Has global fund support for civil society advocacy in the former Soviet Union established meaningful engagement or 'a lot of jabber about nothing'?

Although civil society advocacy for health issues such as HIV transmission through injecting drug use is higher on the global health agenda than previously, its impact on national policy reform has been limited. In this paper we seek to understand why this is the case through an examination of civil society advocacy efforts to reform HIV/AIDS and drugs-related policies and their implementation in three former Soviet Union countries. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine by national researchers with representatives from a sample of 49 civil society organizations (CSOs) and 22 national key informants. We found that Global Fund support resulted in the professionalization of CSOs, which increased confidence from government and increased CSO influence on policies relating to HIV/AIDS and illicit drugs. Interviewees also reported that the amount of funding for advocacy from the Global Fund was insufficient, indirect and often interrupted. CSOs were often in competition for Global Fund support, which caused resentment and limited collective action, further weakening capacity for effective advocacy.

Circus monkeys or change agents? Civil society advocacy for HIV/AIDS in adverse policy environments.

This paper explores the factors enabling and undermining civil society efforts to advocate for policy reforms relating to HIV/AIDS and illicit drugs in three countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia: Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine. It examines how political contexts and civil society actors' strengths and weaknesses inhibit or enable advocacy for policy change - issues that are not well understood in relation to specific policy areas such as HIV/AIDS, or particular regions of the world where national policies are believed to be major drivers of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The study is based on in-depth interviews with representatives of civil society organizations (CSOs) (n = 49) and national level informants including government and development partners (n = 22). Our policy analysis identified a culture of fear derived from concerns for personal safety but also risk of losing donor largesse. Relations between CSOs and government were often acrimonious rather than synergistic, and while we found some evidence of CSO collective action, competition for external funding - in particular for HIV/AIDS grants from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria was often divisive. Development partners and government tend to construct CSOs as service providers rather than advocates. While some advocacy was tolerated by governments, CSO participation in the policy process was, ultimately, perceived to be tokenistic. This was because there are financial interests in maintaining prohibitionist legislation: efforts to change punitive laws directed at the behaviors of minority groups such as injecting drug users have had limited impact.