SGA1

1
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?

2
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 researchRecommendations -
  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

3
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

4
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

5
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.