PEPFAR is Rolling the Clock Back on Meaningful Civil Society Engagement

“This process was not thought through and I do not think it is adding any value.”

“It felt like the usual PEPFAR meetings, in which they invite you, you express yourselves, they act like they are listening, and then everything ends there.” 

That’s what two veteran activists said about participating in week one of PEPFAR’s COP23 Year 2 midterm review meetings in their countries last week.

Civil society leaders with years of experience engaging with PEPFAR were left frustrated by these midpoint meetings, saying, “The process was a mess…it wasn’t clear what the [breakout] groups were meant to deliver and we were reminded there wasn’t even much change that was going to happen,” and, “It felt like we are just there to make the presentations to make them in the plenary, which happens in less than 5 minutes. The process was not to engage, but it was to put on a show, an illusion that something is happening but actually it wasn’t.” 

In the past, PEPFAR planning processes have been used by communities to fight for–and win–changes in PEPFAR’s country plans, so that the program is more effective. Just two examples of that impact are accelerating PrEP roll-out for key populations and expanding funding for lifesaving community-led HIV treatment literacy programs. 

In just the first week of PEPFAR’s new two-year Country Operational Plan (COP) process, we’ve seen some of civil society’s deepest concerns play out in country after country:

• Very little time protected for these consequential discussions–just two days to cover what stakeholders spent weeks on in past years–rushing through hundreds of millions of dollars in spending in a matter of minutes; 
• Meeting agendas that didn’t include time for civil society to present their data, priorities, or recommendations; 
• The use of meeting breakout rooms that literally divided stakeholders and failed to recognize intersectional identities and issues;
• Little to no data shared from COP23 Quarter 1, making it impossible to review the plans’ efficacy or determine where changes need to be made; 
• No specific discussion of where PEPFAR’s proposed budget cuts could be applied, resulting in vague conversations that communities worry will be used as justification for cuts that country teams will decide behind closed doors.

People living with HIV, key populations, and their communities deserve better. Multi-billion dollar programs deserve to benefit from the rigorous engagement and expertise civil society can bring to the table during true consultations where impacted communities are treated as experts whose input is desired and valued. 

Together with comrades around the world, we are keeping the pressure on PEPFAR to follow its own guidance and meaningfully engage communities to shape country programs – not on arbitrary timelines set in Washington, D.C., but in ways that deliver results for people living with HIV and help end AIDS as a public health threat. 

This year’s process is different, so we’ve updated our tools and our organizing plans – and we need all hands on deck. You can read more about our engagement and how to get involved in the PEPFAR Watch Rough Guide to Influencing and Monitoring PEPFAR Country Programs, available in English and French. Check out our other resources on the PEPFAR Watch website, and sign up to receive email updates and invitations to civil society organizing meetings as we strategize together.