Overview of implementation of Y3 workplans April, 2016 – March, 2017

Abbreviations PWUD – people who use drugs SR – sub-recipient of the grant SSR – sub-sub recipient of the grant and representatives of PWUD community (working under supervision of SR) IG – initiative group of SSR The Regional Program – The Regional Program “Harm Reduction Works – Fund It!” CCM – country coordination mechanism (the supervision body on country level of funding received from the Global Fund against AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria) HR – Harm Reduction programs OST – Opioid substitute treatment NSP – Needles and syringes programs PLHIV – people living with HIV

National partners/Sub-recipients Lithuania – The coalition “I can live” Moldova – UORN Kazakhstan – The Union of people living with HIV (“KazSojuz”) Tajikistan – SpinPlius Belarus – The Positive movement (“Pozitivnoe dvizhenie”) Georgia – Georgian harm reduction network (GHRN)

3rd year work plan implementation/ Overview All coutnries succeeded in emplementing their workplans even though only few achieved the budget utilisation rate of 100per cent All countries successfully participated in main regional events: RTAG meeting (30-31 March, 2016) Budget advocacy training in Batumi (20-22 February, 2017) 5 study tours (Tajikistan had the study tour in June, 2017) 6 national budget advocacy meetings 5 national dialogues (Belarus will have it in June, 2017) National monitoring systems workshop (2 parts) (24-27 January, 2017) Regional Harm Reduction Conference in Vilnius (4-6 April, 2017) Consultation on EECA regional priorities in Vilnius (2-3 April, 2017) 5th round of monitoring visits (March 2017) Final Evaluation of the Regional Porgram, support in organising evaluation interviews (January – April, 2017) Interim Evaluation of the Regional Program , support in organising evaluation interviews (June – August, 2016) Collection of best practices of Harm Reduction domestic funding, support for consultants (June 2016 – April, 2017) All countries proved ability to conduct municipal and national round-tables, to build wide partnership and to organise trainings for PWUD Also all countries are comfortable in engaging in offcial exchange of letters, inviting governmental officials to events and asking for support to conduct events SSRs and other community members actively participate in advocacy events

Key activities Tajikistan Kazakhstan Civil Society and Community Organization Forum, Dushanbe (17 March 2017) (instead of the National Dialogue) Budget advocacy workshop (21-23 September 2016) Participation at the meeting on development of teaching module for the National Tajikistan University (27 August, 2016) The high level conference "Treatment instead of punishment“ (22 June, 2016) A serie of meeting with director of municipal Helath centers (April – June, 2016) Kazakhstan Two local roundtables on attracting resources from local budgets for the sustainability of harm reduction programs (NSP/OST) aimed at HIV prevention, (9 Feb., and 28 Feb., 2017, Temirtau and Ust-Kamenogorsk) Two SSRs’ and SRs’ study visits to other OST sites in Taraz and Uralsk, Kazakhstan (Jan. 16 and March 24, 2017) Budget advocacy seminar in Almaty (November 23-25, 2016) Оfficials’ from the Republic of Kazakhstan visit to the Islamic Republic of Iran with a study tour (17-19 October, 2016) National conference “HIV: yesterday, today, tomorrow” (12-13 October 2016) (instead of the National Dialogue) Police training coorganised with UNDP (July, 2016) Participation in public hearings on OST (thourghout the year, in Almaty - June 7, 2016) Georgia Study visit of Georgian governmental officials to Czech Republic (14-16 Feb., 2017) Civil Society Organization Forum, (23 Feb. 2017, Tbilisi) The budget advocacy training in Tbilisi (December 17-19) National Campaign – World Hepatitis Day (July 28, 2016) Round-table on local funding for HCV treatment in Kutaisi (31 March, 2017) Seesion on harm reduction within framework of the 3rd National Hepatit C elimination program (7 April, 2016) (instead of the National Dialogue)

Key activities Lithuania Belarus Moldova Budget advocacy workshop (27-28 March, 2017) High level meeting with the Ministry of Health (20 January, 2017) (instead of the National Dialogue) The round of meetings with 5 municipalities (January - March, 2017) Two-day training for NSP staff (Dec. 7-8, 2016) Meeting with Mayor of Vilnius (Dec. 14, 2016) Officials study visit to Estonia (23-25 May, 2016) Belarus National forum of PWUD, Minsk (28 Feb – 1 March, 2017) The best and modern practice of substitution therapy in narcology, Minsk (13 March, 2017) Study Visit to Czech Republic, (3-5 October, 2016) Round-table on OST development, (28 June, 2016) Police training co-organised with UNDP (June, 2016) Moldova Meeting on Harm Reduction Program in Transnistria (March 22, 2017) Workshop on integration of community-led monitoring into national HIV programs monitoring system (January 26-27, 2017) Three-day study trip to Poland co-organised with EHRN (Sep 19-21, 2016) Social campaign to advocate for funding of HR programs from Compulsory Health Insurance Funds (19 October, 2016) Round-tables with 5 Local Public Administrations (LPA) - Primates and District Councils (Jan. – March 2017) Budget advocacy training (14-16 June, 2016) High Level National dialogue in Kishinev (30 June, 2016) Media campaign with celebrities participation – 3 videos (June 27, 2016)

Activities that were not conducted Lithuania Discussion of project results and outcomes with SR members/experts; furthering discussion on PWID decriminalization, planning next steps (reprogramed for 4th year) Study visit to good NSP practice site (reprogramed for 4th year) Moldova Training on developing a strategic plan for the development of the PWUD community in Moldova for 2018 (reprogramed for 4th year) Quality control in the provision of services (reprogramed for 4th year) Visits to Moldova on the exchange of experience for specialists from the Transnistria Training on the exchange of experience in the field of budget advocacy in order to familiarize with the Poltava experience in ensuring the sustainability of services. Support from OA "Light of Hope" (Poltava) (reprogramed for 4th year) Media and social campaigns to increase the level of public responsibility to the problems of women using drugs Kazakhstan Organization of an information campaign to raise public awareness of methadone and increase tolerance towards women who use drugs (postponed until 2017 June) Participation of the SR/SSR in the action on The AIDS Candlelight Memorial (May 15, 2016). Creation of the multimedia photo quill "Kazakhstan: I remember!" to remember those died from AIDS (in progress until 2017 June) Holding the action "Understand. Make the right decision" on Facebook on the International Day against Drug Trafficking (postponed until 2017 June)

Activities that were not conducted Tajikistan Photo exhibition about the Harm Reduction Program and development of videos about Harm Reduction in Tajikistan Extended meeting of partners. Co-organization of the event with the republican AIDS center to present the New National Program on HIV / AIDS Control for 2017-2020. Forum "Women - life!“ (gender sensitive approach to Harm Reduction in Tajikistan) Meeting of the working group under the CCM to facilitate the development of road maps for the implementation of OST and NSP in Tajikistan for 2016 - 2018 Meeting of the working group under the CCM to discuss coordination of activities for financing the harm reduction program among partner for 2016-2017 "Relations with governmental officials” training for SR and SSR, community members; it will be held before the extended working meeting with partners Training on team building with SSRs Belarus National Dialogue/high-level meeting Update of the advocacy targets map Monitoring and analysis of funds spent on HIV prevention both by the ministry of health and NGOs Training of community in fundraising and fundraising conducted by community to organise the OST clients’ meeting

General comments Too many workplans and roadmaps for the national partners to implement during one year Many advocacy events result in development of additional plans for social contracting, OST protocols and many other issues SRs cannot implement all plans and monitor all of them during the year as a result they: SR implement national roadmaps and other plans and fill in these activity in our workplan SR follow our workplan and do not fully monitor important national activities (“no funding” to implement other activities) There is a need for more flexible workplans (and their budgets) so that our initial advocacy would be in line with arising national priorities

General comments Too many targets and advocacy goals for the short period of time Advocacy plans (2015), budget advocacy plans (2017), national priorities and internal organisational interest resulted in too many advocacy goals SRs activities are not consisted from one to another and they seem to be fragmented (two activities for gender services, 2 activities on OST protocols etc) The strategic approach is rarely seen in the workplans (one key activity and many smaller supporting ones) Moldova is rather an exception that has clear focus on 2 pilot NSP projects advocacy when key events are supported with small preparation meetings and social/media campaigns There is a need for clear goals and their prioritisation with allocation limits, e.g. the first goal – 60 per cent of budget/activities, the second goal – 30 per cent etc

General comments Activities in workplans and applied advocacy tools lack creativity and ambition (monotony) The most common types of national activities are: participation in working groups, small-scale meetings with public officials, round-tables and printed material (usually brochures and other practical material); some countries have social campaigns However, the high amount of meetings do not directly result in progress/impact especially when the political situation is unstable or key public officials change More sustainable tools that are rarely used on local level: analytical reports and their visualisation, shocking/drastic media campaigns/arguments, co-organisation of high level events with wide participation, partnership outside “HIV/TB circle” Wider range of advocacy tools has come on the regional level: analytical reports, study-tours and National dialogues (co-organised with key stakeholders) More creativity and ambition is necessary from the regional level as national partners use regional events as learning-by-doing experience that can be further applied locally Example: if the round of study-tours was successful, the national partners will start to ask for other study-tours by themselves (from their budget), while EHRN could propose another new tool for them to try implement On the regional level the examples of ambitious advocacy, catchy media campaigns and/or anti- stigmatisation campaigns could help to broaden national partners tools For instance, the Global Fund itself uses the initiative “RED” to promote its actions and target in Africa

General comments Inclusion of institutional/organisational activities into advocacy plans Many internal organisational activities are presented as advocacy activities in workplans (e.g. voluntary lawyers training, OST practitioners’ conference, brochures and white books) It seems to be logical as for some national partners EHRN grant is the main source of institutional funding; however, then it seems that many advocacy activities do not result in any results and the advocacy becomes inefficient Therefore, it could be reasonable to make the additional part in the workplans (next to regional events, advocacy, project management) that would be dedicated to the strengthening of the institutional capacity of the national partner’s organisation; it could allow to monitor how much budget is allocated on “non advocacy”

General comments Workplan activities lack sustainability and productiveness Workplans contained activities that do not result in any actual advocacy action or tangible result For instance, monitoring in order to monitor but not to provide recommendations, study-tours to NSP sites to learn experience, but not to provide comprehensive overview of NSP sites in the country; development of recommendations that are not planned to be presented Some activities were already „uncertain“ at the planning phase (e.g. political will, elections, stigma, co-funding) and eventually they were late in implementation Some activities dependent on implementation of other activities: If the national program is approved, then we will organise national dialogue; if the national dialogue is organised, we will review the advocacy allies map etc While planning, workplans should avoid co-dependent activities; as it was advised, the strategic approach should be introduced, when small activities implementation support big one, but not vice verse when depending on one big activities, many small may occur While planning activities it could be beneficial to add the degree of risk (low – implemented for sure; medium and high); while risky activities could not be planned for the last half of the year It should be clear what results / effect advocacy activities would have on local/national level: For instance, if it produces many reports, but any general statement and conclusions, then such activities could be replaced with others; if national partners produce recommendations, then they need to plan where they will present them We could have internal agreement on blocks of activities while preparing workplans (report + meeting to present it; site visits + report+meeting to present etc)

General comments Problems to complete media / campaigns activities Many incomplete activities were related to media / social campaigns/ photo exhibitions that were either wrongly planned, or too difficult for national partners to implement on time; while, other countries, e.g. Lithuania, did not have any strong media activity One reason was involvement of PWUD/SSRs that were difficult to organise; the video prepared by the community were rejected for the translation in national media; more training and mentoring on video is necessary Other issues concerned the planning as it was difficult to estimate actual time needed to collect information and proceeded with well-established campaign In Moldova, the budget was allocated on external media consultant and no money was left to conduct the campaign National partners could benefit from additional trainings on media campaigns and their implementation Webinars or other continuous support from EHRN communication team (including some small tasks) could improve national partners’ skills