Interventions by our civil society observers – June 27, 2018


Agenda 6 – UBRAF

SRHR Africa Trust (SAT)

Chair, I speak on behalf of the SRHR Africa Trust (SAT).

We welcome the unprecedented levels of detail given this morning on UNAIDS Secretariat spend on civil society and congratulate the Secretariat on the work that has gone into this analysis. We expect of course that this will grow from Secretariat analysis to a whole UNAIDS analysis in the near future.

We are anxious, however, moving forward to see more a more detailed plan of how realistic targets for spend through civil society are to be realistically achieved. I’m not speaking to the service delivery target, but rather on resources flowing to civil society to continue their contribution to the response. We are concerned that the December 2016 NGO-generated dialogue and decision points here in the PCB on sustainability appear to have lost steam and priority more recently. When we hear the United States speak to low delivery against targets for key populations, and when we speak yesterday about reaching the last mile, then we must re-find the ‘steam’ on this issue.

We are concerned that in keeping resources flowing to civil society, vague plans are no plans, and we are concerned that aggregated targets will, as the United States has raised the concern for reporting, may be used to obscure north vs south inequalities, international NGO vs indigenous NGO inequalities, pseudo/private/NGO sector vs civil society inequalities, regional differences, and country ownership differences in any plan.

We hope moving forward to see, firstly, better recognition and disaggregation of both types and levels of civil society in planning and reporting and an analysis of how this ties into UNAIDS IATI publishing, secondly, a detailed plan with disaggregated targets, and thirdly, a more nuanced indicators than a single figure by which spend via civil society can be tracked and against which all players can be held accountable.

I thank you.


Drugs Civil Society Group

Madam Chair and esteemed colleagues. I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene on behalf of the Drugs Civil Society Group.

When the new UBRAF settlement was agreed, the Drugs Civil Society Group expressed our concern at the severe cuts to the budgets of the Co-sponsors and at the balance of the settlement between the Secretariat and the Co-Sponsors.

We were particularly concerned at a formula that exclusively prioritises countries with high prevalence and low GDP as this excludes so many of the middle and high income countries where HIV epidemics are impacting among people who inject drugs and to a lesser extent people using stimulant drugs. The HIV epidemic among people who use drugs continues unchecked in a number of contexts. We know what works, we have the evidence-base and we have clear UN normative guidance endorsed by WHO, UNODC, and UNAIDS. However, a lack of politic will, a political investment in scapegoating people who use drugs and the absence of domestic funding all provide a perfect storm that allows the epidemic among the drug using community to continue rising at a concerning level. International funding is critical to addressing this challenge.

We are pleased to note that the funding for country envelopes has brought additional resources to UNODC under the UBRAF settlement resulting in an increase of 18% of the budget for the UNODC Global HIV Programme. This is a welcome development and we hope this strategy can be further used to recognise the particular challenges of addressing HIV among people who inject and use drugs. However, we need to recognise that this is an 18% increase after the 50% cut.

We are concerned that UNODC does not have the capacity in key regions and countries to engage strategically and to have the catalytic effect of attracting new funds. We continue to challenge and monitor the performance of UNODC at the country level to ensure that the positive partnership that has been established at the global level is properly devolved and embraced at the regional and country level. We particularly note the positive impact of the UNODC Global HIV Programme Small Grants Programme that brings capacity to partnership working. Over 600 CS partners applied for 6 grants highlighting the significant potential of extending this fund which we would like to highlight as a potential for external investment by donors.


International HIV/AIDS Alliance

The IHAA applauds the results achieved in the reporting period by UNAIDS.

Especially the reported gains towards the 909090 targets are cause for celebration.

These results notwithstanding, the International AIDS Alliance still harbours serious concerns about the state of HIV prevention.

According to UNAIDS data, we are currently facing a prevention crisis. In 2010 the annual number on new infections stood at approximately 2 million. The current number of infections is around 1.7 million per annum. This is very far from our targets of 500,000 people by 2020.

I think you will agree that, bar a miracle, we are highly unlikely to meet this target – a point made by many here.

We applaud UNAIDS and UNFPA in convening the Global Prevention Coalition. It is an important achievement. But we must be careful not to celebrate the convening of the Coalition as a proxy for impact. It is not. The hard graft lies ahead if the Coalition is to be truly effective.

The Alliance is currently monitoring the Coalition’s 100-day plans in the Fast Track countries, and we are doing shadow score cards on progress.

What we see it that Key populations ARE being left behind, and a lack of funding for structural efforts have rendered big gaps in implementation. We need clear guidance and political commitments to change this reality.

In conclusion, therefore, we urge UNAIDS to step on the accelerator on HIV prevention. Being on a fast track is one thing. Making the vehicle move fast, is another issue altogether. It requires concerted and sustained action. And above all leadership.

We call on the UNAIDS leadership to place the global prevention crisis front and centre of its agenda at AIDS 2018 and beyond.

I thank you


GNP+

Let me stress the improvements. Joint planning and envelope system gives as more understanding, better planning and help to avoid duplication. the planning helped a lot to strengthen ownership and accountability. Responsibilities are differentiated and actions are better attached to deliverables.

Accountability. From our perspective there is no doubt we now have a bit better understanding where the money goes. And hopefully have this new web portal launched today we will have clear picture. And hopefully we will see not only expenditures in broad way we see then now, but will have opportunity to see details and see financial plans and real expenditures. We need more details, we need to be able to analyze and reflect at the picture we see. But accountability is not only access to information is it also opportunity to provide feedback and influence the process. And unfortunately we are not part of the process of decision making and implementation of joint planning and country envelopes system

Importance of involvement of communities was stressed by everybody in this room during last two days – but when it comes to planning, discussion and implementation inside the envelope system – we are not invited. We are left behind in this process.

We can be part of solution. Tjis rewire gives as information Resources are very limited, in such settings competitiveness is enhancing – it is hard to split the pie between those players that are already there, we do understand. But we know that community involvement can raise effectiveness of actions undertaken and can make better use of limited funds.

we have experience of other – CCMs are working for GF grants planning and implementation, we know it is not perfect, and we see reforming of this system – is also under the development – CCM evolution is what we are testing now in GF, but there is the system and platform – it does exist – for country envelopes we dont have such mechanisms.

Usually what we hear is such wonderful saying – this was consulted with civil society. Diablo is in the details. When? One night before decision, with whom – Civil society – and communities are very often very different organizations with very different aims, and finally – what is the exact meaning of world – consulted – does it means that we communities were just listened or it means that feedback provided was considered and included ?

We call for meaningful involvement and improvement – we need mechanisms that will insure that, we have opportunity to choose the priorities, we want to be part of planning and implementation!

During the previous day and a half we all are clear that we need more and more reforming to get UNAIDS we need, and we all need to be responsible in this process. To do so – we, communities, need to be part of process. The crisis we face now in Joint Program can be good start for new and better UNAIDS, but main lesson learned is that we need to talk about problems as well, not only about the achievements, we need to follow our own principals in practice, Nothing for us without us – is an important one – using this principal not only in the discussions here at the Board, but on the ground, in implementation, as well.

Tags

© 2014-2019 NGO Delegation to the UNAIDS PCB Contact Us