ABSTRACT
This chapter does not directly assess Zimbabwe’s governance performance; rather the objective of the chapter is to contribute to the strengthening of country-level institutional dimensions of governance within the HIV/AIDS response, through the sharing of in-country experiences. This is in relation to key administrative structures and processes linked to the multisectoral HIV/ AIDS response in Zimbabwe. The premise is that reports and communication must be made in the context that society, donors and other development partners now demand transparency and greater accountability from recipients of resources. This is with particular reference to institutions involved in the good governance undertaking and the management of the localised HIV/ AIDS response, with particular regards to their financial and non-financial affairs.1 Transparency in the allocation of funds and programme actions are essential to gain the widespread support from all stakeholders involved in addressing the HIV/AIDS looming funding crisis (Akukwe 2005).2 The heightened call for organisational accountability and transparency suggests that not all organisations and structures involved in HIV/AIDS are accountable or transparent, or adhere to good governance criteria or practices. In fact, it is commonly perceived that some governance structures lack credibility within society and amongst funding agencies. In agreement, Poku et al. suggest that generally in Africa, key in-country institutions have been affected by a history of poor governance and with the effects of high HIV/AIDS prevalence rates, resulting in weakened public sectors, and as such institutions cannot really be expected to be functional (Poku et al.. 2007). This chapter focuses on institutional governance. It begins by describing the
operational context of HIV/AIDS in Zimbabwe and the resources involved with the multisectoral response. Within the description of the in-country institutional governance structures, particular attention is given to the National AIDS Council (NAC)-administered National AIDS Trust Fund (NATF) as a key local funding institution and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (hereafter Global Fund). Discussions will acknowledge the five dimensions articulated by the South African Development Community (SADC) that underpin good governance and equally sustainable development, namely political, institutional, economic, social and
gender (SADC 2000). Reference is made to the administrative structures and processes through which HIV/AIDS policy design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation occur, and the institutional governance challenges faced by the local institutions (Strode and Grant 2004). In conclusion, it will be argued that in an increasingly resource-constrained environment, key administrative institutions, structures and processes need to be inclusive rather than exclusive in their recognition, undertaking and compliance of the core norms of good governance. These include participation3 transparency,4 responsiveness,5 consensus-building, effectiveness and efficiency and accountability6 with regard to the provision of HIV/AIDS services and goods. Accountable organisations should respond to the following basic, commonly asked questions: What is being accounted for? To Whom? and How? The paper draws on information gathered from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) position papers, in-country Global Fund administrative structures, NAC and Global Fund discussion papers, Global Fund grant recipients’ progress reports and review meetings. For the purposes of this paper ‘stakeholders’ will refer to internal (national) stakeholders unless otherwise specified. An internal organisational stakeholder refers to individuals and groups that can be infected and or are affected by the organisation’s policies and are a formal part of the organization. External stakeholders are not formally part of the organisation but can be affected by organisational decisions.
