dual track financing in burundi
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/2/2019 Dual Track Financing in Burundi
1/19
Dual Track Financing (DTF)
Lessons Learned in appointing an indigenous
Civil Society Principal Recipient (PR).
The Case of Burundi
Eastern Africa National Networks of AIDS Service Organizations
-
8/2/2019 Dual Track Financing in Burundi
2/19
Acknowledgements
In recognition of the growing work emanating out of Global Fund (GF) programmes in
Eastern Africa, EANNASO has taken a keen interest in supporting its members with
information that seek to capture civil society experiences of engaging in GF processes in the
region. Therefore, in documenting the selection of the Civil Society Principal Recipient experience
in Burundi, as per Dual Track Financing (DTF) requirements, EANNASO secretariat we would like
to acknowledge and express profound gratitude to the following:
(i) ABS board, staff and management for organising the field work and engaging fullywith the research team from EANNASO.
(ii) The EANNASO Team Leader for Information, Communication & Research, RomanMukendi, for leading the research process both in terms of data collection, analysis
and writing.
(iii) The EANNASO Team Leader for Networking Development & Support, TitusTwesige, for supporting in data collection and review of draft field reports.
A special thank you goes to all key informants and CSOs who participated in the focus group
discussions and interviews. Last but not least, the EANNASO Executive Director, Lucy
Nganga, for strategic direction and leadership in ensuring the documentation took place.
2
-
8/2/2019 Dual Track Financing in Burundi
3/19
Acronyms
ABS Alliance Burundaise contre le SIDA (Alliance against AIDS in Burundi)
ANNS Association Nationale de Soutien aux Seropositifs et Sideens
ASOs AIDS Service Organisations
CCM- Country Coordinating Mechanisms
CNLS Conseil Nationale de Lutte contre le SIDA (Council for the Fight against AIDS)
CSOs Civil Society Organisations
DTF Dual Track Financing
EANNASO Eastern African National Networks of AIDS Service Organisations
IHAA International HIV and AIDS Alliance
PHAs People Living with HIV and AIDS
PR Principal Recipient
RBP+ - Reseau Burundais des personnes Vivant avec le VIH/SIDA (National Network of People
Living with HIV and AIDS)
SR Sub-Recipient
TSF Technical Support Facility
UNAIDS Joint United Nations Proggramme on HIV and AIDS
WHO World Health Organisation
3
-
8/2/2019 Dual Track Financing in Burundi
4/19
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................2Acronyms .....................................................................................................................3
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................4
1.0 Introduction .....................................................................................................5
1.1 Dual-Track Financing - What does it mean?............................................6
1.2 Objectives of Documenting DTF experience in Burundi.......................6
1.3 Methodology ....................................................................................................7
2.0 The Journey to Dual Track Financing in Burundi ....................................7
3.0 Selecting the Civil Society PR....................................................................11
4.0 Country Proposal Development Process .................................................13
5.0 Lessons Learned and Recommendations................................................16
6.0 Appendices.....................................................................................................18Appendix I: Focus Group Participants held on 3rd March 2010, Bujumbura18
Appendix II: Focus Group participants (ABS Staff) held on 2nd March 2010,
Bujumbura .................................................................................................................18
Appendix III: Key Informants ...............................................................................18
Appendix III: Interview Guide ..............................................................................19
4
-
8/2/2019 Dual Track Financing in Burundi
5/19
1.0 IntroductionThe first AIDS case in Burundi was diagnosed in 1983. Since then the epidemic has grown rapidly,
making HIV and AIDS one of the major causes of mortality in the country. The socio-political crisisof the 1990s, poverty and large-scale displacement of populations have contributed to the rapid spread
of the epidemic which is generalised1.
The continued political conflict in Burundi was exacerbated by the assassination of the countrys first
president in 1993 and his successor in 1994 which plunged the country into civil war2. During the
time of war it was civil society organisations like the Society of Women and AIDS in Africa
(SWAA), Association Nationale de Soutien aux Seropositifs et Sideens (ANSS) etc which were
supporting community initiatives on HIV and AIDS related activities.
Although civil society organisations continued to shoulder most of the AIDS work, the war crisis
persisted in hindering the fight against HIV and AIDS. In 2002, the government established the
Council for the Fight against AIDS (CNLS) to coordinate and guarantee a multi-sectoral coordination
of HIV and AIDS work now under the Ministry of HIV and AIDS. CNLS was established to manage
the World Bank project - the Muti-Country HIV and AIDS Programme (MAP) which promoted a
multi-sectoral response to HIV and AIDS aimed at engaging both local communities and the private
sector.
By the end of 2005, the Country Coordinating Mechanism (CCM) under the Global Fund (GF)
funding mechanism appointed CNLS as the government sector Principal Recipient (PR) for Round
Two (2) and Five (5) based on its experience and competencies in grant management and
implementation of the MAP project. The CCM is a multi-stakeholder partnership established under
the auspices of the Global Fund to develop and submit country proposals as well as oversee grant
implementation if approved. They comprise of representatives from the public and private sectors,
non-governmental organisations and academic institutions3. The CCM in Burundi comprises of ten
(10) representatives from the public sector, eight (8) from the NGO sector, five (5) from the
bilateral/multilateral donor sector and one (1) representative from the academic sector.
1 Burundi, World Health Organisation, Epidemiological Fact Sheets, 2005.2 IRIN News Humanitarian Country Profile, February, 20073 Global Fund website, 20 April, 2010
5
-
8/2/2019 Dual Track Financing in Burundi
6/19
1.1 Dual-Track Financing - What does it mean?Civil society has not just been an advocate for the Global Fund (GF); it has also played an essential
role in the oversight and implementation of Global Fund grants. Following the introduction of the
Dual-Track Financing (DTF) concept in Round 8, the GF demanded for proposals to be implemented
by Principal Recipients (PRs) from both the government and the non-government sector. The
emphasis on this dual approach of grant implementation and management was intended to help
countries yield the following results:
To ensure that multiple sectors are involved in implementing GF grants To ensure that key affected populations are reached, especially in situations where they are
not included in government programmes.
To accelerate efforts to build capacity and scale up responses to AIDS, tuberculosis andmalaria.
To contribute to sustainability of programmatic interventions over the longer term, throughthe increased capacity that comes from a broader range of implementing partners.
Burundi is a good example of a country whose proposal factored DTF to include non-government
sector PRs and they were successful. The Global Funds recommendation on dual track financing
applies separately for each disease4
(HIV, TB and Malaria) hence the focus of this documentation
exercise on the HIV Civil Society Principal Recipient (PR) only.
1.2 Objectives of Documenting DTF experience in BurundiThe purpose of documenting the DTF experience in Burundi was to capture the Civil Society
experience in becoming a PR as well as to draw lessons learned and good practices to be shared in the
region. The following were the three key objectives of documenting Civil Society (CS) GF experience
around DTF in Burundi:
(i) To assess the process of selecting non-government sector PRs on HIV and AIDS(ii) To capture key milestones in Burundi adoption of DTF(iii) To obtain bottom-line data around country proposal development processes,
implementation and oversight of grants at country level
4GF Fact Sheet DTF 2008
6
-
8/2/2019 Dual Track Financing in Burundi
7/19
1.3 MethodologyThe qualitative research methodology was deployed to guide the entire documentation process. A case
study approach was used to offer a stand-alone Burundi GF experience on DTF. Data collection
methods included: two focus group discussions (one with staff members of ABS and the other with
various key stakeholders see appendix I and II) and In-depth face-to-face interviews with key
informants (see appendix III). The use of a variety of methods in this study was important so as to
enable the documentalists to generate as much information as possible and to make more meaningful
comparisons of different view points. Worth mentioning is that most documents accessed were
written in French and due to both human and financial constraints and limitations in the French
language it was quite difficult to aptly sruitinize all documents made available to the documenting
team. In addition, the research team also found it extremely difficult to undertake a validation exercise
owing to limitations in language and financial resources.
2.0 The Journey to Dual Track Financing in BurundiThis section describes in detail the key processes that Burundi followed in deciding to adopt Dual
Track Financing (DTF) for the country proposal for Round 8 of Global Fund. It highlights events
which ignited country interest in DTF as well as consultative participatory processes which later
culminated into the development and submission of the country proposal to the Global Fund (GF).
a) Regional and International Meetings on DTF and other GF related Issues
During the year 2008 when the DTF concept for Round 8 was introduced, a number of both regional
and international meetings were organised to unbundle the DTF concept as well as other GF related
issues such as Community Systems Strengthening (CSS), Health Systems Strengthening (HSS) etc.
In February 2008, Population Service International (PSI), International HIV and AIDS Alliance
(IHAA), International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), Global Alliance and the Global Fund
Friends of Africa organised a regional workshop in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, to sensitise key players
across Africa the importance of mainstreaming DTF, reproductive health and Most-At-Risk-
Populations (MARPS) in country proposals to the Global Fund. From Burundi the workshop was
attended by representatives from the CNLS, Ministry of Health, and CSOs. At this meeting the
concept DTF was unpacked as articulated in Round Eight (8) guidelines of the Global Fund.
Discussions from these meetings armed the Burundi team with firsthand information which helped
them to advocate for DTF in their country. The advocacy process included submitting the workshop
report to the CCM with specific recommendations on DTF as well as CNLS officials and technical
7
-
8/2/2019 Dual Track Financing in Burundi
8/19
-
8/2/2019 Dual Track Financing in Burundi
9/19
(c) CCM adoption of DTF
The DTF discussions among CSOs, government officials and development partners stimulated by
advocacy work, prompted the CCM to meet and decide whether to adopt DTF or not, the outcome of
which DTF was adopted for Round Eight (8). In choosing the non-government sector PR, CCM set-up
the selection criteria and requested CSOs to undertake consultations among themselves and submit the
proposed name of the potential PR. For the first time, the CCM apparently just tasked the CSOs to go
and agree on which organisation was suitable to be PR and report back. After CSOs failed to reach
consensus on which CSO was to be appointed PR, the CCM then set up a technical committee to
receive the applications afresh and select the non-government sector PR. The next sections detail the
process which led to the lack of consensus among CSOs and how the final decision to select the non-
government sector PR was made.
(d) Civil Society (CS) Second Consultative Meeting
As intimated earlier, the two major national civil society umbrella organisations on HIV and AIDS
(ABS and RPB+) took the lead in organising civil society consultations after the CCM adopted DTF
and instructed civil society to consult on the potential PR. Interestingly, the two organisations despite
having vested interest in being nominated for PRship agreed among themselves to co-chair
consultation meetings, to jointly handle logistics of organising consultations and facilitate civil society
participation in the consultations. Important to note, however, is that both organisations were already
lead agencies of the GF grants in Round (2) and Five (5) with CNLS as the Principal Recipient (PR).
ABS was sub-granting to its members including giving funds to RBP+, while RBP+ had received GF
funds as an implementer for its Institutional capacity strengthening. Both organisations were also
represented on the CCM with express interest in applying for the non-government sector PRship.
RBP+ developed its organisational capacity after receiving funds from the PR for institutional
strengthening and were an SSR implementing R5 grants focusing on IGAs Patience
The second civil society consultative meeting was still limited to the 14 SRs under Round Two (2)
and Five (5). The discussions during this meeting were now confined to deciding on the non-
government PR. Amazingly, apart from a CCM representative being present during the consultations,
there was no external facilitator or observer invited to attend the meeting.
During discussions, participants agreed to request all CSOs keen to be appointed as PRs to express
their interest and seek to undertake a self-assessment exercise which would highlight their
competencies and technical abilities. The two organisations (ABS and RBP+) emerged as the only
9
-
8/2/2019 Dual Track Financing in Burundi
10/19
two organisations capable of being appointed as PRs and as such were tasked to undertake the self-
assessments and present the findings to the members present at the next consultation. The nomination
of the two organisations did not come as a surprise because even prior to CSO consultations, informal
discussions with relevant bodies like CNLS, Ministry of Health and development partners insinuated
for the nomination of the two organisations. Worth noting as well is that most organisations present
during the consultations were new to the DTF process.
We got a lot of support from many people and organisations citing that ABS has the
structure, experience and coordination arrangements but has limitations in its capacity to
deliver as PR Patience
(e) Civil Society (CS) Third Consultative Meeting
At the second CSO consultative meeting, ABS presented its self-assessment report prepared by an
external consultant to the meeting. RBP+ had not yet conducted its assessment although this was later
done and presented during the next consultation. Even if the assessments were made, there was no
uniform assessment template which was used by both organisations; and while ABS was assisted by
an external consultant to conduct the assessment, RBP+ did not receive any technical support for the
same exercise. Therefore a number of questions regarding the integrity of the process can be raised
around standard templates (especially GF competence guidelines) for use by both organisations,
quality of the assessments and independence of professional thought in undertaking self-assessment
exercises.
However, discussions on the assessment reports ignited more deliberations and invited questions from
participants during consultations. For example, CSOs wanted to know how RBP+ as an implementing
organisation and as a network of PHAs would serve as PR because taking on this role has the
potential to divert the organisation from its core mandate. In response, RBP+ explained that taking on
the role of PR would actually strengthen the organisation and their strategy is to set-up a granting unitto ensure that their work is not disrupted and that they had developed full capacity after implementing
Round 5 grant. They also highlighted their comparative advantage of working with the grass-root and
having linkages with structures like the hospitals in various parts of the country.
We are not implementers, we build capacity and undertake advocacy for our member networks in
the various regions of the country RBP+.
Questions directed at ABS lingered around how the organisation intends to address capacity gaps (low
human resource and logistical capacity) identified in the self assessment report. ABS responded by
10
-
8/2/2019 Dual Track Financing in Burundi
11/19
indicating that they had forged strong partnerships with organisations such as EANNASO, IHAA, GF
Friends of Africa and UNAIDS to provide them with technical and human resource support. They
also noted that support for capacity enhancement of the PR was covered in the country proposal itself.
3.0 Selecting the Civil Society PRThis section encapsulates the process taken by civil society organisations to arrive at their nomination
of the PR and the associated challenges experienced by contesting parties in accepting decisional
outcomes made by both the civil society organisations and the CCM. It unravels the process which the
CCM undertook to arrive at the final decision of choosing the non-government sector PR.
(a) Voting process to nominate PR
The 14 CSOs present during the consultation process described above moved a motion to vote for the
civil society PR after a careful review of the self-assessment reports presented by both ABS and
RBP+. The meeting proposed two options/motions upon which they based there voting. The two
options were:
(i) That one organisation from among CSOs should be decided upon and chosen as PR by CSOsand be presented to the CCM.
(ii) That two organisations be named, ranked in order of prioritisation and be submitted to CCMand allow CCM to choose one PR.
Majority (11) of the participants present voted for option One, two (2) voted for option Two and one
voted for none of the options by noting that they would prefer two organisations to be named and
submitted, but not ranked in order of prioritisation. The majority vote prevailed and participants
present moved into casting of votes for one civil society PR. The voting process was presided over by
one of the CSO called ANSS and the results were as follows:
(i) 11 votes in favour of ABS
(ii) 1 vote in favour of RBP+
(iii) 1 vote (by RBP+) abstained
11
-
8/2/2019 Dual Track Financing in Burundi
12/19
After the results were declared, CSOs agreed to present the name of the winning organisation to CCM
for endorsement and approval. Upon submission of the nominated organisation by CSOs, RBP+
officially protested to the CCM and refused the results of the civil society consultation on the
following grounds:
(i) That participants present were all members of ABS(ii) That the process was highly politicised by ABS(iii) That ABS undertook a lobbying exercise to influence the process
RBP+ insisted that most CSOs present refused to go by the self-assessment criterion by critically
looking at the strengths and weaknesses of each organisation but rather preferred to go the voting
way.
Overall, looking at the process taken by CSOs to nominate their PR it can be inferred that problematic
elements of mistrust were inherent. For example, the contesting organisations were organisers of the
electoral process, they were presenters of the election outcome to CCM themselves without any
independent external support necessary to warrant credibility to the entire process.
Most CSOs are members of ABS and they were pushing for ABS nomination without taking
capacity requirements into account RBP+
This protest was viewed by CCM as indicative of grave differences, disharmony and a lack of
unified position by CSOs CCM
(b) Final Selection of PR by CCM
The protest by RBP+ over the election results from the civil society consultation was viewed by CCM
as indicative of grave differences, disharmony and a lack of unified position by CSOs on the selection
of a non-government sector PR.
To address the situation, the CCM decided to set-up a technical committee to receive self-assessment
documents and to review competencies of the two contesting organisations (ABS and RBP+). The
technical committee comprised of four CCM appointed members (1 former Coordinator of GF Round
5, 1 former Coordinator of GF Round 4 malaria component, 1 representative from a CSO dealing with
malaria and 1 representative from an FBO). The technical committee at its sittings recommended
12
-
8/2/2019 Dual Track Financing in Burundi
13/19
RBP+ as the civil society or non-government sector PR, citing it strong capacities in the area of
human resource, experience in Global Fund work and technical management capabilities. The
decision of the technical committee was upheld by consensus within CCM. Apparently, CCM
decision-making processes during its sittings are usually by consensus, voting is normally encouraged
if there are differing views.
Naturally, ABS and other CSOs who supported ABS nomination protested and registered their
grievances officially to the CCM on the following grounds:
a) That the technical committee did not visit, or show any sign of re-assessing the capacity ofABS.
b) That the technical committee did not take into account the civil society consultations that hadalready been conducted.
c) That the General-Secretary of RBP+ sits on the CCM and was present when the decision toappoint his organisation was taken thus a conflict of interest.
Upon receipt of the official complaints from ABS+ regarding the appointment of RBP+ as civil
society PR, the CCM still maintained its decision based on technical findings as presented by the
technical committee.
4.0 Country Proposal Development ProcessThis section describes the process followed by Burundi in developing the country proposal which was
eventually submitted to Global Fund for Round 8. More information is provided around the mediation
which took place among CSOs who had contested for PRship, proposal submission, the work of the
Local Funding Agency (LFA) and grant disbursements. Its worth mentioning here that the process of
agreeing on the non-government sector or civil society PR for Burundi occurred alongside the
development of the country proposal.
(a) Proposal Development
The following steps provide a systematic account of how Burundi as a country managed in a
consultative and participatory way to develop the country proposal to Global Fund for R8:
- The CCM met and made a decision to submit a country proposal for Round 8. Therefore, a threeman committee made up of one representative from CNLS, CCM and civil society was
constituted by the CCM to coordinate the proposal development process.
13
-
8/2/2019 Dual Track Financing in Burundi
14/19
- A central committee (made up of 60-100 people) consisting of all sectors (FBOs, CSOs,academics, research institutions, private sector, government etc) was set up to provide input into
the country proposal.
- From among members of the central committee, thematic teams in various areas such asPrevention, Treatment, Capacity Building, Care & Support, etc were constituted to provide
technical input in those specific areas.
- A small committee of experts (6-8 people) was selected from among central committee membersto give technical input in the drafting process and to produce draft zero of the country proposal.
The draft zero was then presented to the central committee for further discussion and validation.
- The final proposal was then presented to the CCM by the central committee for clearance,approval and submission.
- Both the central committee and the committee of technical experts were supported by a team ofinternational consultants led by Dr. Khenan Sharabeen (UNAIDS- TSF). The consultants
rendered technical support especially in the area of editing, proof reading and ensuring adherence
to Global Fund guidelines.
We believe as UNAIDS its our responsibility to give to the country the right capacity building
support in order to develop a sound country proposal UNAIDS Country Coordinator
(b) Mediation between ABS and RBP+ before Proposal Submission
Before submitting the proposal to the Global Fund, a country must demonstrate thorough participatoryconsultations and mutual agreement in the proposal development process. In Burundi, owing to the
persistent deep seated divisions and disagreements between the two major network organisations,
ABS and RBP+, emanating from the decision by CCM to select RBP+ as PR, it was difficult for the
country to move forward in submitting the proposal without armicably resolving the impasse.
Therefore, a two-man mediation team volunteered to carry out the mediation process between the two
parties. The team was made up of the International Lead Consultant Dr. Khenan Sharabeen and the
Executive Secretary of GLIA Dr. Joseph Wakana. The Terms of References (ToRs) for the mediation
team were broadly to broker a peaceful settlement between the two parties which would allow the
country to move forward in submitting the proposal to Global Fund.
14
-
8/2/2019 Dual Track Financing in Burundi
15/19
In view of the fact that the divisions among CSOs were mainly caused by the way the PR was finally
chosen by the CCM, the mediation team presented the two parties (ABS and RBP+) with the
following two options for consideration during the mediation process:
(i) That either both ABS and RBP+ be factored in the country proposal and jointly managefunds when made available or
(ii) That RBP+ remains as PR and ABS be factored in the proposal as lead SR supportingemerging Community Based Organisations (CBOs).
After much deliberation, option two prevailed and ABS accepted to serve as lead SR. A Memorandum
of Understanding (MoU) between the two parties was jointly developed and signed to that effect. The
MoU has continued to serve as a peaceful reference point and binding agreement among both parties.
Evidently, it is clear that even after signing the MoU there still exits some misunderstandings in the
interpretation of the key features of the MoU and aspects of the country proposal. For example, ABS
still questions what the provision supporting emerging Community Based Organisations in the MoU
entails. ABS also asserts that although both organisations (ABS and RBP+) are mentioned in the
implementation logical framework of the country proposal, RBP+ is seeking to change the stated roles
in the logical framework after receiving the first disbursement of funds from the Global Fund. At the
time of documenting this process, ABS was planning to call for a meeting of key CSOs to raise issues
around the implementation of the GF project and clarify issues with RBP+.
Proposal Submission to GF
As noted above, following the signing of the MoU between ABS and RBP+, the country proposal was
submitted to Global Fund and it was successful.
(c) LFA assessment visit
An LFA assessment of the non-government sector PR (RBP+) was conducted in July/August 2008
followed by an assessment of the lead SR (ABS) in July/August 2009. The lead SR was also assessed
in order to determine its capacity to manage large amounts of funds since it was predetermined in the
country proposal. By implication, other SRs will be implementing GF grants while ABS as the lead
SR will be sub-granting to CBOs.
(d) Disbursement of grants
15
-
8/2/2019 Dual Track Financing in Burundi
16/19
Upon fulfilling all Global Fund requirements around grant negotiations, the first phase of funding was
disbursed to the non-government sector or civil society PR and disbursement had since commenced.
Since receiving funds from GF in January 2010, the civil society PR had signed 30 agreements with
SRs at the time of conducting this study and government PR had not started disbursing. The lead SR
on the other hand expressed concern that the funds were transferred to the civil society PR in January
2010 and by March 2010 no funds were yet disbursed to implementers. The GF inspection team was
expected to visit the country in June, so there was fear that there will be delay in implementation.
5.0 Lessons Learned and RecommendationsThe following section outlines lessons learned as expressed by respondents and experienced by CSOs
in general:
(i) In view of the fact that the Burundi CCM from the onset did not carve out a clear roadmapwhich spells out the criterion and conflict management procedures for Civil Society
consultations, the aggrieved CSOs who supported ABS nomination for PRship still view the
appointment of RBP+ as government led without civil society involvement. It is thus strongly
recommended for CCMs to take a proactive role in providing basic standard guidelines that
seek to support civil society consultations and engagement on GF related issues at country
level.
(ii) The dual role of organising civil society consultations and contesting for the non-governmentsector PRship by both ABS and RBP+ interfered with the integrity of the process and offered
challenges of leadership in managing the entire consultative process. Seeing that Civil Society
in general is a vague concept for most developing countries like Burundi, it is incumbent
upon all civil society actors to seek to invest time in exploring ways that would facilitate
leadership, value addition and render credibility to processes of consultation regardless of
vested interests.
(iii) During the civil society consultations, it was vividly clear that each contesting organisationhad to carry out its self- assessment without a standard template, tools, guidelines or even
external support around the evaluations. In the absence of all these, it can be safely concluded
that the quality of the assessments were questionable, the degree of independence and
objectivity in carrying out the assessments was questionable as well. The two organisations
that hitherto had good relationships are now more divided and conflicting because of the
questionable quality of the process. This could be attributed to less ample time which was
16
-
8/2/2019 Dual Track Financing in Burundi
17/19
given to CSOs to prepare for the consultation process. However, for a multi-stakeholder
consultative process of this magnitude, it is recommended that quality assurance
arrangements and resources are deployed to effectively facilitate sound professional
judgement, understanding and acceptability of the process.
(iv) Overall, civil society organisations in Burundi enjoy a cordial and good relationship withgovernment. They appreciate efforts by government and the CCM to have accorded them the
opportunity to participate in the selection of the non-government sector PR and in the
development of the country proposal to Global Fund. They envision decentralisation of
services due to DTF with some challenges to scale-up due to anticipated national elections in
May 2010 which may affect the government PR in implementing the grant. The gesture of
complimentarity and goodwill on both the part of government and civil society organisations
in Burundi should be emulated as key in achieving progress for the common good of all
citizens.
(v) The initiative on the part of government and civil society organisations to participate, attendand learn in regional and international meetings on Global Fund Round 8 discussions and
later seek to share with the general civil society fraternity in Burundi is commendable. It is
true for most African countries that when such critical discussions happen at such forums
very few key stakeholders in-country are privy to such information for decision making and
further action.
(vi) What can be learned from the consultative process in Burundi is that management of conflictthrough mediation by neutral parties is essential in resolving any impasse among CSOs. It is
thus recommended that in developing a roadmap for civil society consultations or engagement
in a national process, aspects of conflict management should be taken into account to address
areas of disagreement as they emerge.
(vii) One other observation which did not emerge clearly is whether the two contestingorganisations (ABS and RBP+) had grasped the implications of being appointed PR. By
implication being appointed PR poses a conflicting role of sitting on the CCM and forfeits
their role of representing civil society on this key structure. As a lesson, civil society umbrella
organisations must endeavour to balance their representative interest vis--vis their financial
resource interests as they seek to serve as PRs.
17
-
8/2/2019 Dual Track Financing in Burundi
18/19
6.0 AppendicesAppendix I: Focus Group Participants held on 3rd March 2010, Bujumbura
Name of Participants Organisation
1. Simbashira J. Paul RENASES-SIMBIMANGA
2. Ndayisaba Baselisse SWAA, Burundi
3. Niyonkuku Josephine PlateForme ROMUA
4. Dr. Ngendakumana Fabien ANSS
5. Christine Bizimana RBP+
6. Ndizeye Janvien RENASES
7. Kandava Jacqueline Tubabarane
8. Patience Kubwumuremi ABS
9. Felix Nininaizwe ABS
10. Hakizimana Frederic CNLS
Appendix II: Focus Group participants (ABS Staff) held on 2nd March 2010,
Bujumbura
Name of Participants Designation Organisation
1. Patience Kubwumuremi National Coordinator ABS
2. Felix Nininaizwe Programme Manager ABS
3. Jose Nkurikiye Finance Manager ABS
4. Dennis Ndikunasaeo Secretary- General ABS
5. Glorias Ndayisenja Regional Coordinator ABS
Appendix III: Key Informants
Name of Participants Designation Organisation
1. Emmanuel Kararimbanya Executive Secretary CCM -Burundi
2. Benjamin Nicayenzi National Coordinator RBP+
3. Rosemeire Munhoz Country Coordinator UNAIDS - Burundi
18
-
8/2/2019 Dual Track Financing in Burundi
19/19
Appendix III: Interview Guide
Key Questions:
1. Please describe Burundis journey to DTF by highlighting the history and steps followed2. How was the selection of the non-government or civil society PR conducted?3. Please highlight how the country proposal was developed and submitted to Global Fund.4. In view of conflicts arising from civil society consultations in nominating a non-
government sector or civil society PR, how were these conflicts mediated or resolved?
5. Please highlight the assessments by the Local Fund Agency (LFA) and the status of grantdisbursement
6. What would say are the key lessons learned for Burundi around the DTF process?