Presentation on theme: "SGA1 – The evolving role of UNAIDS in a changing financial environment UNAIDS has adapted to a new funding environment and developed strong and positive."— Presentation transcript:
SGA1 – The evolving role of UNAIDS in a changing financial environment UNAIDS has adapted to a new funding environment and developed strong and positive relationships with the GF and PEPFAR Differentiate between global level and country-level – also differs per country Good relationships at global level sometimes hard to translate to country level, ie MoU with GF at global level but still a lot to be done to operationalize and implement at country level UNAIDS has been effective at developing relationships with partners (PS, CS, PLHIV) Reminder: dont think of private sector only as a source of money, but also of expertise offered Missing a kind of benchmarking here, need some more insight in data Synergies have been developed in the field of research and resource tracking Progress (rather than synergies) but still a lot of challenges and shortcomings remain – important to acknowledge! Difference in indicators remains a challenge in resource-tracking Operations research area still much neglected - much remains to be done in terms of quality assurance, capacity building, linking between research and policy makers (potential role UNAIDS?) Recommendation: At country-level UNAIDS could play an important brokering role in reducing transaction costs, harmonizing donors and providing high-level TA to access funding streams Burning issue: How will UNAIDS respond to an ever changing environment, in a different economic climate where some systems may not be sustainable (GF funding, increasing costs for treatment, lack of resources for TA needs) – so what role has UNAIDS to play in an environment with tension between demand and supply where hard decisions will need to be made? Does UNAIDS need to continue in the same way or reconsider its role?
SGA2: The evolving role of UNAIDS in configuring response to the national epidemic Generally effective at developing relationships, some examples of synergy can be found, evaluations are done (but tend not to be planned systematically). Generally in agreement with findings, however the report needs to look at findings in more depth, with examples to make findings more balanced and show progress over time (many positive from the CCOs and UNAIDS) Gaps: A need for the report to look beyond biomedical research Recommendations: - clarify the role of UNAIDS at national level in regards to technical support - there is a need for clear strategies in working with middle income countries - more support and emphasis on evaluation is needed: is there a role for UNAIDS to help countries do evaluation? Or, help to ensure research and evaluation in GFATM applications? - important to emphasise support for activism and networks at regional and national level - need to give support in translating know your epidemic into response using not just empirical data but how to work with political environments and social norms - link the AIDS agenda to the MDGs
SGA3/6 ECOSOC Mandate + UNAIDS ECOSOC Mandate Do findings and statements in the document resonate with your own experiences? Yes. With some qualifications If not, how do they differ and what evidence can you direct the team to review? Is the ECOSOC mandate still valid? Is the Governance inclusion of Civil Society still valid recommendation? Do we need options papers to provide forum for a debate on this issue? Which of the findings offer scope for practical recommendation that can be implemented? There is a need for better engagement of the board to prioritize activities within the ECOSOC mandate. Governance of UNAIDS – How can UNAIDS and Cosponsors move forward and define how work can be better at the country level for PLHIV, people at risk? What kind of governance structure can be established to move forward? Does it still matter that not implemented 5 years later? Evaluation from 2002 Are the recommendations from the first evaluation still valid? Yes If not, how do they differ and what evidence can you direct the team to review? Responsibility of implementation of the recommendations needs to be bette clarified. Who is responsible – PCB, Secretariat
SGA 4: Health System Strengthening (HSS) Definition of HS in broader term Diversity among countries Moving targets on HSS Recognized contribution from UNAIDS Recommendation Defining roles of UNAIDS on HSS Clearer articulation of non health HSS Burning issue HS focus on prevention as well as care
SGA.5 The effects of UN Reform at country level on UNAIDS Do the findings and statements in the document resonate with your own experience? Largely agreed with findings but thought that they were incomplete, because: Some issues dealt with elsewhere in evaluation documentation. Not enough evidence presented on what has been achieved. Need more discussion setting out the context and what actually assessing when arriving at findings. If not, how do they differ and what evidence can you direct the team to review? Secretariat to coordinate with cosponsors to provide evidence of positive achievements in terms of work of joint teams including the work on specific topics as IDUs, sex workers etc. More examples should be given of implementation on three ones on the country level. The spirit of the Paris Declaration is within the three ones. Which of the findings offer scope for practical recommendations that can be implemented? The role of the regional directors in coordination at country level is vital, as these are the people who control for example promotion. Their role should be strengthened. Member states could discuss about incentives for UN Reform The question needs to be answered: What is the added value of the joint programme of UNAIDS regarding the development of UN Reform. Commitment of cosponsor headquarters should be reflected within their involvement in governance issues like the UBW, decisions of the PCB etc.