JOINT WORKING - QUESTION 1
How can UNAIDS Cosponsoring agencies and the Secretariat work together more effectively? How can UNAIDS Cosponsoring agencies and the Secretariat refine their division of labour and ensure optimal allocation of human and financial resources in countries?
You are encouraged to include your name, age, gender, and location when you participate, for statistical analysis purposes. Anonymous inputs are also welcome.
UNAIDS must have a internal discussion and develop a clear division of labour. The initial one was a great initiative to avoid competition among UN agencies, but it often happen that Agencies are keen to overlap as far as they seems to be funds available, and this is sad for the credibility of the UN systems.
ReplyDeleteAnother important point would be the clarification of do we mean by "insuring the overall functioning and accountability of the Division of Labour" as UNAIDS mandate while it happens that UNAIDS seeking additional fund will not respect the division of labor and will "run alone" in a field that is on the division of labor under one agency's mandate... and this, only because there is a local resource mobilisation
At the global level UNAIDS must guide/inform all co-sponsoring agencies on the allocation of activities and resources to country level operation. There should be a clear percentage or junk of budget allocation to country operation specific for the HIV related activities. This would ensure that these activities would be taken up seriously by the country operation and not to be set aside among the different country operation priorities.
ReplyDeleteDecisions regarding allocation of human and financial resources in countries should be aligned with the epidemiological situation and respond to identified needs and gaps in countries.
ReplyDeleteThree things to do;
ReplyDelete1. A clear Division of labour agreed on by all the cosponsors and the secretariat.
2. The cosponsors and the secretariat should be resourced and made fit for purpose to deliver on the agreed interventions as stated in the DOL.
3. Focus efforts where the burden is and have more capacity at country level. I would imagine a much stronger Joint team in South Africa (for the cosponsors and the secretariat) than, say Eritrea and fewer staff at headquarters.
A great deal of material is produced, not all of it is of good quality. As well as acting as a repository for this, UNAIDS should also comment on its quality and relevance. For example, the Economic Reference Group commissions papers which are of good quality but are not widely read, and I speak as a member of this group, because we are not good at disseminating our work.
ReplyDeleteThe sponsoring agencies must fulfill their role according to the established in the division of labor, ONLY THIS. In general, what is observed is the interest in using the UNAIDS resource in their own activities, hiring staff and, as I have seen, informing actions that have never been carried out. In this respect, often pressured by interested HQ to justify the received resource. In some countries, agencies report activities developed by local governments as their own, especially when managing national resources. UNAIDS must be strong enough and not subject to the interests of agencies. However, for this to happen the country directors must be technically competent to perform their functions. How will a sociologist, for example, discuss treatment with WHO or the country's AIDS Director?
ReplyDeleteI am uncertain if there is a common understanding and agreement upon what the problems are. If not analyze the problems by talking to different parties and do not forget to ask the communities for their contribution and ask the countries (and communities representatives within countries) what exact human resources they miss/need.
ReplyDeleteCo-sponsors' roles are quite well-defined. Oftentimes it is the Secretariat that steps on toes. Also not attributing co-sponsors' successes and appropriating them without adequate recognition of Co-sponsors' contributions is a practice UNAIDS needs to stop: from Country level through regional level right up to the HQ Secretariat levels. Further - all this talk about refining roles will come to naught if UNAIDS funding is not adequately replenished. With resources from the Secretariat dwindling drastically, it is unrealistic to expect co-sponsors – who have specific mandates and deliverables, and to whom HIV-related work is a part of their larger role in global development – are often hamstrung to plan and deliver successfully on their UNAIDS DOL.
ReplyDelete1. les agences devraient avoir une meilleure connaissance de la dernière version sur la division du travail qui met plus en adéquation le mandat de l'agence avec l'action globale à mener dans la riposte à l'épidémie. l'ONUSIDA a à s’acquitter de son rôle de leadership et de coordination au sein du SNU et de mobiliser l'expertise technique, domaine où elle fait la différence dans l'appui au pays avec son dispositif d'assistance technique (TSF)
ReplyDeleteOne of the problems that has emerged in working with Co-Sponsors has been the feeling that not all the Co-Sponsors share a common goal and certainly do not communicate among themselves their operational objectives in a way that would enhance rational use of scarce resources and avoid unnecessary duplication. More obvious sharing of priorities and dividing Co-Sponsors' tasks and responsibilities accordingly could be strengthened and the role of the UNAIDS Secretariat in coordinating this in a more proactive way would be welcome. To do this may call for the UNAIDS Secretariat to be strengthened both technically and administratively. At what is a critical time in UN financing, strong case could be made for the UNAIDS model to be seen as a way of rationalizing human as well financial resources.
ReplyDeleteNew ways to work jointly should build on the lessons learned and past experiences from evaluations and reviews of the Joint Programme, recognizing that each cosponsor is different and will bring different things to the table, along with what the Secretariat offers. The value-added of joint work is that this can avoid duplication and link HIV work to the broader achievement of the SDGs.
ReplyDeleteRight now, there is a contradiction between the Division of Labour which sets out chairs and co-chairs as well as other contributing actors, and the joint work. Too often, in the field, the DoL is viewed as rigid and overstepping someone's mandate can create political tensions. This is not the case if you are working together. The most important thing is to achieve the result - it doesn't matter who was leading, who has more visibility, who did the advocacy or has more money to fund a project. In my view, the major challenge right now is the DoL and the mandates Cosponsoring Organisations have. Rethinking the DoL according to broad themes/SRAs can be a way. Getting ride of chairs as well. UNAIDS should chair all the themes with Cosponsors being the contributing actors, equally.
ReplyDeleteto address the needs of people who use drugs and ensure increased access to prevention, treatment and care for people who use drugs, a closer collaboration and alignment with other UN organisations like UNDP and UNODC is needed. Harm reduction and drug policies changes should be embedded in the SDGs.
ReplyDeleteThe work of the joint programme has been guided for many years by a well-designed Division of Labour document (DoL) that sets out the roles and responsibilities of each cosponsor and the secretariat. The DOL is now in need of updating to bring it in line with the most recent UNAIDS Strategy and epidemic priorities. While the DoL document is in need of updating, it has provided a good framework for collaboration within the joint programme.
ReplyDeleteWhen revising the DoL, the most important principle should be to recognize and exploit the complementarity of the various members of the joint programme (cosponsors and secretariat). Each member is different, and brings a unique set of capabilities, skills and expertise to the joint programme. The DoL should embrace that diversity while recognizing the value added of joint work that avoids duplication and links HIV work to the broader achievement of the SDGs. The DoL should be carefully constructed to avoid duplication of effort while exploiting the complementarity of the members and maximizing the effectiveness and synergy of their work. The old DoL got this mostly right, but did suffer from a tendency of members to try to be present in a broad range of areas, or to encroach upon the mandates of others, leading to duplication of effort and a suboptimal use of resources.
The revision should be crafted to channel the efforts of members into those areas in which they are most effective, while leaving other areas to other actors who may be more effective. Within the DoL, cosponsors should focus on delivering the technical content of the AIDS response, while the Secretariat should focus on advocacy, coordination, resource mobilization, and some aspects of strategic information. The UNAIDS Secretariat should not encroach on the mandates of cosponsors within the DoL, and should get involved in technical work only when cosponsors are not able to provide it.
Most importantly, the DoL will be effective only to the extent that it is respected and correctly implemented. There must be a commitment on the part of all members to respect the DoL and the responsibilities of other members.
A UN Strategic Advisory Group on HIV and Drug Use (“the SAG”) has been operating for several years and comprises staff from UNODC, UNAIDS and WHO, alongside representatives from governments, civil society and academia. This group has been the key vehicle for co-sponsors to plan and allocate UN activities focussed on people who inject drugs, but to date its profile and outputs have been relatively modest.
ReplyDeleteThe Terms of Reference for the SAG expired at the end of 2016 and options for a newly constituted group are currently being explored through a consultation process. This consultation presents an important opportunity to strengthen the SAG – and therefore the UN HIV response for people who use drugs. HRI and other civil society organisations have called for a newly formed SAG, which has a more active and systematic role in providing expert advice to UNAIDS and its co-sponsors and holding them accountable for their commitments, alongside overseeing strategic research projects and leading advocacy on the health and rights of people who use drugs. A stronger SAG, with its own work plan, would ensure a clearer division of labour among UN agencies working on HIV among people who use drugs, and would be an obvious vehicle through which to engage key stakeholders. It would however need the endorsement of UNAIDS and its leadership, as well as the financial resources to carry out its role.
The UN Strategic Advisory Group on HIV and Drug Use (“the SAG”) has been operating for several years, as a key vehicle for co-sponsors to plan activities focussed on people who inject drugs. But its profile and outputs have been relatively modest, with minimal commitment and resources from UNAIDS.
ReplyDeleteUNAIDS has to demonstrate its leadership by strengthening, mandating and resourcing the SAG, ensuring a more active and systematic role in providing expert advice to UNAIDS and its co-sponsors and holding them accountable for their commitments, alongside overseeing strategic research projects and leading advocacy on the health and rights of people who use drugs.
The UN Strategic Advisory Group on HIV and drug use needs to be strengthened and invested in. This especially important given the weaker UN response on the health and rights of people who use drugs. This would allow for more active and systematic engagement with, and advising UNAIDS and its co sponsors, particularly in the areas of research and advocacy.
ReplyDeleteThis would also allow for a clearer division of labour
among UN agencies working on HIV among people who use drugs, and would be an obvious vehicle through which to engage key stakeholders. In order to do this, an official endorsement from UN and its leadership is needed; in addition to financial resources.
Jorge Beloqui, Brazil
ReplyDeleteI think there are biases in these organizations. For example, I was remembering the other day, the book entitled “Confronting AIDS” written by 2 World Bank officers (1997 or 1998 I think). Of course, the WB said this was not its opinion, but it was the one of some of its officers. Compare the policies they advocated and how they argued in order not to provide treatment for PWHA in developing countries and the treatment target UNAIDS and WHO have set recently. Has this perspective ever been criticized? Which was the science (?) behind these recommendations? What was the role of Huma Rights and Human Dignity in this report? How much distress and errors did these policies produce?
UNAIDS, by recovering the leadership on Human Rights, and Human Dignity has an important role in keeping these points above in the agenda. UNAIDS knows that discrimination nurtures the epidemics, and can/ has to provide guidance in this respect.
Conociendo realmente que sucede en cada país,ponerse de acuerdo las agencias en cuales son las poblaciones a abordar y no generar divisiones entre ellos y las poblaciones vulnerables
ReplyDelete1. The work of the cosponsors is an integral part of the joint programme and critical to the HIV response. There should be scope for a strong role for cosponsors in key technical areas critical to the AIDS response. The Joint Programme does not always mean joint work, but may often leverage the presence and strengths of individual agencies.
ReplyDeleteThe working modalities of the Joint Programme are clear. The added value of both cosponsors and the secretariat is undeniable. The question is – Are cosponsors and the Secretariat committed to making it work? The feeling of unnecessary competition (territorial and financial) between organizations and too often times with the Secretariat is not productive and certainly serves no one. One point of entry facilitates the work on the ground is what Member States have praised – it should be kept. It is not the division of labor that limits the way the joint programme works, but the way resource allocation is done according to a historic distribution instead of the way the epidemic evolved and the gaps identified. If we are to reach the 2030 targets for everyone, we need to revisit priority setting for the allocation of resources (HR&$), advocacy and technical assistance provision.
ReplyDeleteIn our opinion, it is necessary to create work plans at the country, regional and global levels. Availability of country, regional, global plans - will guarantee avoid overlap and will clearly separate sectors and results. As well, the creation of plans will improve coordination and visibility of Joint Programm.
ReplyDeleteThere already exists a division of labour. It's fine to re-visit it from time to time and adjust it according to country need and context...too often who does what, and what coordinating mechanisms exist are dictated globally and has no relevance in a country context. UNAIDS has to play it's role as a coordinating secretariat, and allow agencies to see where their added value is - and have govt confirm/validate. What's not helpful is to have HQs pronounce how we must be organised and then fly in and out of countries to launch mechanisms and strategies. Providing guidance is fine; it can be helpful but we need to re-orient our focus from the ground up, based on country needs and UN capacities in country.
ReplyDeleteResources should be prioritised in fast track countries and Secretariat/Co-Sponsors should ensure that staff with the right skills are in place in each country. A clear set of objectives should be developed incorporating clear feedback process on performance from external partners on the ground.
ReplyDeleteRevisions to the division of labour should have a strong like to resource allocation across the Joint Programme, which should have a strong link back to delivery of results and/or contribution to the strategy.
The existing division of labour that describes the roles of the UNAIDS Secretariat and the Cosponsoring organizations is a logical way to organise cross-programme work and yet it is not widely understood – in part because “UNAIDS” for many stakeholders has become shorthand for the Secretariat which is often mistaken as an independent UN agency. It could help if all of us close to and within the Joint Programme take care with our language when referencing “UNAIDS” so that the key central coordination and advocacy roles of the Secretariat are appropriately acknowledged alongside the technical and implementation roles of cosponsoring organizations. This is not just a matter for how we organise work plans, M&E and reporting but also for how we communicate, advocate and present the work, challenges and results of the Joint Programme. Our key strength is leveraging a coordinated response across the UN system.
ReplyDeleteUNAIDS Secretariat has built strong communication capacity that has served the Joint Programme and the global response well over the years and the Secretariat is highly skilled in creating the narratives that help frame how the world understands both the epidemic and the response to the epidemic. It has been encouraging to see UNAIDS Secretariat taking greater care in recent months to give emphasis to the “joint” nature of the “Joint Programme” and this fits with the spirit of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development and the complex challenges ahead in moving the world towards ending AIDS as a public health threat. The SDGs do offer an opportunity for us to revisit the division of labour and it would be helpful if the narrative we build around this evolution continues to give appropriate emphasis to leveraging across the UN system to address the considerable and complex challenges of HIV.
Well said, I totally agree!
DeleteThe decisions regarding allocation of human and financial resources in countries should be done in a joint, coordinated manner. The allocation of resources should appropriately respond to the epidemiological situation, identified needs and gaps in countries.
ReplyDeleteThe resources both human and financial should be allocated in accordance with the epidemiological situation and the needs at country level. Greater coordination among cosponsors through joint work plans at country level the would ensure a more effective response.
ReplyDeleteOne way the Joint Programme can work together more effectively is to improve opportunities for staff exchanges between the UNAIDS Secretariat and the Cosponsors (either through secondments of short-term exchanges). This will result in a greater understanding and an overall strengthening of the Joint Programme.
ReplyDeletePartant du slogan « One UN » , il faudrait que l’ensembles des organismes co-parrains de ONUSIDA traduise se slogan par une synergie des efforts afin de mettre tout le monde dans une démarche coordonnée qui puisse identifier , planifier et mettre en œuvres des programme concertés , malheureusement ce n’est pas toujours le cas car on observe des chevauchements , multiplication des programmes et surtout recherche de visibilité pour chaque organisme qui renvoie une image triste du SNU en générale.
ReplyDeleteA resource allocation for resource mobilization based on each agency's size, budget etc should be developed and allocated to each agency for resource mobilization. Similarly a resource allocation formula based on the resource mobilization formula in addition to a weighted score of each agency's role in the joint programme and specific result they are accountable for should be developed and used to allocate the resources. In this way secretariat and co-sponsors will be accountable for mobilizing resources for the joint programme and the particular results they are individually responsible for in the joint programme.
ReplyDeleteWith significant progress made on treatment access and (hopefully) reduced incidence, the Secretariat at times suffers from a certain "mission creep" into the technical areas more appropriate to cosponsor work, and at times without adequate communication and coordination. This can be confusing with partners, especially when combined with the relative disproportionate country level presence of Secretariat staff (as compared to cosponsor HIV staff) As a result, partners often mistake the Secretariat for a separate (and at times competing) UN agency. The first Executive Director of UNAIDS always stressed that EACH WORD of the title of the Programme is crucial (JOINT in that there are multiple agencies and funds that add value based on their specific expertise, responsibilities and networks), UNITED NATIONS (main focus is developing and delivering quality UN support to Member States), PROGRAMME (the secretariat is not an agency but a coordinator and facilitator with essential role of cosponsors) on HIV/AIDS (remain focused on the epidemic itself -- admittedly more complicated as we delve into systemic drivers of the epidemic).
ReplyDeletePour assurer la réussite du programme conjoint, il faudrait responsabiliser les coordonnateurs résidents dans les pays, le programme conjoint doit être inclus dans l'évaluation des RC, afin qu'ils assurent leur engagement au titre du plan conjoint de UNCT.
ReplyDeleteIn some regions and countries, the joint UNAIDS programme no longer exists in practice. UNAIDS staff and offices are the only United Nations representation on HIV left at the regional and country level that is fully engaged with partners, with little meaningful engagement from the UNAIDS cosponsors. The Panel should propose that the future UNAIDS model reflects this reality, and ensures that the staff and resources of UNAIDS match the reality of the deployment of UNAIDS at the regional and country levels.
ReplyDelete•Update and ensure greater clarity on the division of labour between cosponsoring agencies in line with the UNAIDS Strategy 2016-2021, utilizing the output areas of the 8 result areas, with overall coordination by UNAIDS Secretariat;
ReplyDelete•Assess possible innovative ways to divide the work among cosponsors, such as one cosponsor per output area with overall responsibility/accountability, bearing in mind the strengths and weaknesses of each co-sponsor; and
•Revitalize UNAIDS as a joint programme and not a single UN agency to ensure HIV response is not siloed
Svetlana Doltu, NGO AFI
ReplyDeleteRealizarea pe bază sistematică a Cartografierii partenerilor, intervențiilor și resurselor disponibile la toate nivelele (local, national și regional) cu discutarea in cadrul Reuniunilor, va permite optimizarea eforturilor și amplifica răspunsul la infectia HIV SIDA.