Civil Society Caucus

Am in the Civil Society Caucus at the UN as I write.

Seems that the same heart cry to world governments is coming out from the Civil Society Caucus today - please work with us! In many countries the involvement of Civil Society is either non-existent or tokenistic. PWLHA groups and vulnerable groups are ignored, excluded or badly engaged with. Sad to say that this has been the plea for as long as I can recall - some countries are listening, but in the most affected parts of the world in particular Civil Society engagement is very poor. Despite the commitments in the Paris Declaration, a lot of programmes are note being driven by the expressed needs of Civil Society groups - especially of PLWHA and vulnerable groups.

Is Civil Society just being used as a rubber stamp - to make government policies look good to the International Community? It would seem so in many cases, and it is for the International Civil Society networks to hold governments to account for adhering to the commitments to engagement that they have signed up to. Also, Civil Society is often being marginalised by legislation that criminalises some vulnerable groups, and denies human and civil rights to those living with the virus.

Meanwhile the targets being set at each of these UN General Assembly meetings - from the 2000 Millennium Summit onwards, are not being met. The 2010 promises are in danger or being ignored now, and we are in danger of just looking to the 2015 MDGs - i.e. a way of shifting goal posts so we can overlook where we have fallen short of our aspirations. Again, this is a cause that is vexing most of the Civil Society delegation, and letters have already been written to Margaret Chan (WHO) and Peter Piot (UNAIDS) pleading that 2010 targets on Universal Access not be forgotten.

A US delegate pointed out that although the US is openly opposed to harm reduction procedures around IVDUs, in practice local groups and municipal authorities are engaging at this level. I.e. the headlines say one thing, what is happening on the ground is quite different. Something I think all of us are well aware of.

It is interesting to note that there was no US country report submitted for this meeting - at least not on the UNGASS official site (and I note, no shadow reports from Civil Society for either the US or UK this time - why I have no idea, but I wonder if Civil Society groups have lost some of their critical edge towards our governments' policies in both nations).

The UK did get a country report in, which showed a 9% growth in new infections and problems with increasing access to and awareness of the need to get tested. 31% of all those living with HIV the UK are doing so untested, and possibly in ignorance that they are at risk of being infected (in some cases). I think the UK still thinks its main role is as the second biggest bilateral donor on AIDS, but we are a way off hitting all the targets at home.

The UK does have a decent (if hard one) reputation for Civil Society engagement, although I think there are still questions to be raised about how well they are working with churches and FBOs - at a UK and at an international level. DFID is finally mentioning faith based groups in their strategic document on achieving access for all by 2010 - but how well they engage in practice is still not clear - past evidence suggests they have quite a way to go, but also that they may have made some progress in the last couple of years.

The meeting is about to break now... more later.