PACR of a project (9/90-9/95) to increase promotion of family planning (FP) in the South Pacific by upgrading the institutional capacity of the South Pacific Alliance for Family Health (SPAFH). SPAFH, now a well-recognized regional NGO, has improved its institutional capacity to implement FP activities in Pacific Island countries and has made some progress towards long-term sustainability. It has identified challenges for the future, which include clear definition of its mission and goals. SPAFH has learned the complexity of the region”s FP needs and has demonstrated its potential for addressing them. Having progressively shifted its emphasis from regional to in-country activities, SPAFH has stressed the involvement of community and focus groups in FP and the need to implement FP in a cultural context, develop indigenous capacities, and involve NGOs, country governments, and the private sector in FP programs. The following lessons were learned. (1) Due to funding constraints, a resident advisor position was not included in the cooperative agreement. As a result, USAID/Suva was burdened with excessive management demands, and Pathfinder, the project grantee, was unable to provide frequent program management support because of the high cost of traveling to Tonga. This situation was exacerbated when USAID/Suva closed in 6/94. (2) The project had to depart from its planned benchmarks as they clearly represented a straitjacket on SPAFH”s ability to evolve as an independent NGO and develop its technical capabilities. This need was eloquently captured by the mid-term evaluation, but unfortunately, not adhered to by all involved. In early 1993, strategic planning and a program management framework were introduced to SPAFH, which however was only slowly able to incorporate these concepts. As a result, these efforts were too little too late. (3) Although SPAFH has done reasonably well with the resources, mandate, and technical expertise at its disposal, more could have been done if some of the lessons articulated in this PACR had been applied. Given STAPH”s mandate to assist ten countries dispersed over an area several times the size of the United States, the project”s funding, particularly funding for country programs, was inadequate. This is the major reasons that SPAFH”s impact at the country level is impossible to measure. Moreover, it was difficult to rationally allocate funds among ten countries with so many needs, and changing in-country circumstances, such as staff turnover, also affected activities. Nevertheless, SPAFH managed to implement a comparatively large number of activities. (4) The development of Australia”s Project EXCEL — which includes components funded by USAID”s FP Services Expansion and Technical Support (SEATS) and Social Marketing for Change (SOMARC) projects) has been a welcome boost to SPAFH”s credibility and potential for long-term survival (although initially EXCEL disrupted project implementation by demands on SPAFH personnel). The two have proved complementary, for SPAFH concentrates primarily on FP awareness, EXCEL on service provision, social marketing of contraceptives, and KAP surveys. (5) Location of SPAFH in Tonga was a serious mistake. While this may have been valid at first (the founder and the Board Chairman were Tongan), over time it became apparent that the decision made no sense. Proposals to relocate to Fiji have been repeatedly and inexplicably turned down by the board of directors. (6) SPAFH never considered a scheme to charge small management fees to implement FP activities.
