This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 PRETORIA 001175 
 
SIPDIS 
 
INFO 
AMCONSUL DURBAN 
AMCONSUL CAPE TOWN 
AMCONSUL JOHANNESBURG 
DEPT OF HHS WASHDC 
CDC ATLANTA 
USAID WASH DC 
 
SENSIITIVE 
 
STATE FOR S/OFFICE OF GLOBAL AIDS COORDINATOR, 
PMAMACOS 
STATE PLEASE PASS TO USAID FOR GLOBAL BUREAU APETERSON 
HHS/PHS FOR OFFICE OF GLOBAL HEALTH AFFAIRS WSTEIGER 
 
E.O. 12948: N/A 
TAGS: KHIV EAID TBIO PREL SF
SUBJECT: LOVELIFE AND GLOBAL FUND 
 
REF: STATE 45041 
 
¶1. (U) SUMMARY:  The loveLife Global Fund grant in 
South Africa is approaching its renewal.  In response 
to Reftel, Embassy Pretoria is providing information 
about the loveLife project and about the Country 
Coordinating Mechanism in South Africa.  END SUMMARY. 
 
¶2. (U)  Reftel requests information about the loveLife 
Global Fund grant supporting HIV/AIDS prevention 
activities aimed at 12-17 year olds.  The loveLife 
goals are to address high-risk behavior among young 
people by promoting hope and living positively. 
Program components include radio, TV, print, and 
billboards; 6,000 trained volunteers; a telephone 
helpline; 16 youth centers; 260 youth-friendly 
clinics; support to 50 non-governmental organizations; 
and school programs. 
 
Grant number, Phase 1 & 2 Amounts 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶3. (U) A Global Fund Grant of $70,354,000 (SAF-102- 
G02-C-00) was awarded to loveLife effective August 
¶2003.  A total of $12,000,000 was approved for the 
first two years, which has been fully disbursed. 
loveLife is currently applying for Phase 2 Grant 
Renewal.  April 1, 2005 is the date for the 20 month 
Phase 2 evaluation. 
 
Overall Comments and Recommendation 
----------------------------------- 
 
¶4. (SBU) Post recommends that the loveLife grant be 
continued.  In light of loveLife's failure to meet 
some significant targets, the renewal should be for 
one year, with close monitoring of loveLife's program 
and further funding contingent upon (a) independent 
evaluation of program effectiveness and (b) loveLife 
meeting program targets. 
 
Technical Considerations 
------------------------ 
 
¶5. (U) The fifth quarter loveLife report (August 
October 2004) indicates that the grant is meeting some 
of its goals and not others.  Of concern are three 
important targets that are not being met: 
 
Indicator  Target (to Oct 04)Results 
---------------------------------- 
Numbers of young120,00061,049 
people participating 
in "chillroom" programs 
 
Average number of 135,20082,212 
clinical services 
accessed by young 
people (10  19) 
 
Number of young people 168,00071,024 
completing loveLifestyle 
programs (clinics and franchises) 
 
¶6. (U) It is important to note that the targets 
indicated here were recently revised as agreed upon by 
loveLife and Global Fund staff in January 2005. 
 
¶7. (U) Other targets are being met.  For example, the 
number of schools implementing loveLifestyle programs 
 loveLifestyle programs 
from August 04  October 04 is reported to be 534, 
with a target of 400. 
 
¶8. (U) loveLife reports that its program activities 
have been severely constrained by delayed cash flow 
and losses in the dollar-to-rand exchange rate.  These 
are legitimate concerns that many USG agencies face in 
South Africa.  After two years, some of the delays 
have been worked out for smoother movement of funding 
requests from the South African Department of 
Treasury, through the Department of Health, back to 
Treasury, and finally to the Local Fund Agent (KPMG). 
According to loveLife representatives, there are 34 
steps between submission of a disbursement request and 
the transfer of funds to the principal recipient. 
Moving from a quarterly to a six-month reporting 
period should help lessen delays. 
¶9. (U) loveLife reports that they are pleased with 
their progress despite funding delays and are ready to 
move forward, to increase the number of face-to-face 
services provided and to fill in geographic gaps. 
They report that their funding is better leveraged 
today with about one-third from the South Africa 
Government, one-third from Global Fund, and one-third 
from other donors. 
 
In-Country Impressions of Grant Performance 
------------------------------------------- 
 
¶10. (U) loveLife is the largest youth-focused 
intervention aimed at HIV prevention in South Africa. 
The integration between media and support services is 
strong, utilizing a network approach with schools at 
the hub, moving out to clinics, youth centers, and 
media. 
 
¶11. (U) There have been concerns expressed about 
loveLife by agencies and non-governmental 
organizations working in HIV/AIDS prevention.  The 
concerns routinely revolve around two areas: 
objective monitoring and evaluation of program 
activities and financial systems.  Some question the 
effectiveness of the interventions; others believe 
that the cost per service unit is high.  Additional 
independent evaluation of loveLife activities could 
address some of these concerns.  There have also been 
recommendations that loveLife should strengthen its 
financial accounting systems to delineate clearly 
between various funding sources (i.e., Kaiser, Global 
Fund, National Department of Health, and Anglo 
American Corporation  a local private sector funding 
and program partner). 
 
Degree of Coordination with Other Partners 
------------------------------------------ 
 
¶12. (U) loveLife collaborates with the South African 
Government and a number of South African NGOs. 
loveLife is collaborating in with the Western Cape 
Provincial Government in order to provide services 
that complement the Western Cape Global Fund award. 
Post has kept informed of loveLife activities, but 
loveLife's activities are independent of Post's HIV 
and AIDS programming. 
 
Political or Other Considerations 
--------------------------------- 
 
¶13. (U) loveLife has the support of the South Africa 
Government, receiving funds from the Departments of 
Social Development, Health, and Sports and Recreation. 
Despite a tempestuous relationship, the Minister of 
Health has been an advocate for loveLife programs. 
LoveLife's Phase Two application has been reviewed and 
approved by the County Coordinating Mechanism (CCM). 
The Department of Treasury has worked consistently 
with loveLife to facilitate the movement of funds. 
 
¶14. (SBU) The Department of Health and the CCM have 
been barriers to loveLife's success.  The DOH has 
struggled to move the reports and funds smoothly 
through the system, although loveLife has reported 
improvement in this area.  The CCM could provide 
additional support to loveLife and other Global Fund 
recipients and additional leadership and coordination 
of Global Fund activities. 
 
Embassy Point of Contact 
------------------------ 
 
¶15. (U) Embassy point of contact for Global Fund 
questions is Gray Handley, Health Attachi.  Mary 
Wettrich, Deputy Director, Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention/South Africa responds to regular 
requests from HHS for information on Global Fund 
activities. 
 
Country Coordinating Mechanism 
------------------------------ 
 
¶16. (U) Reftel also requests information concerning 
the CCM.  The South African National AIDS Council 
(SANAC) was established in January 2001 as a multi- 
sectoral body including 16 South African government 
ministries and 16 civil society representatives, 
chaired by the Deputy President.  Its mandate is 
expressed in 11 objectives - with the main objective 
being to "advise government on HIV and AIDS and STD 
policy and related matters."  Other important 
objectives relate to coordination, guidance, resource 
mobilization, and monitoring. 
 
¶17. (U) Despite its broad mandate, SANAC's role in 
providing guidance and coordination on HIV and AIDS 
issues in South Africa has been limited.  In practice, 
the National Department of Health and the Minister of 
Health dominate most aspects of HIV and AIDS 
programming, with other key Ministries operating their 
programs with considerable independence.  SANAC holds 
infrequent meetings that are often not attended by all 
members and are reportedly not always productive. 
SANAC has not been able to provide oversight on 
important issues, such as monitoring and evaluation of 
HIV and AIDS programs. 
 
¶18. (U) SANAC has been criticized recently in the 
South African Press for the failure to spend funds 
designated for its activities through the National 
AIDS Trust.  Parliament has questioned the Deputy 
President about SANAC, and opposition MPs claim that 
SANAC is never heard from and never seen, and its 
actions are wholly inadequate. 
 
¶19. (U) Post appreciates the opportunity to contribute 
to the review of Global Fund awards.  Post 
communicates often and effectively with Fund officials 
and grant recipients  keeping a close watch on all 
Fund activities in South Africa.  There is very little 
interaction with the CCM, another reflection of its 
inaccessibility and the lack of transparency with 
which it is managed.  Post would welcome any 
additional questions and will strive to keep 
Department informed as Fund activities further develop 
in South Africa. 
 
FRAZER