1. Department AFRICA HIV Network Meeting, Nairobi A. Köneke 8 June 2010 HIV/AIDS Mainstreaming in the Africa Department of GTZ

2. page 1 / 4 Up to know: What is the HIV-MS Strategy? Main Goals: 1.Adressing the potential threat to undermine the program´s outcomes/goals (  according to the 3 HIV-MSQ) 2.2003: due to awareness of the „general threat“  MS-HIV in all countries by integration into the core business of programs 3.2008: re-evaluation: distinguishing between HPC and MLPC (middle and low prevalence countries) 4.  2010: Adaptation of the strategy and ToRs (FP) based on the findings for MLPC

3. page 2 / 4 How has GTZ integrated HIV into its set of instruments? (1)Number of priority area strategy papers that have integrated HIV/AIDS has risen by 10% (from 62% in 2007/08 to 72%) (2)Steady rise in number of projects with concrete reference to HIV/AIDS- measures to 65% (3) Documentation in Project Progress Reports In terms of objectives: 100% have reported (89% in detail, 11% in general) In terms of indicators: 89% have reported (50% in detail, 39% in general) However, the reports say little about the results!

4. page 3 / 4 Inventory is effective as monitoring tool, very good response rate Delivers valuable process information (regarding performance and use of output) Weaknesses: insufficient evidence of results in inventory; reasons cited for difficulties: (1) Results monitoring is too expensive (2) Attribution gap too wide (3) Mainstreaming serves as a risk-reducing measure, i.e. the achievement of objectives in the project “proves” that HIV mainstreaming activities have a positive impact  development of a result based “documentation tool” is essential Other conclusions of monitoring in 2009

5. page 4 / 4 Inventory suited for collecting “process” data Achieved “quantitative” mainstreaming objectives are satisfying  future monitoring only every two years (to keep this level) Suggestion: Inventory to be developed into a joint monitoring tool for all implementing organisations until 2011 Managing for results “tool” to be developed in cooperation with other implementing organisations on the basis of evaluations in Zambia and Malawi in 2009/2010 “Quo vadis” M & E of HIV Mainstreaming?

6. page 5 / 4 Adapting the strategy Background The development of the HIV epidemic has varied from region to region in Sub-Sahara Africa HIV mainstreaming must be adapted and differentiated accordingly April 2009: Africa Department requests country directors and Focal Points in countries with a prevalence of less than 5% to review their mainstreaming in projects with reference to the three mainstreaming questions and the specific epidemiological conditions clarify whether Focal Point ToR should be adapted

7. page 6 / 4 Epidemiological situation 12 countries conduct their own review based on a given set of questions On the basis of epidemiology, the countries can be divided into three groups: Group 1 A: Prevalence close to 5%: DR Congo, Nigeria, Ivory Coast and Burundi (rising incidence) Group 1 B: Prevalence between 1% and 4%: Burkina Faso, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Mali, Benin, Ghana Group 2: Prevalence below 1%: Madagascar and Senegal

8. page 7 / 4 Feedback on mainstreaming questions 1.Threat to programme outputs or objectives? The analyses are usually not clear and have a tendency to be too unspecific; assessment of HIV relevance far-fetched (particularly in countries in Groups 1B and 2) 2.Programme promotes the spread of HIV? All countries and projects address the potential risks in a responsible manner 3.Strategy to be adapted on the basis of HIV relevance? Faulty assessment of mainstreaming Question 1 leads to disproportionate mainstreaming (activities not in harmony with core business)

9. page 8 / 4 (I) Recommendations for country directors and Focal Points Adapt mainstreaming strategies Group 1 A: Continue with mainstreaming in projects; 100% Focal Point makes sense Group 1 B: Mainstream only where the risk of HIV can be plausibly verified; 100% Focal Point not absolutely necessary Group 2 : Country directors and officers responsible for the contract and cooperation decide whether mainstreaming is required at all  Adapt Focal Point ToR in countries in Groups 1B and 2 (if not yet done)

10. page 9 / 4 (II) Recommendations for country directors and Focal Points HPL 1)Continue external HIV-Mainstreaming 2)Special focus on relevance towards the core business of the program 3)Improving results documentation 4)Raise visibility of the German contribution in the fight against HIV at national level

11. Department AFRICA Thank you for your attention!