I was requested by Co-Chairs Ambassador Lennarth Hjelmåker of Sweden and Health Minister Awa Coll-Seck of the Republic of Senegal to present the recommendations of the Global Review Panel (GRP) on the third pillar, which is on Governance, at the multi-stakeholder consultation that happened on 28th April 2017. My presentation included insights on these recommendations based on consultations with our colleagues from civil society and community networks and feedback from Member States at the multi-stakeholder consultation.
- Enhancing Oversight by UNAIDS Board of global efforts to Fast-Track and end AIDS
In 2015 and 2016, the UNAIDS PCB and the UN General Assembly made two historic decisions: the UNAIDS Strategy 2016-2021 and the 2016 Political Declaration on Ending AIDS. These two documents set the scene for how we can end the AIDS epidemic by 2030 if we are to achieve our Fast Track Targets by 2020. Doing so would need a strengthened approach to monitoring our progress and looking at the broader response. However, the Panel found that members spend considerable time reviewing progress through the Unified Budget, Results Accountability Framework (UBRAF) at the PCB. While this is helpful for the Joint Programme, it only covers 13% of the global AIDS response. Suppose we see the Joint Programme as the international authority of the AIDS response. In that case, it needs to take responsibility and devote significant time to looking at the progress of the Joint Programme from the broader Political Declaration and the UNAIDS Strategy targets. This would mean reviewing the non-core funds and how they contribute to meeting our global targets, highlighting the joint work of different Cosponsors and the Secretariat.
Conducting a broader monitoring exercise at the PCB can be cumbersome, according to some Member States, given that there is so much agenda on the table that is more important to discuss.
- Working towards shared multi-stakeholder, multi-sectoral platforms at the country level for monitoring and review of the response
This recommendation underlines the importance of ensuring that the intersectoral approach of UNAIDS Governance is reflected at the country level. We can build on the ongoing Global AIDS Monitoring (GAM) process that reflects the 10 Fast Track commitments outlined in the Political Declaration; however, doing so would need harmonization of reporting instruments – which includes national tools and indicators, as well as donor reporting indicators including those of the Global Fund. At the same time, we need to ensure that different sectors can participate and engage in monitoring and accountability of the Joint Programme. There has been a proposal to explore creating a partnership forum as a platform to enable multi-sectoral monitoring. While this is ideal in the spirit of inclusiveness, the Joint Programme sits on the principle of the “constituency approach,” which made the Board, with the Member States, civil society and communities, and Cosponsors, effective. Adding another layer of “partnership” with a function that might overlap with other existing platforms might even duplicate the work. Most of our colleagues, as well as some Member States, expressed their concern on the partnership forum, and instead of coming up with a new platform, suggested reviewing and strengthening already existing platforms such as the CCM, the national AIDS councils, or even the UN country teams and enable these to invite other stakeholders in its regular meetings.
- Reinvigorating strategic policy focus and coherence of the Committee of Cosponsoring Organizations (CCO)
Refining UNAIDS governance will require reviewing how we utilize the CCO as a platform where high-level discussions can be made. I was at the UBRAF review of implementation on the 27th of April. Coming from the community and as a PCB member, it was amazing for me to see how Cosponsors are working together to deliver results. I thought this kind of presentation should be opened to a broader audience to witness how strategic partnerships, the value of money, and monitoring progress based on the UBRAF and the Global Targets are made. We need to have this kind of discussion at the PCB. The Secretariat and the CCO must utilize this platform to leverage broader ownership of the Joint Programme among Cosponsors.
- Pursuing greater policy coherence across the Boards of UNAIDS and Cosponsors and ensuring greater commitment to the AIDS response
Regarding ensuring policy coherence across other UN Boards, while it was found that UNAIDS and PCB decision points are taken into the discussions in other boards, the engagement with UN boards generally varies and is sometimes inadequate. If we are serious about taking HIV out of isolation, we need to ensure that we can see how HIV links with other UN agencies’ priorities. To achieve ownership of the Joint Programme among Cosponsors, we need to see people working effectively and efficiently to achieve this goal. The Global AIDS Coordinators are crucial in mainstreaming HIV into their respective agencies. At the same time, we also need to track the consistency and coherence of Member States who sit on multiple boards. By way of scorecards, perhaps we can ensure whether decision points from within PCB are brought into the agenda of other Boards, even in Boards outside of the UN, such as UNITAID and the Global Fund. The idea of “scorecards” was supported by some Member States but was not as welcomed among those concerned about their performance in meeting their commitments to the Political Declaration, despite possibly having NGOs taking the lead in developing this scorecard. One Member State saw this as a possible “ridicule” or an “attack” towards other Member States’ performance, which might affect the relationship of Member States with each other at the PCB.
The PCB, in itself, has also been considered a good practice, and this must be highlighted and used as a reference within the UN system. Some Panel members raised the need, for instance, to engage at the UN High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) to highlight this good practice and influence how the UN system can be more inclusive.
Lastly, the panel found the critical role of key population communities and people living with HIV at the Governance level. We have witnessed this at the PCB through its constituency approach. It was raised at the two panel meetings in January and March that there is a need to strengthen and empower civil society in monitoring both the strategy and the 10 Fast Track commitments. The report recommended Member States to allot seats within their respective delegations to achieve this. But more than this, communities and civil society need to be supported financially and allowed to thrive, especially in places where spaces are shrinking – and this is where we need the political leadership and support of the Joint Programme, its Cosponsors, as well as Member States sitting in the PCB. We have ‘Fast Track’ commitments: seven on community-led responses and eight on funding for social enablers, but community engagement indicators are not reflected well in the UBRAF. As communities, we want to know how UNAIDS supports the global AIDS response in meeting these targets.
The report states, “The [establishment of UNAIDS] was propelled by the activism of people living with HIV and people affected by the epidemic.” This still rings true to this day, that despite the continuous violations that our communities experience in varying degrees in different regions, there will be no UNAIDS without us. The UNAIDS We Need is a UNAIDS that works closely with and is accountable to key population communities and people living with HIV.
The Global Review Panel (GRP) was constituted based on the 39th UNAIDS PCB Decision Point 6.4 to review the ‘fit for purpose’ and relevance of the UN Joint Programme on HIV/AIDS. The review outputs will inform the revision of the UNAIDS Operating model to make UNAIDS more efficient in meeting the goal of ending AIDS by 2030. The Panel review looked at three pillars: joint working, financing and accountability, and Governance.