS Strategic Plan 2004-2006
Raks Thai Foundation (2004) Untangling Vulnerability. A study on HIV/AIDS
prevention programming for migrant fishermen and related populations in
Thailand. Raks Thai Foundation/Rockefeller Foundation.
Institute for Cultural research of Laos & Macquarie University (2004).An
ethnographic study of social change and health vulnerability along the road
through Muang Sing and Muang Long. Rockefeller Foundation/Macquarie
University
Asia Pacific Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS. (2006) Who we are, what
we’ve done and where we’re going… 1994-2006 and beyond. Bangkok: APN+.
Graham Roberts & Litiana Kuridrani (2005) Participatory Research Methods for
HIV AIDS Intervention Final Report, Fiji School of Medicine 21 November 2005
Graham Roberts & Litiana Kuridrani (2006) Collecting and Using Information to
Strengthen NGO Programs for Non-Government Organizations fighting against
HIV/AIDS in the Pacific Region. UNAIDS, Suva: January 2006
South Pacific Association of Theological Schools (2005) HIV/AIDS: Hope,
Healing and Wholeness in the Context of HIV/AIDS. Curriculum for Theological
Schools In the Pacific. SPATS June 2005. South Pacific Association of
Theological Schools (2004)
Enhancing Quality Theological Education in Oceania. SPATS 2005-2009
No Safety Sign Here. REACH 2004
Migration and HIV in South Asia 2004
From Challenges to Opportunities: Responses to Trafficking and HIV/AIDS in
South Asia.
From Involvement to Empowerment: People Living with HIV/AIDS in the Asia
Pacific. UNDP 2004.
HIV and You: An HIV/AIDS awareness programme among migrant industrial
workers and surrounding areas by PLWHA. UNDP 2004.
Law, Ethics and HIV/AIDS in South Asia: A Study of the legal and social
environment of the epidemic in Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Sri Lanka 2004.
UNAIDS Update 2005
UNDP/UNOPS (1999) Report on the Satellite symposium on Socio-economic
causes and consequences of HIV/AIDS: A focus on South Asia. UNDP South
and Southwest Asia project on HIV and Development. 25 October 1999, 5th
ICAAP, Kuala Lumpur.
UNDP/Asian Women’s Human Rights Council (2003). Casting curious shadows
in the Dark. The South Asia Court of Women on the Violence of Trafficking and
HIV/AIDS. August 11-13 2003, Dhaka Bangladesh.
Regional Human Development Report. HIV/AIDS and Development in South
Asia 2003.
YouandAIDS Magazine: Volume 2 Issue 2, March 2004
50



YouandAIDS Magazine: Volume 2 Issue 1, August 2003
UNFPA (2004) Culture Matters: Working with Communities and Faith-based
Organization: case Studies from Country Programmes. New York: UNFPA
UNFPA (2004) Working from Within: Culturally Sensitive Approaches in UNFPA
Programming. New York: UNFPA
51
ANNEX 2. ACTIVITIES AND MEETINGS
Date
May 2006
9
10
10
20, 21
22
23
24
25
25, 26
29
30
Activity/Meeting
Meetings UNDP HQ New York
Regional Bureau for Asia & the Pacific Team: David Lockwood Director
Asia-Pacific, Selva Ramachandran, Chief Regional Support Unit, Sarwat
Chowdhury Programme Specialist Regional Support Unit, Michelle
Rooney, Taimur Khilji.
Evaluation Teams. Outcome 1: Ranjeev Pillay. Outcome 2: Colleen
peacock Taylor, Charlotte Mathiassen.
UNDP Evaluations Office David Rider Smith Evaluation Specialist and
Juha Uitto Evaluation Adviser
Sandii Lwin, Asia Pacific focal point for HIV AIDS UNDP Bureau of
Development Policy
Travel to Bangkok
Ferdinand Stroebel and
Hakan Bjorkman DRR, UNDP
Dr. Nwe Nwe Aye, UNAIDS Regional Support Team, Advisor
Dr. Tia Phalla, Manager Secretariat of the UN Regional Task Force on
Mobility and HIV Vulnerability Reduction.
Numerous regional stakeholders, CSOs, NGOs and independent
advisers (gathered for CSEARHAP meeting), including:
Senator Mechai Viravaidya, Lori Jones Director of Special Projects,
Programme for Appropriate Technology in Health, Officers from Health
Without Borders, RAKS Thai.
David Patterson, Regional Team Leader Policy Planning and Advocacy,
CSEARHAP
Addy Chen and Ken Siroat Jittjang Programme Manager Asia Positive
Network - Bangkok)
Sue Carey Regional Director, CSEARHAP
Astrid Richardson, Regional Team Leader, CSEARHAP
Robert McDowell, Deputy Regional Director, CSEARHAP
Dr. Pethchsri Sirinirund, MOPH Bureau of AIDS TB & STI
Dr. Im-em Wassana Assistant Director UNFPA
Promboon Phanitphakdi – telephone discussion
Raks Thai Foundation
RAKS THAI FOUNDATION
Dr. Katherine Bond, Associate Director Health Equity, South East Asia
Regional Programme, The Rockefeller Foundation
Travel to Suva
Virisila Raitamata Poverty/HIV/AIDS Analyst, UNDP
Hans De Graaff, UNDP Deputy Resident Representative, UNDP
Rev. Tevita Nawadra General Secretary South Pacific Association of
52
31
June 1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
12
13
14
15
16
19
Theological Schools (SPATS), Suva, Fiji
Ms Tuberi Cati and Dr Jiko Luveni. Fiji Network of Living with HIV/AIDS
Mr Elia Vesikula, Executive Director Vanua Productions
Dr Grahame Roberts and Ms Litiana Kuridrani Fiji School of Medicine
(FSM) Suva, Fiji
Mr Stuart Watson UNAIDS Pacific Coordinator –Former Programme
Manager
Mr Steven Vete APLF Manager based at UNICEF Office
travel to Colombo
Mr. Manoj Basnyat, Deputy Regional Manager, RCC
Regional HIV/AIDS team: Sonam Yangchen Rana, Regional Programme
Co-ordinator; Pramod Kumar, Kazuyuki Uji.
Mr. Samson Lal, President, Lanka +
Dr. Bhudda Korala, former head of the National AIDS Programme
Ms. Bhavani Fonseka, Centre for Policy Alternatives
Ms Geraldine Ratna Singh, HIV/AIDS focal point, UNDP Country Office,
Sri Lanka
Ms. Beate Trankmann, DRR, UNDP Country Office, Sri Lanka
Travel to Kathmandu
Mr Matthew Kahane, Resident Co-ordinator, UNDP Kathmandu. Mr
Gulam Isaczai, DRR, Sara Nyanti, Programme Manager for Global Funds
for HIV AIDS, Anjani Bhattarai, HIV/AIDS Focal Person UNDP
Kathmandu
Dr S. S. Mishra, Director National Centre for AIDS and STD Control
(SCASC), Ministry of Health
Dr B Niraula, DRR, UNFPA
Anjani Bhattarai, HIV/AIDS Focal Person UNDP Kathmandu
Kishor Pradhan, Country Representative
PANOS
Mr. Mohammed Naseer
Director - Social Affairs Development, SAARC
Mr Birendra Bhattarai and group meeting with Nepal Plus members
Mr. Ram Chandra Man Singh
Co-chair, RCM, Secretary of Health, Ministry of Health and Population
Travel to Delhi
Ms Alka Narang Head HIV/AIDS Unit UNDP
Dr. S.Y. Quraishi, Former Director General, National AIDS Control
Organisation (NACO), Currently Secretary, Ministry of Youth Affairs and
Sports.
Mr. R.K. Mishra, Team Leader, NACP III, Planning Team
Mr. Ashutosh Saxena, Ms Himani Sethi, Ms. Deepa David, South Asian
Research & Development Initiative (SARDI),
Mr. Gordon Mortimore Head, DFID HIV/AIDS PMO
Ms Roma Debabrata, President and various members STOP- Stop
Trafficking, Oppression & Prostitution of Women & Children.
Dr. Maxine Olson, UNDP, Resident Representative UNDP India
Mr. Elango Ramachandran, Treasurer, Indian Network of Positive People
Living with HIV/AIDS (INP+),
53
Ms. Joanne Reid, Senior Health Advisor, DFID India
19-20
Travel to Switzerland
54
ANNEX 3. TERMS OF REFERENCE
Terms of Reference
Outcome Evaluation of the Regional Programme (Second Regional
Cooperation Framework 2002-2006) for Asia and the Pacific10
Outcome three
A. INTRODUCTION
Background
The second Regional Cooperation Framework (RCF II) for Asia and the Pacific was developed
directly in response to the United Nations Millennium Declaration target of halving the proportion
of people living in extreme poverty by 2015 and other related goals. The regional programme aimed
to contribute to the fight against poverty by enabling analysis of region-wide trends and policies,
innovative tools and approaches to emerging development problems, and facilitating exchange of
experiences of effective development practice through knowledge networks.
In producing the second RCF, extensive consultations were held throughout the region, which began
with the mid-term review of the first RCF in October 1999. Sub-regional cluster meetings held with
resident representatives, regional organizations such as the Economic and Social Commission for
Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) and Association of South- East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and United
Nations specialized agencies, funds and programmes in October 2000 culminated in a concept paper
in January 2001. The second RCF also included lessons learned from more than forty programme
evaluations (1997-2000), best practices synthesized from ten major programmes, and the mid-term
review.
The second Regional Cooperation Framework for Asia and the Pacific (2002-2006) is nearing
completion of its mandate; the RCF II will be extended by one year up to 2007 so that the RCF cycle
coincides with the corporate Multi-Year Funding Framework (MYFF) cycle. In this context, it is
necessary to begin the process of both evaluation of RCF II, as well as the consultative process for
designing the Regional Programme Document (RPD).
10 UNDP has shifted from traditional project monitoring and evaluation to a more results-based
approach. This change, especially in outcome monitoring and evaluation, covers a set of related
projects, programmes and strategies intended to bring about a certain outcome. In general, an
outcome evaluation assesses how and why an outcome is or is not being achieved in a given context,
and the role that UNDP has played. Outcome evaluations also help to clarify underlying factors
affecting the situation, highlight unintended consequences (positive and negative), recommend
actions to improve performance in future programming, and generate lessons learned. Therefore,
outcome evaluations signal progress of the regional programme and serve as a point of reference for
formulating the next regional framework.
55
For regional cooperation frameworks, a medium-term evaluation is no longer mandatory. However,
outcome evaluations of regional programmes are a corporate mandatory requirement.
Outcomes to be evaluated
Following discussions and agreement between the RBAP and the Evaluation Office (EO), an
outcome evaluation plan for 2005 has been prepared with three intended outcomes and timelines for
the completion of each. As RBAP gives special emphasis on gender mainstreaming as a cross-cutting
issue, gender related indicators will be used in the evaluation of all three outcomes. This TOR
focuses specifically on outcome three:
Intended outcome 3
To plan and implement multi-sectoral strategies for limiting the spread of HIV/AIDS and mitigating
its social and economic impacts institutional capacity built and strengthened.
Indicators





Cross-country exchanges (public-private, other UN agency and donor levels) on strategies
and plans to reduce stigma and change behaviour to minimize the spread of HIV/AIDS
(partnership for results, s-s solutions);
Development of tools and approaches for multi-sectoral HIV impact analysis; and policy
strategies to mitigate HIV/AIDS vulnerability with respect to mobility, migration and
trafficking (policy formulation);
Greater awareness of the gender impact of HIV among policy-makers and the former
addressed in development policy (capacity dvpt, gender equality, policy formulation).
Supportive policies advocated and commitment received from key stakeholders in the region
to address HIV/AIDS as a development issue (forging partnerships, national ownership, s-s
solutions);
With special attention to gender concerns and vulnerability of women, capacities of people
living with HIV/AIDS (e.g. PWLHA) developed enabling them to participate in response
formulation and implementation (gender equality).
Situation analysis at the time of design The Asia-Pacific region is likely to be the next flashpoint for
HIV/AIDS, especially South East Asia and South Asia. Although the epidemic arrived
relatively late in the region, this situation is rapidly changing. In 2001, the epidemic claimed
the lives of 435,000 people, and 1.07 million adults and children were newly infected with
HIV. An estimated 7.1 million people are living with HIV/AIDS; and ten countries in the
region have a national prevalence rates of 0.10 or higher. If left unchecked, the impact of the
epidemic on economic growth could roll back decades of hard-won development
achievements in the region. RCF II emphasized the adoption of a multi-sectoral approach to
address prevention and consequences of HIV/AIDS. It focused on addressing the individual
and collective norms and behaviours that fuel the epidemic, at the same time urging greater
attention to human rights and gender concerns.
Related service lines under MYFF 2004-07: SL 1.7, SL 5.1-5.3
List of projects to be evaluated11
11
The matrix in TOR Annex A provides more information on the three projects
56
1. Regional Empowerment & Action to Contain HIV/AIDS (REACH): Beyond
Borders
2. Building Regional HIV Resilience (SEA HIV/AIDS)
3. Regional STI/HIV/AIDS and Development Programme (Pacific HIV AIDS)
B. OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION
The outcome evaluation shall assess the following: (i) outcome analysis - what and how much progress
has been made towards the achievement of the outcome (including contributing factors and
constraints), (ii) project objective analysis - the relevance of and progress made in terms of the UNDP
projects (including an analysis of both project activities and soft-assistance activities12), and (iii) projectoutcome link - what contribution UNDP has made/is making to the progress towards the achievement
of the outcome (including an analysis of the partnership strategy). The results of the outcome
evaluation will be used for guiding future programming of the Regional Programme Document.
C. SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION
Evaluation of the three specific outcomes will be conducted independently of each other. For each
of three outcomes, the evaluation will look at the relevance and contributions of UNDP project
activities and soft-assistance efforts with regard to the outcome. Specifically, the evaluation of
outcome three is expected to address the following issues:
Evaluate performance of each programme
 Effectiveness: Have the programme objectives been achieved?
 Efficiency: The productivity of the implementation process in terms of how economically inputs
are converted into programme outputs
 Relevance: Relevance of the programmes to UNDP mandates, national priorities and to
beneficiaries’ need
 Impact: The longer term effect or consequence, direct or indirect, on the identified need which,
when combined with other efforts, results from UNDP’s involvement
 Sustainability: The ability to maintain or enhance the programme after the withdrawal of UNDP
support
 Lessons learnt from the programmes
 What are the factors (positive and negative) that affect the accomplishment of the programmes?
Contribution of programmes to development effectiveness
Outcome analysis






What are the current situation and possible trends in the near future with regard to the outcome?
Whether sufficient progress has been achieved vis-à-vis the outcomes as measured by the
outcome indicators?
What are the main factors (positive and negative) that affect the achievement of the outcome?
Whether UNDP’s projects or other interventions can be plausibly linked to the achievement of
the outcome;
What are the key development and advisory contributions that UNDP has made/is making
towards the outcome?
With the current planned efforts in coordination and partnership with other actors and
stakeholders, will UNDP be able to achieve the outcome within the set timeframe and inputs –
or whether additional resources are required and new or changed interventions are needed?
12 For UNDP, soft assistance activities include advocacy, policy advice/dialogue, and
facilitation/brokerage of information and partnerships.
57



UNDP’s ability to develop national capacity in a sustainable manner (through exposure to best
practices in other countries, south-south cooperation, holistic and participatory approach);
UNDP’s ability to respond to changing circumstances and requirements in capacity
development;
What is the prospect of the sustainability of UNDP interventions related to the outcome (what
would be a good exit strategy for UNDP)?
D. PRODUCTS EXPECTED FROM THE EVALUATION
The key product expected from this outcome evaluation is a comprehensive analytical report in
English that should, at least, include the following contents13:
 Executive summary
 Introduction
 Description of the evaluation methodology
 An analysis of the situation with regard to the outcome, the project objectives and the
partnership strategy;
 Key findings (including best practices and lessons learned)
 Conclusions and recommendations
 Annexes: Consultant firm/consortia TOR (including TOR for outcome three), field visits,
people interviewed, documents reviewed, etc.
E. METHODOLOGY OR EVALUATION APPROACH
While the evaluation team will have the flexibility to decide on the concrete evaluation methodology
14 to be used, the following elements should be taken into account for the gathering and analysis of
data:
 Desk review of relevant documents;
 Desk review of the three projects listed in the evaluation of outcome three;
 Country visits and national consultations in selected five countries covering three projects;
13
Please also see TOR Annex C
In designing the methodology the consultants should be cognizant of the following: there can
be at least two ways for conducting the assessment: (a) through feedback from the intended
beneficiaries of the programmes, and (b) through an examination of before-and-after situations with
respect to policies, strategies, institutions, exchange practices. These methods have some
implications. For (a), some face to face interviews will be necessary, but mostly the evaluation will
need to rely on carefully designed questionnaires for distribution in a sample of countries to people
who, by one means or another, have participated in regional programmes (through meetings,
absorption of knowledge products, other learning and change experiences). One possibility would be,
while the design of the questionnaires will be the responsibility of the evaluation team, the
distribution and collation will need to be done by local consultants identified by COs. For (b), the
evaluation team will have to rely on selected COs to identify where real change has occurred which
can be attributed to UNDP regional TA. All three regional centres in Asia Pacific region could also
assist COs in the above tasks.
14
Additionally, measuring the contribution of the regional projects to the defined objectives and other targets and
then relating this to the overall efforts made by donors, governments and other partners might be a good
approach. The consultants should also be aware that the outcome evaluation as proposed in this TOR is more
relevant to the country level, and measuring progress towards outcomes at the regional level is going to be quite
complex. Not all the outcomes may have been shared with other partners, whether international donors or subregional/regional associations.
58


In-depth analysis of a questionnaire submitted to all principal projects representatives (PPRs) as
well as stakeholders from relevant government ministries, other donors, civil society
organizations etc. PPRs will include the managers of the two regional centres and one subregional centre and also the resident representatives of the relevant countries. The questionnaire
will be designed by the lead consultant with assistance from his/her team member(s).
In-depth interviews by consultants with all project coordinators of selected projects, PPRs of the
projects, Regional Centre Managers, Regional Support Unit in RBAP, programme staff of
UNDP in relevant countries and UNOPS.
F. EVALUATION TEAM
The outcome evaluation team will consist of two team members (belonging to a consultancy firm or
consortia). The team leader (an international consultant) should have an advanced university degree
and at least five years of work experience in the specific thematic area (e.g. HIV/AIDS issues with a
sound knowledge of results-based management especially results-oriented monitoring and evaluation). The team leader
will also need at least five to ten years work experience in evaluation issues.15 He/she will take the
overall responsibility for the quality of the evaluation report (including finalization of the evaluation
report in English).
Specifically, the team leader will perform the following tasks:









Lead and manage the evaluation missions;
Review documents (such as TPRs, project reports, etc);
Undertake country visits, national consultations in selected five countries, in-depth interviews
with all project coordinators of the selected projects; government counterparts; PPRRs of
projects, regional centre managers; RBAP; UNOPS; NGOs, academia, and other relevant
stakeholders.
Design the detailed evaluation scope and methodology (including the methods for data collection
and analysis);
Decide the specific division of labour within the evaluation team;
Design the questionnaire
Be responsible for the overall evaluation of outcome three;
Conduct an analysis of the outcome, outputs and partnership strategy (as per the scope of the
evaluation described above);
Finalize the outcome one evaluation report.
The other team member will perform the following tasks:





Review documents (such as TPRs, project reports, etc);
Undertake country visits, national consultations, in-depth interviews with project coordinators;
government counterparts; PPRRs of projects, regional centre managers; RBAP; UNOPS; NGOs,
academia, and other relevant stakeholders.
Participate in the design of the evaluation methodology; assist team leader in designing the
questionnaire;
Conduct an analysis of the outcome, outputs and partnership strategy (as per the scope of the
evaluation described above); and
Draft related parts of the evaluation report.
G. INPUTS & IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS
15 or the firm should include another consultant with expertise in this issue.
59
Regional Support Unit/RBAP will manage the outcome evaluation process. In this context, RSU will
assist the consultants to set up meetings at the UNDP Headquarters in New York and with
stakeholders at the field level including at the Regional Centres, with Regional Programme
Coordinators and UNDP country offices.
A total of 30 work days are expected for the evaluation itself: the consultant firm may decide the
division of labour between the team leader and team member and should explicitly mention this
division in their submitted proposal.
International travel
 Two international missions will be carried out by consultants. The first visit is to New York
by at least the team leader (assuming the consultants are hired from the region).
 The second travel involves regional visits. The consultants will need to visit a total of five
countries. This includes visits to five UNDP country offices (e.g. Fiji, India, Nepal, Sri
Lanka, and Thailand)16. These country visits will include a number of organizations including
the two regional centres located in Bangkok (Thailand) and Colombo (Sri Lanka), one
Pacific Sub-regional Centre in Suva (Fiji), the SAARC secretariat in Kathmandu (Nepal). The
detailed names of other relevant organisations/ stakeholders to be visited will be provided to
the selected consultant firm. Annex B provides a list of DSA for the countries listed here.
Report
 The report is to be submitted in draft form before 15 June, 2006 for RSU/RBAP’s review
and comments.
 The final report (in two hard copies and an electronic version) should be submitted before
15 July, 2006.
Inputs
 The consultant firm will be paid a lump sum on a staggered payment basis. There will be no
additional funding provided for travel expenses, office space, telephone/computer usage etc.
However, during field visits, UNDP COs will be requested to help the consultants in setting
up meetings with various stakeholders. The selected consultant firm will also be provided
with hard or electronic copies of documents/reports covering the projects that are under the
outcome three evaluation statement.
16
This list may change at a later date, due to unforeseen circumstances.
60
TOR Annex A
OUTCOME EVALUATION PLAN (outcomes, associated projects & programme budget)
Outcome
Associated projects
Programme budget
3. To plan and implement multi-sectoral strategies
for limiting the spread of HIV/AIDS and
mitigating its social and economic impacts
institutional capacity built and strengthened.
1. Reach Beyond Borders
Feb 02 -Dec 05
Countries: China, Afghanistan,
Bangladesh, Bhutan, DPRK, India,
Iran, Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar,
Nepal, Pakistan, Republic of Korea,
Sri Lanka
2. SEA HIV/AIDS
Sep 02 – Aug 06
Countries: SEA programme
countries with endorsements from
Cambodia, China, East Timor,
Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar,
Philippines, Singapore, Thailand,
Vietnam
3. Pacific HIV/AIDS
Aug 02 -Dec 05
Countries: Fiji, Solomon Islands,
Vanuatu, Tonga, Samoa, Kiribati,
Marshall Islands, Federated States of
Micronesia, Cook Islands, Nieu,
Tokelau
US$ $2,093,380, including
cost-sharing of $93,400
US $1,247,000
US $1,006,964 (additional
$250,000 granted from
UNDP regional funds in 03)
61
ANNEX 4. LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS
Revised List of Stakeholders for Outcome evaluation of RCF II
Outcome III
(Countries to be visited: Fiji, India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Thailand)
Project
Country
CSO/NGO/Indep
Pacific
HIV
AIDS
Fiji
Ms Jane Tyler
Executive
Director,
AIDS Task Force of Fiji
(ATFF); AIDS Task
Force
of
Fiji
2nd Floor Narseys
Building
Ellery St. Suva, tel 679
3313844; fax 679 3314
199;
Pacific
HIV
AIDS
Fiji
Pacific
HIV
AIDS
Fiji
Think tank
Govt
UNDP
Other donors/intergov
body
Ms Tuberi Cati
Fiji Network of People
Living with HIV/AIDS
(FJN+), c/-ATFF; 679
3313844
Dr Grahame Roberts
Ms Litiana Kuridrani,
Fiji School of Medicine
(FSM); Suva, Fiji, 679
3321973,
[email protected]
[email protected]
Rev. Tevita Nawadra
General Secretary
South Pacific
Association of
Theological Schools
62
Project
Country
CSO/NGO/Indep
Think tank
Govt
UNDP
Other donors/intergov
body
(SPATS), Suva, Fiji
679 3303924,
[email protected]
Pacific
HIV
AIDS
Fiji
Pacific
HIV
AIDS
Fiji
Pacific
HIV
AIDS
Fiji
Pacific
HIV
AIDS
Fiji
Pacific
HIV
AIDS
Fiji
Mr Chetan Lakshman
Programme Manager,
Institute of Justice and
Applied Legal Studies
(IJALS),
[email protected]
Mr Elia Vesikula
Executive Director,
Vanua Productions, 679
3308835, fax 679
3308835,
[email protected]
m.fj
Ms Tuberi Cati
Fiji Network of People
Living with HIV/AIDS
(FJN+), c/-ATFF; 679
3313844
Ms Helen Tavola
Social Policy Advisor,
Pacific Forum Island
Secretariat; Suva, Fiji,
679 3312600; fax. 679
3305573;
[email protected].
Fj
Mr. Richard
Dictus, UNDP
Resident
Representative,
Reserve Bank
Building, Tower
Level 6, Pratt
Street, Suva, Fiji
Tel. 679-
63
Project
Country
CSO/NGO/Indep
Think tank
Govt
Regional India
HIV
AIDS
Other donors/intergov
body
3312500
Ms. Maxine
Olson, UNDP
Resident
Representative
India; 55 Lodi
Estate
New Delhi - 110
003, India;
email:
maxine.olson@
undp.org
Tel: 91-1124628877
(Ext.316)
Regional India
HIV
AIDS
Regional India
HIV
AIDS
UNDP
Dr. S.Y. Quraishi;
Former Director
General,
National AIDS Control
Organisation
Currently Secretary,
Ministry of Youth
Affairs and Sports,
102-C, Shastri Bhawan,
Dr Rajendra Prasad
Road, New Delhi110001
Tel: 00-91-11-23382897
Fax: 00-91-11-23387418
Email: [email protected]
Mr.R.K. Mishra, Team
Leader, NACP-III
Planning Team, EP16/17, Chandragupta
Marg,
Chankyapuri; New Delhi
– 110021 Tel. 24104970
(Off.)Email:
64
Project
Country
CSO/NGO/Indep
Think tank
Govt
UNDP
Other donors/intergov
body
[email protected]
Regional India
HIV
AIDS
South Asian Research
& Development
Initiative (SARDI);
CA-1-D, Munirka,
New Delh-110 067,
Phone:
91+11+26181578,
91+11+26180038
Fax: 91-11-26181578
Email:
[email protected]
Website:http://www.
mobilityandhiv.org
Contact: Ashutosh,
Email:
[email protected]
Regional India
HIV
AIDS
Regional India
HIV
AIDS
South Asia Regional Coordination Mechanism
.Chair RCM,
Secretary Health and
Family Welfare, Govt of
India
Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare
149, A, Wing Nirman
Bhavan, Maulana Ayad
Road
New Delhi, India
Tel: 91.11.23061863
Fax: 91.11.23061252
Email: [email protected]
India Network for
People living with
HIV/AIDS
Mr. K.K.Abraham,
President, INP+;
Flat.6/93, Kash Towers
65
Project
Country
Regional India
HIV
AIDS
Regional India
HIV
AIDS
Regional Nepal
HIV
AIDS
Regional Nepal
HIV
AIDS
CSO/NGO/Indep
Think tank
Govt
UNDP
Other donors/intergov
body
South West Boag road;
T-Nagar, Chennai600017; India, Tel: 432
9580/81
Email:
[email protected]
STOP
Ms. Roma Debabrata
President; STOP – Stop
Trafficking, Oppression
& Prostitution of
Women & Children; A47, 2nd Floor,
Chittaranjan Park, New
Delhi – 110 019, Tel:
91.11.6425811, Fax:
91.11.6465051, Email:
[email protected]
DfID Office
In India
Dr S. S. Mishra,
Director,
National Centre for
AIDS and STD Control
(SCASC), Ministry of
Health, Ramshah Path,
Kathmandu, Nepal;
Tel:+ 977-1-2261653
Mr. Mohammed Naseer
Director - Social Affairs
Development, SAARC ;
Trivedi Marg ;
Kathmandu, Nepal, Tel:
977.1.4221794
Res: 977.1.4370211, Mb:
9841289916, Fax:
977.1.4227033 / 4223991
66
Project
Country
CSO/NGO/Indep
Think tank
Govt
UNDP
Regional Nepal
HIV
AIDS
Regional Nepal
HIV
AIDS
PANOS
Panos South Asia; Sri
Durbar Tole, Lalitpur
GPO Box: 13651;
Kathmandu, Nepal
Em:
[email protected]
g
Regional Nepal
HIV
AIDS
Regional Thailand
HIV
AIDS
Other donors/intergov
body
Email: [email protected]
South Asia Regional Coordination Mechanism
Co-chair, RCM, Secretary
of Health, Ministry of
Health and Population,
Kathmandu, Nepal, Tel:
977.1.4262590
Em:
[email protected]
Mr. Matthew
Kahane, UNDP
Res. Rep, UN
House,
Pulchowk,
Lalitpur,
Kathmandu,
Tel. 977-15523200
Mahidol University;
Institute for Population
and Social Research,
Mahidol University
Salaya, Phutthamonthon,
Nakhorn Pathom 73170,
Thailand ; Tel. +6624410201 Fax. +662 –
4419333; Contact Dr.
Wassana Im-Em; Email:
[email protected].
67
Project
Country
CSO/NGO/Indep
Think tank
Govt
UNDP
Other donors/intergov
body
ac.th
Regional Thailand
HIV
AIDS
UN Regional Task Force
on Mobility & HIV
Vulnerability Reduction in
South East Asia
Mr. Tia Phalla, Manager
Mobility Task Force
Regional Thailand
HIV
AIDS
SEA
HIV
AIDS
SEA
HIV
AIDS
SEA
HIV
AIDS
SEA
HIV
AIDS
Thailand Dr. Sri Chander, World
Vision, Sri Lanka
[email protected] (c
ontact may need to be
updated)
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Ms. Joana
Merlin-Scholtes,
UN Resident
Coordinator/U
NDP Resident
Representative;
12th Floor, UN
Building,
Rajdamnern
Nok Avenue,
Bangkok 10200;
Tel: 00-66-02288-1810
Em:
joana.merlin.sch
[email protected]
Dr. Pethchsri
Sirinirund
petchsri_s2003@yaho
o.com
Dr. Sombat
Thanprasertsuk
[email protected]
Hakan
Bjorkman
UNDP
68
Project
Country
CSO/NGO/Indep
SEA
HIV
AIDS
Thailand
SEA
HIV
AIDS
Thailand
SEA
HIV
AIDS
Thailand Promboon
Phanitphakdi
Raks Thai Foundation
Em:
[email protected]
h
Thailand Dr. Katherine C. Bond
The Rockefeller
Foundation Bangkok
Em:
[email protected]
h
Thailand Mr Ken Siroat Jittjang
APN+ (Asia Positive
Network - Bangkok)
[email protected]
Thailand Ms. Nigoon Jitthai,
FHI, Bangkok
[email protected] (co
ntact may need to be
updated)
Think tank
Govt
UNDP
Other donors/intergov
body
DRR, Thailand
SEA
HIV
AIDS
SEA
HIV
AIDS
SEA
HIV
AIDS
Sue Carey
CSEARHAP/CIDA
Email: [email protected]
+662 658 7979
Prasada Rao, Regional
Director &
Dr. Nwe Nwe Aye,
Advisor
UNAIDS Regional
Support Team, 9th Floor,
UN Building, Rajdamnern
Nok Avenue, Bangkok
10200
Email: [email protected]
Email [email protected]
Tel +662 288 2183
69
Project
Country
SEA
HIV
AIDS
Thailand Ms. Catherine Esposito,
CARE, Bangkok
[email protected]
(contact may need to be
updated)
Sri
Lanka
Pacific
HIV
AIDS,
Regional
HIV
AIDS,
SEA
HIV
AIDS
Pacific
HIV
AIDS,
Regional
HIV
AIDS,
SEA
HIV
AIDS
Pacific
HIV
AIDS,
Regional
HIV
AIDS,
SEA
HIV
AIDS
NY,
USA
NY,
USA
CSO/NGO/Indep
Think tank
Govt
UNDP
Other donors/intergov
body
Mr. Miguel
Bermeo, UNDP
Resident
Representative
Ongoing HIV
AIDS project
team staff at the
Regional Centre
in Colombo
Mr. David
Lockwood,
Deputy
Director,
Regional Bureau
for Asia & the
Pacific & RSU
staff
Elhadj Amadou
Sy, Director
HIV AIDS
group at the
UNDP Bureau
for
Development
Policy
70
ANNEX 5. QUESTIONNAIRES EMAILED TO PPRS AND HIV FOCAL PERSONNEL PRIOR TO FIELDWORK
1. What are the specific expected outcomes of your project?
2. What has been achieved in terms of these outcomes to date?
3. What indicators have you used to measure the achievement of these outcomes?
4. What have been UNDP’s specific contributions to these outcomes?
5. Who are your principal partners and what role have each played in the achievement of outcomes?
6. How has your project achieved cross-country exchanges of lessons learned and best practices?
7. How has your project advocated policies supporting HIV/AIDS being addressed as a development issue?
8. What monitoring and evaluation exercises have been conducted throughout the life of the project?
9. What percentage of project costs have been spent on overheads, top ups, expatriate salaries, etc?
The consultants also request that where possible Programme Coordinators/resource persons supply information on the following:
(a) units of performance and trends in their outputs (number of activities, publications, etc.);
b) output in terms of the number of people benefiting from interventions;
c) any materials/toolkits developed or disseminated for mainstreaming HIV/AIDS, reducing stigma and addressing behavioural change; d) their
project title and full contact details.
71
ANNEX 6. FINANACIAL DATA SUPPLIED BY RBAP ON 26.10.06
RCF II Programme area
Atlas award
id
Total Noncore
Total Core
Total Budget
(Expenditure)
4'910'219
7'616'626
0
0
129'437
240'606
1'094'183
2'242'414
897'193
1'742'847
1'317'653
2'524'627
1'471'754
866'132
12'526'845
0
370'043
3'336'597
2'640'040
3'841'607
2’337’885
2'002
2'003
2'004
2'005
2'006
2'007
0
310'347
216'967
310'347
216'967
93'380
1'711'626
1'383'626
1'711'626
1'383'626
328'000
1'388'707
755'532
1'388'707
755'532
633'175
3'702'962
2'507'700
3'702'962
2'507'700
1'195'261
2’184’950
750'000
1’932’939
497'989
1'434'950
0
0
14'625
14'625
14'625
14'625
0
1'023'173
738'428
1'023'173
738'428
284'745
999'193
936'887
999'193
936'887
62'306
54'199
38
54'872
38
54'835
52'935
16'132
52'935
16'132
36'804
0
0
45'071
9'014
45'071
9'014
36'057
601'798
120'360
601'798
120'360
481'438
252'140
50'428
252'140
50'428
201'712
84'446
16'889
84'446
16'889
67'557
100'000
100'000
25'966
25'966
TOTAL
BUDGET
00013026
REACH (RAS/02/003)
Total budget
of which core (regional programme trac )
Total expenditure
core expenditure
non-core expenditure
00014925
000012639
source of data: 2004-2006 Atlas CDRs
SEA HIV/AIDS (RAS/02/200)
Total budget
of which core (regional programme trac )
Total expenditure
core expenditure
non-core expenditure
source of data: Signed budget revision October 2003; Atlas CDR 20042006;
Pacific HIV (RAS/02/301)
Total budget
of which core (regional programme trac )
Total expenditure
core expenditure
non-core expenditure
9'298'591
5'613'825
9'046'581
5'361'814
3'684'766
2'144'125
1'706'110
2'144'799
1'706'110
438'689
1'083'455
296'691
1'009'421
222'657
786'764
Prior
72
0
source of data: Signed budget revision 8 September 2003
73