“Money Can Buy Health If You Budget For It”: key results of the project

In January 2016 consortium of three regional networks’ three year project was supported by Robert Carr civil society Networks Fund (RCNF) to build the capacity of community-based organizations of key populations, foster exchange and partnership between different ISP groups in budget advocacy and HIV resource accountability, help them advocate for national and municipal budgets resources to be allocated to continuum of HIV care for all ISP in EECA. During project duration joint advocacy activities and community strengthening to expand funding for and accessibility of services for people who use drugs (PWUD), men who have sex with men and all trans* people (MSM and TG) and people living with HIV (PLHIV) along the continuum of HIV care in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA) region were held on regional and national level.

Main achievements on regional level

EHRA worked on the budget advocacy capacities development, ECUO has been instrumental in developing advocacy plans for the communities and delivering guidance on PR and communication tools. ECOM on the other hand has launched its issue based inter-sectoral platform – Regional Platform on Policy Reform (RPPR), which consists of regional development partners and regional networks, national actors from state and civil society. This enables communities to come up with the joint strategy on how to find new and effective approaches to MSM and trans people health in EECA region.  We strive to achieve situation in which all members bring in unique expertise and input.

The Regional Community Action Plan was developed with leadership from ECUO based on research and consultation with community representatives, regional networks and other stakeholders and serves as the basis for joint planning and fundraising.

In April 2017 EHRN organized the budget advocacy training in Kyrgyzstan for 28 participants from regional and national consortiums. As a result 28 community members were trained and then practically involved in advocacy on regional and national level.

The tool for community led assessment of access and quality of services was developed in close cooperation with national consortiums and then approbated by them in the first year of the project.  Gaps in access to services identified by the communities, were then addressed in their advocacy work. It is planned to collect and try to unify all the existing methodologies of community led assessments during the Reginal methodological expert workshop in October, 2018.

Budget advocasy guide for community activists (BA guide short) developed by EHRA on the basis of conducted regional and national trainings for different communities is a great tool to share gained experience with members of regional networks and community leaders in EECA.

Our work together as a consortium made clear the necessity and all of the potential benefits of consortiums as a model for effective national and regional advocacy. That is why the specific training was organised and methodological guidelines (“We are different but act together”) were developed to summarize best approaches and to provide communities with practical recommendations on how to build effective consortiums working in budget advocacy.

Together with 6 other regional networks consortium members launched joint “Chase the virus, not people!” campaign at AIDS 2018 conference. EHRA, ECOM along with ECUO were the coordinating parties of the campaign. The aim of the campaign is to draw attention to the problems of key population groups, against the backdrop of the catastrophic situation with the HIV/AIDS epidemic in EECA for comprehensive support of the region by the world community. Increase the priority of actions to overcome the discrimination and stigmatization of vulnerable and communities – as a key condition for an effective response to the HIV epidemic in EECA countries.

National level

While the perfect model and mode for transition from donor to domestic funding is yet to be discovered, there have been decisive steps taken in a number of countries to improve the situation. We work with our community organizations within each consortium individually and try to look at the situation in relation to all ISPs in the country at large. This enables building a win-win partnerships, raising stronger voice for change, gives consortia more influence on decision making level, including on funding of ISP services.

In June, 2016 members of the PUD, PLWH, MSM and transgender communities from Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and Estonia gathered together at the training “Budget advocacy and assessment of investments and priorities related to HIV prevention, diagnostics, treatment and care”, learned about the project and agreed on joint actions to collect and analyze investments and priorities related to HIV services.

In 2016 MSM, PLHIV and PWID communities from Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and Estonia conducted community led monitoring of HIV related survices, presented the results to relevant stakeholders and formulate strategic plans of national consortiums based on it.

Armenian consortium prepared the “Armenian civil society opinion on government readiness for transition to state funding”. Transition processes in the country have been advancing recently and consortium members are involved in them.

In Kyrgyzstan PLHIV, LGBT and PWUD community organizations are widely represented in the platforms that have their say on national HIV response. They are part of discussion during planning national HIV program which include transitional and reforming state procurement mechanism for ARVs.

As the result of the community mobilization, it was possible to recruit a group of new activists for the PWUD community in the North-East of Estonia. The core group of PWUD activists gained access to the resources of community assessment and mobilization in the summer of 2016. By the end of 2016, it was possible to register an NGO based on the initiative group. 
Estonian consortium has been actively engaged with National Institute of Health Development to work on more community based and low threshold programs for ISPs. Technical assistance provided by ECUO helped national consortium develop National Advocacy Plan of the Estonian communities.

About Harm Reduction Funding

Guidance from World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) suggests that reversing an HIV epidemic requires 60% of all people who inject drugs (PWID) to be reached regularly by a needle syringe program (NSP), and that 40% of all opiate users be enrolled in opioid substitution therapy (OST).

Governments of Central and East Europe and Central Asia (CEECA) provide less than 15% of harm reduction funding needed in the region, which indicates region’s strong dependency on international donors who support both NSP and OST. At the same time, many of the countries in the CEECA region are becoming ineligible to receive donor funding due to increasing GNP per capita level. There are no more countries in CEECA that are classified as low-income – the funding priority for key donors such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

Epidemics among PWID cannot be reversed without greater and sustained state funding of harm reduction. Investments are needed to improve service quality and coverage level of both NSP and OST. Governments and other domestic sources have responsibility for meeting these investment needs. Their increased and sustained engagement is essential because the Global Fund is swiftly withdrawing from the region to concentrate on supporting low-income countries across the globe.

One of the key priorities of Eurasian Harm Reduction Association (EHRA) is to build capacity of PWID communities in CEECA in budget advocacy – a process enabling civil society organizations and communities to monitor and influence state decisions for the allocation of public funds towards harm reduction programs and better solutions safeguarding people’s health.

Budget advocacy by communities may have the greatest impact on actions of authorities, and in its turn, on the lives of people. With that in mind we believe that:

  • It is crucially important to engage PWID community in planning through estimating the unmet needs for harm reduction services and defining priority items for a policy agenda change and financing;
  • Allow for direct financing of civil society through social contracting or similar mechanisms, to deliver harm reduction and HIV and TB services to PWID, is the most evident way for the governments to sustain services and funding;
  • An important consideration is that cost-effectiveness can best be obtained not by cutting services, but by making them more efficient through their optimization.

Increasing national funding should go hand in hand with reversing harsh prohibition laws and change of enforcement policies that discriminate PWID. Otherwise scale-up in funding would not convert to increased program coverage.

About Drug Policy Reform

Representing different political, cultural and socio-economist contexts, CEECA countries continue to apply prohibition approach and punitive sanctions for drug possession for personal use.

Massive incarceration of people who use drugs is the most obvious, but not the only negative consequence of criminalisation of drug use or possession for personal use. Criminalisation affects health – the fear of police prosecution increases the use of unsterile syringes and thus fuels HIV and viral hepatitis epidemics; overdose mortality rates are also, to a big extend, driven by harsh drug policies. Punitive sanctions for drugs create barriers to social reintegration of people who use drugs decreasing their chance for employment, education and vocational training and, most importantly, building social and family relations.

Punitive sanctions for drug use and possession exit in various forms – it can be years of prison sentences, or arrest for several days, fines or correctional works. While an arrest or a fine cause less harm to health and social wellbeing of an individual than a longterm imprisonment, the substance remains the same – it is a sanction, a punishment, which is aim is to cause suffering, but not to help. Thus real alternatives to criminal sanctions for drugs are not administrative fines but programs that refer people who use drugs to health or social service that they need.

Such referral can be made at the point of arrest and include access to harm reduction programs, opioid substitution and other drug treatment, HIV testing and treatment, mental health programs, vocational training, employment, housing etc. There is growing evidence that diversion from arrest programs cost less and are more effective in terms of decreasing the criminal behaviour (for more information see https://www.leadbureau.org/).

In CEECA diversion from arrest programs only start to be implemented. Pilot programs are run in Estonia and Lithuania, while in a number of countries – Georgia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan – their initiation is discussed by national stakeholders. However, the region will go a long way to reorient its drug policies to humanistic and right-based approach.

In fact, any social belief or stereotype built on the thesis that people who use drugs are less worthy of social benefits than those who do not use drugs is a form of violence in itself. Social stigma associated with drugs and criminalisation lead to systematic discrimination of people who use drugs in the healthcare system: they are often denied effective drug treatment such as opioid substitution treatment, HIV and viral hepatitis prevention and treatment, access to pain management, etc. In particular, women who use drugs suffer from disproportional damage: they are deprived of parental rights, they have limited access to sexual and reproductive health care services (especially during pregnancy), they are subjected to brutal police and domestic violence. Their stigmatisation is complex and multifaceted, which makes them much more susceptible and vulnerable to HIV and other infections.

In CEECA, in general, the institutes of the protection of human rights of vulnerable populations are underdeveloped, while there are significant differences in factors that explain low access to and limited efficiency in using human rights instruments. In addition to that, extremely low interest to human rights violations experienced by people who use drugs among ‘mainstream’ human rights and gender rights movements can be explained by extremely high stigma around drug-related issues. In this context, the central role in documenting human rights violation and analysing them through the prism of international and national legislation has to be given to people who use drugs and their ‘traditional allies’ – harm reduction programs.

Regional meetings of EHRA members to elect Steering Committee members in Russia and South-Eastern Europe

On 21 May – 4 June, 2018 EHRA conducts online Regional Meetings of it’s members to elect new Steering Committee representatives in the following regions:

  • Russia (Russia);
  • South-Eastern Europe (Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Romania, Serbia, the Kosovo territory).

All members (individual and organizational), who are from the above-mentioned regions and who are approved by the Steering Committee have a right to vote in the Regional meetings.

If you have any questions, please contact General Secretary of the Regional meetings – Eliza Kurcevič members@harmreductioneurasia.org

 

Russia

 

Alexander Levin

Know your candidate
Motivation Letter

Maxim Malyshev

Know your candidate
Motivation Letter

South-Eastern Europe

Samir Ibisevic

Know your candidate
Motivation Letter

Miso Pejkovic

Know your candidate
Motivation Letter

EHRA announces the General Meeting and Regional Meetings in Russia and South-Eastern Europe regions

On May 21 – June 4, 2018 Eurasian Harm Reduction Association (EHRA) conducts the General Meeting of its members. During the fortnight, members of EHRA will have online-voting for six main issues:

  1. Approval of EHRA financial report for 2017 year;
  2. Approval of Regulations of the General and Regional members’ meetings of EHRA;
  3. Approval of Regulations of the Steering Committee of EHRA;
  4. Approval to prolong terms for 2 more months for 5 members of the Steering Committee and shorten term of 2 months for 1 member;
  5. Approval of the timeline of the Regional meetings to elect Steering Committee members;
  6. Approval of EHRA Advisory Board.

All members approved by EHRA Steering Committee may participate in the General Meeting. At the moment, there are 205 members. The full list of members is available on the EHRA website – https://old.harmreductioneurasia.org/members/

Members from the regions of Russia and South-Eastern Europe will also vote for the Steering Committee members to represent their region. Please, find information about the candidates to the Steering Committee to represent Russia and South-Eastern Europe here: https://old.harmreductioneurasia.org/regional-meetings-of-ehra-members-to-elect-steering-committee-members-in-russia-and-south-eastern-europe/

Details on the voting procedure and participation can be clarified by contacting Eliza Kurcevic via e-mail: members@harmreductioneurasia.org

The Global Fund Human Rights Complaints Procedure. Brochure

The Global Fund is committed to protecting and promoting human rights in the context of AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.

That means removing human rights barriers to accessing health services for women and girls, sex workers, people who use drugs, men who have sex with men, transgender people, people in prison, migrants and refugees, indigenous peoples and others who are particularly impacted by one or more of the three diseases.

The Global Fund has tasked its Office of the Inspector General with the responsibility of investigating some kinds of complaints of violations of human rights in programs which it supports.

The brochure on the human rights complaint mechanism explains the Global Fund’s minimum human rights standards for all grant recipients, and the complaints procedure. It is available in the following languages (click links for the files):

Also you can read and download the recently-published Global Fund Human Rights Complaint Mechanism Assessment.

The assessment was commissioned by the CRG department to understand why uptake of this complaint mechanism has been low. One of the findings is lack of information/awareness of the mechanism.

Status of transitions from Global Fund support in the EECA region

Author: Ivan Varentsov, EHRA Sustainability and Transition Advisor and Coordinator of the EECA Regional Platform for Communication and Coordination
 

Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA) is one of two regions, along with Latin America and the Caribbean, where planning for the transition away from Global Fund support is most advanced. In this article, we provide an overview of the transition status of HIV, TB and malaria components of the countries in the EECA.

The STC Policy

In April 2016, the Global Fund’s Board adopted a Sustainability, Transition and Co-Financing (STC) Policy, which outlines (a) the high-level principles for engaging with countries on the long-term sustainability of Global Fund–supported programs, as well as (b) a framework for ensuring successful transitions from Global Fund financing.

According to the STC Policy, all countries, regardless of their economic capacity and disease burden, should be planning for sustainability and embedding sustainability considerations within national strategies, and program and grant design and implementation. For countries with high disease burdens and fewer resources, the STC Policy emphasizes the need for domestic investments to build resilient and sustainable systems for health and move towards universal health coverage. As countries move along the development continuum –– either by increasing economic resources or lowering disease burden –– expectations are for greater transition planning, as well as for co-financing targeting specific transition challenges and programming for key populations.

The Global Fund’s Eligibility Policy allows components that become ineligible from one allocation period to the next to receive one allocation of transition funding “for priority transition needs.” This applies to most country components with existing grants, but there are exceptions. Components are not eligible for transition funding if the country:

  • becomes categorized as high-income; or
  • is a member of the G-20, moves to upper-middle-income (UMI) status and has less than an extreme disease burden; or
  • becomes a member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC).
 

For components eligible for transition funding, the STC Policy states that the funding request should focus exclusively on activities that are included in the country’s transition work plan and that are essential to achieving, by the end of the grant, full domestic funding and management of activities currently funded by the Global Fund.

The clause concerning transition funded was added to the Fund’s eligibility policy in November 2013. (The policy was called the Eligibility and Counterpart Financing Policy at the time.)

For the purposes of this overview, we have divided components into the following categories:

  • components that did not receive transition funding because they were already ineligible when the policy on transition funding was adopted;
  • components receiving transition funding for the 2017–2019 allocation period;
  • other components that are projected to transition away from Global Fund support by 2025;
  • other components that have started transition planning; and
  • components that still have time for long-term transition planning.

Components that did not receive transition funding because they were already ineligible when the policy on transition funding was adopted

A number of components are included in this category. Below, we list those that were active as recently as 2015.

Bulgaria HIV. The last HIV grant was a rounds-based grant that was originally planned to end on 31 December 2015. In order to support the country with HIV prevention activities for key populations, the grant was extended and then went through a closure period that ended in September 2017. In both 2016 and 2017, as per the Global Fund’s eligibility list, Bulgaria HIV was potentially eligible for funding under the NGO Rule. However, Bulgaria did not meet the political barriers requirement of the rule.
 

Bosnia and Herzegovina HIV. The last rounds-based HIV grant ended on 30 September 2016, after which it went through a grant closure period. The closure period continued into 2017. At the end of 2017, the Global Fund Secretariat, using flexibilities under the STC Policy, exceptionally approved to continue the grant closure period through 31 November 2018. This will allow the continuation of a limited number of activities to facilitate the transition of prevention and care and support services for key populations in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Bosnia and Herzegovina TB. The end date for the last TB grant was 31 July 2016.

Macedonia HIV. The last rounds-based HIV grant came to an end in December 2017. This was after a 12-month non-costed extension of the grant was made using flexibilities under the STC Policy to help ensure a responsible transition of HIV activities, and to support ongoing efforts at the country level to advocate for increased domestic resources for key and vulnerable populations.

Macedonia TB. The last TB grant formally ended in September 2016. There was a non-costed grant extension to 31 March 2017 to support the country to transition from Global Fund support.

(Both Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina were ineligible for Global Fund support as early as 2010 because they were categorized as upper-middle-income (UMI) countries and had less than a high disease burden for both HIV and TB. Both countries benefited from a previous policy provision which allowed them to still be considered as lower-middle-income (LMI) countries.

Russian Federation HIV. The last HIV grant ended in December 2017, with a closure period expected to end in June 2018. This was a non-CCM grant under the NGO Rule.

Serbia TB. The last rounds-based TB grants ended on 31 March and 30 June 2015.

Components receiving transition funding in 2017–2019

The following components became ineligible for regular funding after the 2014–2016 allocations were announced and were therefore eligible to receive transition funding for 2017–2019:

Albania HIV. This component became ineligible for regular funding in 2015 and was subsequently allocated $1.1 million in transition funding for 2017–2019.

Albania TB. This component became ineligible for regular funding in 2015 and was subsequently allocated $500,000 in transition funding for 2017–2019.

Turkmenistan TB. This component became ineligible for regular funding in 2016 and was subsequently allocated $4.0 million in transition funding for 2017–2019.

Note: Bulgaria has an existing TB grant from the 2014–2016 allocation period which is scheduled to end in September 2018. The TB component became ineligible for further regular funding in 2016. Bulgaria TB should have been eligible to receive transition funding for 2017–2019. However, Aidspan was told by the Global Fund Secretariat that in June 2015 the existing TB grant was developed and negotiated with the understanding that Bulgaria would not receive further funding from the Global Fund, and that the necessary measures for a successful transition to domestic funding would be adopted during implementation of the existing grant (see GFO article).

Other components projected to transition by 2025

To support countries in their planning, the Global Fund produced a list of components projected to transition fully from Global Fund financing by 2025 due to changes in income categorization and/or disease burden classification. (The list assumes current eligibility criteria will continue to apply.) The following EECA components are on this list:

The Kosovo territory HIV and TB. Both components are projected to become ineligible in 2020–2022 based the country’s anticipated move to upper-middle-income status and may receive transition funding in 2023–2025.

Kazakhstan HIV and TB. The country is projected to move to the high-income category during 2023–2025. Both components will not be entitled to receive transition funding because high-income countries are ineligible across the board.

Armenia HIV and TB. According to the recently published Eligibility List 2018, Armenia is newly categorized as a UMI country. As a result, both components are now eligible to receive a final allocation of transition funding in 2020-2022. (See GFO article on the new eligibility list.)

Other components that have started transition planning

The Global Fund expects all eligible UMI countries –– and all eligible LMI countries with components whose disease burden is classified as low or moderate –– to begin sustainability and transition planning, or to build upon existing planning, during the 2017–2019 period. There are six countries in the EECA with components that are in this cohort and that are not already on the list of components projected to transition by 2025: Azerbaijan (HIV, TB), Belarus (HIV, TB), Georgia (HIV, TB), Montenegro (HIV), Serbia (HIV) and Romania (TB). These countries are already working on transition. For example, both Belarus and Georgia have already developed formal transition plans and have started to implement them (for Belarus, see GFO article).

There are no active Global Fund malaria grants in the EECA region.

Components that still have time for long-term sustainability and transition planning

While it is not possible to predict with certainty transition timelines, components from low-income countries (regardless of disease burden) and components from LMI countries with a disease burden classification of high or above are not expected to transition from the Global Fund support imminently. But under the STC Policy, they are expected to focus on long-term sustainability planning by supporting the development of robust national health strategies, disease-specific strategic plans and health financing strategies.

There are no low-income countries in EECA region. However, components from the following LMI countries fall under this category: Kyrgyzstan (HIV, TB), Moldova (HIV, TB), Tajikistan (HIV, TB), Uzbekistan (HIV, TB), Ukraine (HIV, TB).

Summary table

The following table provides a list of the components in the various categories discussed above.

Table: Components in the various categories of transition from Global Fund support

Ineligible before the policy on transition funding was adopted *Receiving transition funding in 2017–2019Projected to transition by 2025Started transition planningStill have time for long-term sustainability and transition planning
Bulgaria HIV
B&H HIV, TB
Macedonia HIV
Russia HIV
Serbia TB
Albania HIV, TB
Turkmenistan TB
Armenia HIV, TB
the Kosovo territory HIV, TB
Kazakhstan HIV, TB
Azerbaijan HIV, TB
Belarus HIV, TB
Georgia HIV, TB Montenegro HIV
Serbia HIV
Kyrgyzstan HIV, TB
Moldova HIV, TB
Tajikistan HIV, TB
Uzbekistan HIV, TB
Ukraine HIV, TB
 

* In the first column, only components still active as recently as 2015 are listed.

Transition in reverse: Components that regained their eligibility

There are three countries in EECA region whose HIV components were newly classified as eligible on the Eligibility List 2017 after meeting eligibility criteria for two consecutive eligibility determinations, and which received allocations for the 2017–2019 period. These components are as follows:

Kazakhstan HIV. This component became ineligible for Global Fund support in 2011 because it was a UMI country with only a moderate disease burden. However, its HIV disease burden classification changed to high on the Eligibility List 2016.

Montenegro HIV.  Montenegro became ineligible for both HIV and TB in 2008 when it moved up to UMI status and its HIV and TB components had less than a high disease burden. Both components “hung on” until Round 9 in 2009 because they benefited from a previous policy provision (which is no longer exists) which allowed them to “keep” their LMI status for an extra year. In 2016, Montenegro’s HIV disease burden classification was changed to “high.”

Serbia HIV. As a UMI country, Serbia’s funding ended abruptly after its HIV burden was lowered to moderate. Its HIV burden classification went back up to high in 2015.

Both Montenegro and Serbia were told, via their allocation letters, that their allocations for 2017–2019 were conditional on their funding requests focusing on key affected populations. Specifically, the letters stated that the allocations “are dependent on the functionality, in form and substance acceptable to the Global Fund, of a social contracting mechanism for engagement of non-governmental organizations through which the … governmental institution(s) and the Global Fund will finance HIV prevention, care and support activities.”

Source of the original content: http://www.aidspan.org/gfo_article/status-transitions-global-fund-support-eeca-region

Projected Transitions from Global Fund support by 2025 – projections by component

The Global Fund proactively supports countries in planning for the sustainability of programs and successful transitions from Global Fund support and has produced a list of country components projected to transition fully from Global Fund financing by 2025 due to improvements in income classification and based on current eligibility criteria. These projections are not intended as binding determinations or statements of Global Fund policy, and are only provided as an additional resource to assist countries in preparing for transition.

Health Policy Plus: Social Contracting: Supporting Domestic Public Financing for Civil Society’s Role in the HIV Response

Originally published on www.healthpolicyplus.com

One policy reform aimed at maintaining the critical role of civil society in the HIV response in concert with domestic resource mobilization efforts is the development of government-led mechanisms to finance civil society through formalized contractual channels. Such partnerships between governments and civil society are widely referred to as “social contracting.” HP+ is providing technical assistance to countries to best prepare for donor transitions and help governments and civil society organizations with understanding and implementing social contracting through financial and policy means.

Download document