1. Study Group Session A How UNAIDS is responding to changing environment

2. 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: don’t 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?

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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 IDU’s, 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.

7. STUDY GROUP SESSION B HOW UNAIDS WORKS

8. Governance: PCB &CCO (SGB1) 1) Do findings resonate: No Consensus. Some think governance has improved, others not. 2) Where to find the evidence? Expectations more ambitious than for other UN orgs. Stakeholder expectations need clarification Comparison with other orgs needed but difficult (no clear metrics) 3) Directions for recommendations Mandate & role of PCB/PCB Bureau/Chair clarification Approach to drafting: explore separating policy discussion & decision making during PCBs. Avoid Board micromanagement. CCO/PCB relationship: Improving reporting and collaboration Voice of civil society: need for guidance 4) Other considerations: Report language needs to be more balanced, less “bombastic” Please: Stakeholder expectations on governance need to be realistic

9. SGB2 UBW 1.Transparency not right term. 2.UBW does influence cosponsors programming and is basis for Secretariat programming 3.UBW follows strategic directions of PCB 4.UBW is a key tool in PCB governance and programme implementation 5.Criteria for resource allocation strengthened.

10. DoL at Global Level (SGB 3) Do findings resonate: Expectations of DoL may not be realistic. Where DoL has worked well for harmonisation this has been silent – needs to be captured. Perceptions vary on DoL improving entry points for others Being a cosponsor has kept agencies – resonates Role of ExD as champion – resonates Need to reflect IATTs in findings Where to find the evidence? Additional evidence needed in relation to the role of the DoL in generating decisions about harmonisation Challenges of clear evidence on IATTs Directions for recommendations Clarify expectations for Dol Optimise roles of coordinators in expanding efforts but without detracting from effort at top.

11. DoL at country level (SGB 4) Do findings resonate: Generally no – improvement is slow but there is improvement Where to find the evidence? Look at time series info Staffing and budget decisions at global level Reinterpret evidence Directions for recommendations Greater PCB role in oversight sec and DoL Review DoL between sec and co-sponsors Make progress on joint programme initiatives

12. SGB5: Efficiency and effectiveness of administration of the joint programme Do the findings and statements in the document resonate with your own experience? The findings were substantiated by the group experience If not, how do they differ and what evidence can you direct the team to review? The report said there are no competency framework in place, there are some in place and they are currently being reviewed. This evidence need to be submitted to ET and reviewed by ET Which of the findings offer scope for practical recommendations that can be implemented? There has been limited oversight by the PCB, What is the appropriate oversight role for PCB? Burning issue is The competing administrative systems limits the effectiveness, efficiency and ability to recruit competent staff by the secretariat. Action needs to happen now in order to maximise efforts and resources.

13. STUDY GROUP SESSION C HOW UNAIDS IS FULFILLING ITS MANDATE

14. SGC1 : Addressing the Gender dimensions of the epidemic Do the findings and statements in the document resonate with your own experience? Generally agree. Agreed with the statements. The final report needs to be clearer about definitions used Need to separate some issues- gender norms and sexual minorities If not, how do they differ and what evidence can you direct the team to review? Some examples of additional evidence that need to be integrated: Tracking budgets Looking at action over time Looking at examples of joint programming Looking at gender staffing (number, level ) CIDA assessment of secretariat Which of the findings offer scope for practical recommendations that can be implemented? UNAIDS support to translate policy into action, to address evaporation Support planning and budgeting at country level More effective use of guidance Clear UNAIDS guidance on HIV and Gender to support countries and inform the work of joint teams Clarify the role of UNIFEM in the context of UN reform Burning issue on this topic Review past PCB decisions on gender and how these have been implanted Theme lends to concrete recommendation We need to move- time to deliver!

15. SGC 2 Involving and working with Civil Society Yes / findings generally resonate. Evaluation needs to look more on cosponsors as entire UNAIDS family, strategy on CS engagement. Recommendation How Cosponsors and Secretariat should work together & strengthening representation and accountability & strengthening CS role in policy advocacy at country level.

16. SGC3 - PLHIV Participation: very few participants – only from UNAIDS and UNESCO Findings: More specific details about UNAIDS role required UNAIDS cannot be solely attributed to increased involvement of PHIV UNAIDS role has been positive, but job still remain to be done UNAIDS has to push for the highest level of involvement(not just participation) Recommendations: Formal representation/seat in UNAIDS Board for PLHIV Supporting network of PLHIV develop in the agenda for the next decade in light of the changing environment More core support for advocacy effects of PHLHIV network.

17. SGC.4 HUMAN RIGHTS  Do the findings resonate? YES (but add more on other cosponsor contributions; clarity on case examples)  Need a UNAIDS that is strong on human rights – keep up efforts, expand effort regarding key populations  Need a stronger “alarm system” to address critical, emerging country issues (convene relevant partners; backstop to help manage complex legal environment)  Need harmonisation of hRts messages/positions across the cosponsors (strong EXD and CCO leadership)  Need clear human rights responsibility and skills for all staff, especially country staff – stand up for UN values, stand with people living with and affected by HIV  DoL: need to draw on human rights strengths/partnerships of all co-sponsors (and continue/reinforce work with OHCHR)  Draw on recommendations of other group’s DoL discussion

18. SGC5. Monitoring and evaluation Clear role for UNAIDS and largely positive evaluation Need to address the factors responsible for the small ”e” in M&e Need to identify barriers for further integration and coordination between global/national and UNAIDS/co-sponsors Identification of gaps has merit but remember to identify outputs and outcomes of past actions

19. SGC6 – Technical Support Overall agree with conclusions Progress has been made Technical support needs to be demand driven and of high quality Critical role of UNAIDS in planning Recommendations: Need quality benchmarks for TS Systematic evaluation important Issue: Report needs to do a better job of documenting positive findings.