FINANCING & ACCOUNTABILITY - QUESTION 2
How can the allocation of financial resources among Cosponsoring agencies and the Secretariat respond to performance and best reflect the needs of 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 should guide and ensure a ceiling of appropriate budget that cosponsors should adapt to its country operations. This would ensure that country operations would be guided accordingly to allocate an appropriate budget on HIV activities within the prescribed range and not be overrun by many other operational priorities. In this sense the country operation will be guided during country operation planning and work maximally against the prescribed budget ceiling. I believe that accountability by cosponsors is better measured and monitored if a prescribed budget for cosponsors especially in the country level is set in order ensure that HIV related activities are not deprioritized.
ReplyDeleteJoint Programme should move towards a resource allocation model, which is based on a gap analysis and which would better consider epi situation and other available resources for strategic responses in countries
ReplyDeleteThis is a particularly interesting question, since it makes certain assumptions as to the needs of countries. I would argue that UNAIDS also needs to respond to the requirements of groups who will easily be overlooked by countries. Here we are talking about MSM, IDUs, and others. Please see our recent paper, Rodríguez, D., Whiteside, A., & Bennett, S. (2017). "Political commitment for vulnerable populations during donor
ReplyDeletetransition" in the World Health Bulletin.
One thing that is increasingly important is to be realistic about what resources we actually have and work out the best ways to allocate them, which will be a combination of human rights, politics, and economics. There is also a need for countries to show a commitment to raising domestic resources, which UNAIDS must report on.
Communicate as much as possible with the communities at country level to measure the needs, do this as independent as possible from local Governments because Government representatives might have a perception that does not reflect real needs at ground level.
ReplyDeleteThe joint programme needs to move towards a financial allocation system based on situation and gap analysis and setting priorities on what needs to be done to reach the SDG to end AIDS by 2030, and not based on entitlements
ReplyDeleteIt is important that there is flexibility in the funding given to the joint programme as it is important that both the secretariat and cosponsors can respond to unforeseen needs and emerging priorities. If funding is too prescribed, it will not be able to able to respond to gaps and challenges which develop. This will particularly affect regions/countries/key issues which are not prioritised during planning and are not well funding through other funding streams.
ReplyDeleteA questão do financiamento das atividades, em especial para entidades da sociedade civil é sempre um grande entrave. Há sempre atividades de mais e recursos de menos, por isso a importância de que haja sempre para o conjunto do programa uma certa flexibilidade para o conjunto dessas atividades, justamente visando responder essas exigências e lacunas paras preenchimento dos desafios
ReplyDeleteThe allocation process needs to be revisited. Even before Cosponsors receive money at HQ level, there should be regional/country meetings (JURTA/JUNTA) to discuss what are the priorities (Q3/Q4). This way joint/ comprehensive projects can be discussed, elaborated and drafted with adequate reflection time (who will be targeted, where, how, with what). Each agency can also say to which activity output it can contribute and estimate the needed money. This can then be reviewed by HQ/ regional level to appreciate the impact on the HIV response. All the submissions can be ranked according to the pertinence and impact (starting with Fast-Track countries) committing agencies to finance the top ones.
ReplyDeleteI would agree to the suggestion to have some kind of application process from country offices in a way of joint programme. This will enable the joint program to show case what it has achieved so far and why it is requesting funding for the coming year. This will strength the coordination and planning together for a common goal. The best example I have is how for example the CERF is allocated to each country with the help of the OCHA country office. The simple logic is that, the joint team need to register the achievements of the funds already received and make that a base to justify funding for the coming year.
DeleteResource allocation that leaves limited funds available for specific UBRAF result areas and outputs (such as comprehensive packages of harm reduction services established for people who inject drugs) raise the question of whether some prioritisation process needs to be created to identify key issue areas and responsibilities in times of funding crisis, especially for harm reduction. UNAIDS should establish and use an external (e.g., Strategic Advisory Group on HIV and Drug Use) and internal review process to critically assess allocations under the UBRAF.
ReplyDeleteThe allocation of financial resources among Cosponsoring agencies and the Secretariat needs to be re-assessed if we are to reach the SDG Goal of Ending AIDSby 2030. Reallocation of funds needs to occur, and be based on evidence, and gap analysis. Taking the Get on the Fast Track data cited above as example, these new figures show a one third increase in HIV infections among people who inject drugs, during a period in which UN member states had pledged to halve HIV transmission among this key population. It is critical that resources are directed towards the co-sponsor lead on HIV and drug use, and efforts directed towards domestic financing advocacy of harm reduction.
ReplyDeleteUNAIDS needs to cut the very expensive budget in Geneva and increase it in the UNAIDS country offices on the ground where the really impactful advocacy and technical work is happening. One Geneva salary can go a long way in financing several positions in a low income country.
ReplyDeleteConocer y dar apoyo real a la SC interesada, hay lucha de poderes entre las agencias que apoyan organizaciones o grupos que en vez de ayudar, dividen y hacen perder dinero y capacidad tecnica
ReplyDelete16. The joint programme should maintain a mechanism to channel funds through the Secretariat to the cosponsors. One of the main functions of the Secretariat is to mobilize resources for the entire joint programme and facilitate the use of those funds according to a coordinated plan.
ReplyDeleteJust a quick response to your assertion that one of the main functions of the Secretariat is to mobilise resources for the entire Joint Programme. I am not sure if this is fully accurate. The ECOSOC declaration that founded the Joint Programme envisaged that the Secretariat would be funded by the Joint Programme. In reality the opposite has happened however the Secretariat is under no formal obligation to fundraise on behalf of the Co-Sponsors. I feel it is important that this nuance is understood by all
Delete17. The collective funds are crucial to the Joint Programme to continue multisectoral work on HIV/AIDS. As the different agencies of the Joint Programme share many of their major donors and receive funding based on their specific mandates, it is not realistic to expect HIV/AIDS funding through each Cosponsor’s core funding mechanism that could replace collective UBRAF funds.
ReplyDeleteThe practice of providing the same core funding to Co-Sponsors each year irrespective of their performance undermines the Joint Programme. It suggests that funding is based on historical precedent as opposed to delivery of results/contribution to the strategy.
ReplyDeleteThis is a chance to re-consider all previous financing decisions. I would like to point out that Redha’s comment that one of the main functions of the Secretariat is to raise resources for the whole of the Joint Programme is incorrect. The ECOSOC declaration that founded the Joint Programme envisaged that the Co-Sponsors would fund the Secretariat. It has become the established practice that the Co-Sponsors have de-prioritised HIV/AIDS from within their own budgets and chosen to rely on the Secretariat to engage in fund raising on their behalf. However, the Secretariat is under no obligation to continue this practice.
If resources are continued to be allocated to the Co-Sponsors the criteria upon which these are allocated need to be revised and possibly simplified to incorporate a link to delivery of results/contribution to the strategy. A balance would need to be found between providing certainty of resource allocation for all members of the Joint Programme and ensuring that the maximum impact is achieved.
In the spirit of everything being up in the air, one important question is what does it mean to be a Co-Sponsor? Is the allocation of resources from the Secretariat an integral part of this definition? Would it make sense for some Co-Sponsors to receive funding and others not? This could be linked to the share of total HIV spend that is accounted for by the Joint Programme, i.e. the smaller Co-Sponsors for whom the Joint Programme is a larger share of their total HIV spend could continue to receive resources whereas others do not.
If this is rejected possibly all Co-Sponsors could receive a minimum amount which is then topped up depending on their past performance/delivery of results. In all these considerations it will be important to 1) Protect the Secretariat’s core functions given that Joint Programme resources represents its sole source of funding; 2)Ensure that Co-Sponsors reporting to the Board on what they achieve with their core Joint Programme funding is significantly improved; 3) Strongly encourage the Co-Sponsors to reduce their reliance on Joint Programme funding and allocate sufficient resource to HIV/AIDS from within their own budget. A maintenance of the status quo is not tenable if UNAIDS wants to continue to remain a relevant institution which receives sufficient funding from donors
As we suggested in the other answers, there was an urgent need to establish clear plans (country, regional and global), and these plans must include a budget - this will increase the efficiency, as well as transparency and the level of trust and understanding, both within the Joint Programm and externally.
ReplyDeleteWhy are the majority of resources that are mobilised allocated to a Secretariat rather than the co-sponors or partners doing the work? It doesn't make sense that the small Secretariat designed to coordinate and advocate broadly is allocated the overwhelming majority of resources. Having a large Secretariat in Geneva does not help change the trajectory of the epidemic in Pakistan or Malawi. The balance needs to be shifted. UN agencies should allocate funding for their HIV response as well. But if there is a pot of pooled funding from donors for the UN joint AIDS response, 70% should not be allocated to what should be a small, nimble, strategic Secretariat.
ReplyDeleteI am somewhat surprised by the points raised by "Anonymous" (20170214 - 09:56).
DeleteMy understanding is that a lot of the Secretariat's staff are based overseas but they - like other UN bodies - has a core HQ function.
If the funding is not right, it is because donors are unwilling to continue opaque Co-Sponsors who failed to provide basic results on what Co-Sponsors get from UNAIDS funding. In the absence of that, it is unsurprising that donors are unwilling to give any more money. The answer, of course, is for the Co-Sponsors to be completely transparent on what they do and what they achieve with the funds. With that in place, I am confident more money will flow to UNAIDS. Without it, it will not.
I am always struck when thinking about this question about starting at the beginning.
ReplyDeleteThe orginal vision for the Joint Programme was that the Secretariat would be funded by donors and the Co-Sponsors. We have moved away from that proposal quite dramatically, with the Co-Sponsors now actually taking money from the Secretariat.
This practice of taking money from the Secretariat, rather than giving it to it, raises even more questions when one realises that they do not provide even the most basic information on what they actually spend these rare resources on. That is a complete disgrace and is ironic given that these same Co-Sponsors - and their supporters - are often advocating for greater amount of transparency in the world.
Clearly this position cannot - and must not - continue. The Secretariat, donors and the co-sponsors need to start again. They need to set out a clear strategy, with resources and results being linked to delivery of the strategy. Regular - quartely - publication of the progress against the resources *and* results must be completed by the Co-Sponsors and published on UNAIDS website. If the Co-Sponsors cannot sign up to the minimum level of transparency all funding for the Co-Sponsors must be withdrawn immediately. They will then have to justify to their own Boards why they failed to get financing from UNAIDS.
The joint programme needs to move towards a financial allocation system based on situation and gap analysis and setting priorities on what needs to be done to reach the SDG to end AIDS by 2030, and not based on entitlements.
ReplyDeleteSe debe realizar una programación en donde se especifique la asignación presupuestaria, tiempo en cumplir esta meta, y rendición de cuentas para verificar el correcto uso de los recursos monetarios.
ReplyDeleteAs it stands, UNAIDS’ resource allocation model is premised on a logic that deprioritises performance and results delivery. As long as Co-Sponsors are granted the same core funding each year, regardless of their contribution to strategic objectives and irrespective of their commitment to transparency standards, UNAIDS will lack the ability to incentivize and track performance at the country level. Until the Secretariat reforms this model, and begins to link resource allocation to delivery against planned results, UNAIDS will find it difficult to mobilize donor resources and maximize performance over the coming years.
ReplyDeleteThe joint programming should be done through situation and gap analysis based on the epi data. Priorities for fund allocation should be based on what needs to be done by whom to reach the SDG to end AIDS by 2030.
ReplyDeleteThere is a clear interdependency in the UNAIDS Strategy between the Cosponsor delivery on the strategic result areas, and the Secretariat’s core functions of coordination and mutual accountability, leadership and advocacy, and partnerships. The analysis prepared for the December 2016 PCB shows that it is necessary to allocate resources so as to ensure that the core functions of the Secretariat and the vital contributions of the Cosponsors, and the capacity of the Joint Programme as a whole to deliver on the UNAIDS Strategy, are maintained.
ReplyDeleteThe flexibility of the core UBRAF funding is important to cosponsors. For instance, Country Offices have no obligation to spend money or fundraising effort on HIV; a core function of the global and regional HIV teams is to encourage and support them to do so. Most UBRAF allocations are negotiated as matches with and for other internal budget holders, some globally and most regionally. Regional Bureaux control their own resources and have no obligations to provide any funding to HIV staff or activities; success at leveraging these funds has depended greatly on UNAIDS matching resources. Different Regional Bureaux respond to different incentives, which make flexibility important. The flexible core UBRAF funding has also allowed us to implement innovative initiatives such as the Global Commission on HIV and the Law and its follow-up, the UN Secretary General’s High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines and the urban health and justice initiative.
Cosponsors anticipate that the impact on their non-core UBRAF funding will be severe after 2018 when some of the existing multi-year HIV grants expire, while at the same time there will be reduced core capacity within cosponsoring agencies to secure additional funds at a time when we are all faced with reduced core resources.
Therefore, the joint programme should maintain a mechanism to channel funds through the Secretariat to the cosponsors. The allocation of funds should be dynamic and differentiated to ensure optimal delivery against the UNAIDS Strategy. However, greater predictability of funding flows would be necessary to ensure resources are used most effectively in order to achieve targets set out in the UNAIDS Strategy. Some kind of core allocation to allow for leveraging other internal resources to create better integration across the Cosponsors programmes, facilitate joint working and respond to gaps and emergencies would be preferable. Other funds could then be programmed to respond to epidemic priorities and gaps, and a number of modalities could be considered to guide allocations.
Finally, it is noteworthy that the Strategic Results Areas most heavily impacted by budget reductions are those that are lagging the farthest behind in the HIV response and are also the most dependent on flexible core UBRAF funding, especially work on key populations, gender equality and human rights-based approaches. These are also the areas that tend to be deprioritised by countries when international funding is not available. Maintaining some level of flexible funding for these is key to achieve the results outlined in the UNAIDS Strategy and UBRAF.
Strict limitations on joint programming reporting mechanisms make it very difficult to reflect all cosponsor and secretariat work. Though the JPMS has improved somewhat, it is still viewed by some to be little more than a requirement and not a real tool for analysis and reprogramming. If the secretariat views itself as a facilitator more than an implementor, resources for communication could be more broadly shared and coordinated among Joint Programme partners.
ReplyDeleteLes ressources des coparrainants doivent soutenir les efforts du programme conjoint dans les pays, ce qui est souvent pas le cas. Cette situation rend difficile le travail du secrétariat au niveau des pays, qui rencontre souvent beaucoup de difficulté pour engager les coparrainants dans le programme conjoint.
ReplyDeleteThe PCB should ensure that UNBRAF funds are provided only to support UNAIDS Secretariat staff and activities, and not to the cosponsors, who have their own core resources, should dedicate some of their own funds to sully support their HIV work.
ReplyDelete•Ensure UBRAF in line with an updated division of labour among cosponsoring agencies and the UNAIDS Secretariat; and
ReplyDelete•Improved transparency and accountability on the use of UBRAF funds by all cosponsoring agencies and the UNAIDS Secretariat
At this moment in time, it matters little that the cosponsors were initially expected to fund the Joint Programme or that the landscape shifted and the Secretariat has been supporting the cosponsors. What matters now is how to use funds where they are most needed and by whoever has the strongest capacity - including the most trustworthy track record - to use the funds effectively. As others have recommended, the way to determine the answer to the "where" and "by whom" questions needs to include communities and networks and has to happen at different levels (local, regional, global). The barriers that the Joint Programme faces to taking the common-sense advice shared here (by the All Ukrainian Network, Olga, Riku, Alan, Peter, and others) are substantial however: What will those cosponsors who receive less funding under a new model do? Will they maintain their commitment or threaten to exit? All 12 organizations will have to work together and all 12 need to determine an operating structure within which the benefits of collaborative processes are stronger than competition, territoriality, and/or exit.
ReplyDeleteSome of the comments I made on previous questions re: general discussion and joint work do also apply here especially in relation to accountability and creating alliance with private sector (untraditional donors). One comment I would add is that Global Funds have got an number of lessons to offer in terms of supporting communities and "forcing" government to go the right direction without using the AIDS conditionality despite what most people might think.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that Global Fund has been very creative and responsive to situations on the ground than any other agency/institution dealing with AIDS.
It's easy to see how widespread was and is the reaction across the Globe when the news that Global Fund is threatened to closing was out there.
• UNAIDS and co-sponsors needs to better synergize with others source of technical support at country and regional levels and not duplicate existing work : Global and regional networks of Key populations, others TA agencies (GIZ, 5% initiative, Grant management solution, etc)
ReplyDelete• UNAIDS needs to not compete for funding which are dedicated and unique to civil society which are integral part of the response to TA needs expresses by communities