1 Chair/Vice-Chairs proposal for reform Draft as of 4 April 2007 - - PDF document

1 Chair/Vice-Chair’s proposal for reform Draft as of 4 April 2007 Strengthening of global coordination on AIDS; Implementation of PCB decision 8, adopted under agenda item 5 on 8th December 2006 at the 19th Programme and Coordinating Board (PCB) meeting in Lusaka 6 – 8 December 2006.

• 1. The PCB decision addresses two different perspectives of the subject; the decision

“establishes a process to elaborate further on……”

• - UNAIDS´ role in strengthening Global Coordination of AIDS, and
• - how to develop the UNAIDS Programme Coordination Board into a more relevant and

effective policy-making Board

• 2. The decision also identifies a number of matters that would be included and addressed in

the process, these are

• - number of Board meetings,
• - venues,
• - character of meetings,
• - board representation,
• - NGO participation,
• - speaking protocol,
• - decision–making, and
• - the further development of the constituency system.
• 3. For both parts of the decision the present process established under the leadership of the

Chair and the Vice-Chair of the Board is to be seen as the first step in both strengthening the role of UNAIDS in Global Coordination of AIDS and the development of a PCB into a more relevant and effective policy making body. Some steps should be possible to agree upon at the up-coming PCB meeting in June, 2007. Certain other ideas and proposals, however, will require further analyses and deliberations.These are brought up in section 7.3.

• 4. On the first aspect of the said decision, “UNAIDS’ role in strengthening Global

Coordination of AIDS” it can be noted that the role of UNAIDS (more defined role) involves advocacy, coordination and division of labour in between each relevant organization. A core mandate of UNAIDS is its coordinating role. The specific character of the Joint Programme, a programme consisting of a Secretariat and ten co-sponsoring agencies facilitates this mandate. Matters related to “UNAIDS`s role in strengthening Global Coordination of AIDS” were part

• f the five-year evaluation of UNAIDS, a report of the Executive Director in responding to

the Five year evaluation (the Future direction of UNAIDS) as well as the work in 2003 of the

• pen-ended working group on this matter.

The task before us at this stage is to refine UNAIDS role and mandate, with a special focus on

• PCB. In particular, a distinction should be made between decision-making on concrete

matters at hand and more strategic discussions on certain themes. Detailed discussions and possible decisions on more far reaching matters related to roles and mandates will have to be part of a later process, and also conformed with the broader UN reform agenda.

• 5. On the second part of the decision, “how to develop the UNAIDS´ PCB into a more

relevant and effective policy-making Board”, the analyses and proposals for change must

2 build on a common understanding of the shortcomings of the current modus operandi, an analysis on what issues and functions that do work and what does not work, identify where there is a need for change, in order for PCB to be more operational and effective.

• 6. The following problems and shortcomings have been identified, in the Board debate and in

informal talks and discussions following the debate.

• - The PCB has today too little impact on the rest of the “system”, this goes for both the UN

system and other international partners; many partners, even co-sponsors, do not see the value

• f being present, and active, at PCB meetings. The sense of ownership is not strong enough.
• - The thematic meetings have not been able to develop fully into meetings of the kind they

were supposed to be, instead they have developed into a mix of functions, including being a forum for debate, a policy making forum and a more concrete decision making forum.

• - Increased workloads and overloaded agendas make it necessary to rush through both

debates and negotiations, it might be necessary to discuss the valued added in having additional PCB meetings per year.

• - The location of meetings (thematic meetings) outside Geneva has led to extra work load

and high costs.

• - The PCB has developed to a large extent into a donor driven entity, developing countries´

participation is limited, both in plenary sessions and, even more so, in the drafting group

• -The constituency system does not work well, only a few Board seats seem to have well

functioning constituency systems,

• - There is a lack of involvement and ownership in the UNAIDS, in particular the PCB, work.

Several important stakeholders for the fight against HIV and AIDS do not participate in the work, among others the private sector, for example neither enterprises, nor foundations.

• - There is a serious lack of coherence in action, within secretariats but also, maybe even more

so, a lack in coherence in what members do on the PCB Board and what they do on the Board

• f the ten cosponsoring partners, and also other relevant decision making fora. Even though

the PCB and other decision making bodies several times have agreed on far reaching actions to assure better coherence in action it is still very clear that a lot more needs to be done in implementing these policy decisions.

• - Too many PCB decisions require far reaching, and often duplicative, reporting procedures

by the Secretariat, requirements that hinder the Secretariat from focusing in a more thorough way on implementation of decisions and recommendations.

• - There is very little follow up on accountability matters; at different levels and for different

stakeholders; for example, how to hold co-sponsors accountable to their commitments to the Joint programme, how to hold member states accountable to their commitments and actions and, not least, the accountability of PCB in itself.

• - A root cause of many of the aforementioned problems is due to a lack of involvement and
• wnership.
• 7. Based on above identified problems and shortcomings a number of ideas and proposals

could be considered, in the following presented under three main headings:

• - Management reform, including interaction between UNAIDS and other actors and the

development of PCB into a more relevant and effective policy-making body.

• - Structural reform, addressing issues related to involvement and ownership and governance

matters.

• - Other matters; mostly matters that require further analyses and discussion.

3 7.1 Management reform: 7.1.1 Interaction between UNAIDS and other actors. 7.1.1.1 Reform activities where decisions can, and should, be taken at management level; by heads of UNAIDS, co-sponsors and other relevant agencies. There is already today a great number of areas and possibilities where a better coordination could be developed between UNAIDS and other development partners; within and outside the UN family. Following the Global Task Team on Improving AIDS Coordination (GTT) some steps have also already been taken. Further action to improve interaction among partners in a more systematic manner could include:

• - joint UNAIDS and GFATM secretariat meetings on a regular basis
• - regular meetings of the executive heads of the main multilateral organizations engaged in

HIV and AIDS programmes,

• - a further development of systematic coordination among relevant partners at country level,

within UNAIDS (Secretariat and co-sponsors), with other UN agencies and with other development partners, multilateral and bilateral, and also with authorities in HIV/AIDS affected countries.

• - a further development of the UBW (only relevant for UNAIDS Secretariat and the co-

sponsors); see further below, para 7.1.2.6. Co-ordination activities of this kind do not require decisions by member states, they can build upon decisions already taken at the intergovernmental level and should also be part of

• ngoing UN reform.

7.1.1.2 Reform activities that require decisions at intergovernmental level There are also coordination activities that in a broader sense involve member states and therefore require further discussion and decisions at intergovernmental level, decisions by the PCB as well as decisions by the Boards of other relevant organizations. Some reform proposals that have been mentioned and discussed in the past are the following:

• - Chairs and vice chairs of governing boards of UNAIDS Cosponsoring organizations and the

GFATM participate in PCB meetings.

• - An informal meeting/retreat to be organized for the Chairs/vice-chairs of governing boards
• f UNAIDS Cosponsoring organizations, the GFATM and the PCB. The meeting/retreat

could also include the heads of each organization. Even though these coordination activities could be implemented within the framework of the ECOSOC resolution, discussions in the past show that they require further analyses and discussion among member states.

4 7.1.2. Making the UNAIDS PCB more relevant and effective . 7.1.2.1 Number of Board meetings

• - PCB meetings to be held twice a year over 2-3 days.

One additional PCB meeting every second year, that means two meetings per year, would give a better chance both to handle the agenda and make the Board more relevant and effective; such a change would also facilitate the Joint Programme to fulfil its role in Global Coordination of AIDS. 7.1.2.2 Venue for meetings

• - All meetings should be held in Geneva to limit costs for the Secretariat and facilitate better

participation by all Board Members The present system with PCB meetings outside Geneva is costly and it also seems clear that the value added in these meetings is limited. Therefore, it is proposed that all meetings be held in Geneva. Meetings held in Geneva would also facilitate a better participation by all Board Members. One reason for having meetings outside Geneva has been to provide an opportunity for Board members to be briefed about and see the realities on the ground. In response to this need, an idea would be that UNAIDS´ secretariat organizes field trips to one or several countries, if possible every year and definitely at least every second year. Such field trips would provide

• pportunities to see and learn in a more comprehensive way than during the, often, rather

hasty field trips that today are part of the thematic meetings. A host country should also assist an organization of such field trips. 7.1.2.3 Nature of meetings.

• - PCB meetings should consist of a decision making segment and a thematic segment.
• - Interactive discussions should be encouraged rather than prepared texts
• Decision making segment

(1) Agenda should be focused, so that Board members debate and decide on matters where a decision is required; PCB should not engage in issues that fall within the mandate of management. (2) Decisions taken at this segment shall be brief, concrete and action oriented, include indicators to enable better monitoring and follow up. (3) It is crucial to avoid that these decisions develop into repetitions or copies of policy statements and political declarations.

• Thematic segment

(1) Agenda would focus on specific strategic themes so that the segment would provide

• pportunities for all relevant actors to debate HIV and AIDS and move the agenda forward.

(2) Agenda would not include regular PCB business. (3) More time should be devoted to interactive sessions. (4) Limit number of speakers for round table sessions (5) Open up for key partners, see further below.

5 The system today with a thematic meeting every second year has not worked well. In addition to the costs argument related to the venue, overloaded agendas have meant that also thematic meetings have, partly, developed into “ordinary business” meetings. This is not a welcome

• development. However, it is crucial to maintain possibilities for thematic and other policy

making discussions. A possibility would be the model proposed above that a PCB meeting should consist of a decision making segment and a thematic segment. A thematic segment would then be the more strategically oriented segment, a segment where debates are fostered, a segment that would provide opportunities for all relevant actors to debate HIV and AIDS and move the agenda forward. It is suggested to broaden the participation in this segment to involve civil society and other key partners (see para 7.2.1.2). A forum like this one would strengthen UNAIDS´ role in overall policy making and coordination. 7.1.2.4 Meeting documents and consultation process.

• - A list of participants should be distributed prior to the meetings.
• - There should be a wider informal consultation process prior to PCB meetings, particularly
• n key issues such as budget and work programme.
• - Informal working committees could be established; on a regular or an ad hoc basis, on

specific issues, such as budget and work programme. The secretariat distributes a list of participants after the meeting. To facilitate contacts and informal discussions among PCB members and observers it would be helpful if such a list would be distributed prior to the meeting, and then updated during the meeting. Briefing sessions and consultative meetings could also be carried out in order for PCB members and observers to understand and become more involved with discussions on key

• issues. Furthermore, it might be useful to establish an informal working committee (on a

regular or an ad hoc basis) to have a thorough discussion on, for example, budget and work programme and thereby guide PCB in its decision making process. 7.1.2.5 Drafting group

• - A system should be developed that secure a well balanced representation in the drafting
• group. Fixed seats allocated to PCB members´ participation could be one way of doing this.

The substantive discussion and decision making on items brought forward for the decision making segment of PCB should preferably take place in the plenary and matters only be referred to the drafting group when no consensus can be reached at the plenary. However, this also requires that a system is developed that safeguards that the participation in the drafting group is well balanced and includes not only donors but also developing countries, in particular the most affected ones. Since many delegations cannot cover both the plenary and the drafting group in parallel, but also to make negotiations in the drafting group more structured and focused, an idea could be to arrange fixed seats allocated to PCB members´ participation in the drafting group. These allocations would be for negotiating purpose but should not prevent PCB members and observers who would like to observe and take part in the process. It should also be possible for such observers to provide comments, directly or through their constituency representative.

6 7.1.2.6 Implementation of PCB decisions; coherence and accountability.

• - A follow up mechanism should be established to secure that PCB decisions lead to action;

at all levels; global, regional and national.

• - The Unified Budget and Work plan (UBW) should be further developed and refined as the

strategic tool for division of responsibilities and other governance matters within UNAIDS; the secretariat and the ten co-sponsors. It is crucial that decisions and recommendations from each PCB meeting lead to action, at all levels; global, regional and national. Today there is no regular mechanism for accountability and follow-up (implementation, evaluation, monitoring) on these matters. The Programme Coordinating Board could and should be an important forum for discussing and acting upon coherence and accountability matters. To improve on these matters it is critical that we all do what we have agreed to do, that we fulfil commitments made, that we are prepared to stay accountable for our actions, and non-actions. This is relevant for the Secretariat, both the UNAIDS secretariat and, maybe even more, the secretariats of the ten co-sponsoring bodies. But this is also very relevant for the owners of the system, the member

• states. Within the Secretariat these efforts will, to a large extent, be handled within the CCO

mechanism. It is also crucial that other relevant actors are on board, at HQ and at field levels. A special responsibility rests, for example, with those that have the responsibility to organize the Board calendar, agenda and work for the ten co-sponsoring agencies. For people with these responsibilities, it must be clear what decisions that have been taken by PCB, and what further steps these decisions require for the respective co-sponsor. In a similar way, there must be well functioning communication channels in capitals of member states to ensure the follow up

• f PCB decisions also in the ten co-sponsoring agencies, and other relevant

agencies/programmes. The Programme Coordinating Board could and should be an important mechanism for discussing and acting upon accountability matters. A critical instrument for PCB in achieving coherence and accountability is the Unified Budget and Workplan (UBW), the instrument at hand for division of labour among the ten co- sponsors and commitments made by all of them, based on country realities and linked closely to the national AIDS programs as well as the programs of other donors. But there is a need to further develop this instrument, to make it become an effective governance tool, a tool that all actors involved must take seriously and respect. This also means that there must be a follow- up to agreements made through the UBW, a follow-up where co-sponsors report back to PCB about action taken. Evaluation and monitoring measures must be put in place. The forms for this work need to be further identified and discussed in order for the PCB to consider the necessary decisions on improvements. 7.2 Structural reform 7.2.1 Involvement and ownership 7.2.1.1 Constituency system of Member States

• - A further developed constituency system

7

• - Regional consultations
• - The selection process; how to find the most relevant and motivated member states within

each regional group? UNAIDS needs a more active and effective Board, a Board that is relevant and makes Board members feel ownership of the work and of decisions taken. The constituency system provides an opportunity for countries to be more involved even if they at present are not members of the Board. To build a well functioning constituency takes some time and in many cases it would also require active Secretariat’s support to Member States. . The trend (feeling) that UNAIDS PCB has developed into a mainly donor driven Board must be reversed and the developing countries become more active on the Board. A better functioning constituency system would be one instrument to achieve this. It may necessary to develop working methods that facilitate a more active participation by relevant stakeholders, to find ways and means to increase stakeholders´ ownership in the Joint Program. The most critical part of this is the selection process when member states are being elected to the Board, to find the most relevant and motivated member states within each regional group. This is a challenge for member states in dealing with election matters, but also an area where the UNAIDS Secretariat should play an active role in helping to identify suitable candidates. 7.2.1.2 Participation of key partners

• - The present review and reform process should identify ways and means for broadening the

participation by key partners in the UANIDS/PCB work. Today member states, cosponsors and non-governmental organizations are represented on the

• Board. In contradiction to, for example, the Global Fund, the private sector (foundations,

enterprises etc) is not present at all. This means that the private sector is, for example, very active on the GFATM Board but not present at all at UNAIDS PCB, the Board of the Joint Programme that has been given the task to discuss policy matters, relevant for “all”. It can also be noted that GFATM in itself does not, in a more formal way, participate in the PCB work – even though UNAIDS sits on the GFATM Board as a non-voting member. Therefore, the present review and reform process should identify ways and means for improving the participation by private sector, GFATM and other development partners, including academic institutions, community-based organizations, foundations, other donors and regional bodies, in the work of UNAIDS/PCB. A thematic segment, as proposed in paragraph 7.1.2.3 above, would provide a good

• pportunity for a wider group of development partners to take part in the overall policy work
• f UNAIDS, without changing the formal set up of Board members.

The co-sponsors participate on the PCB through the Chair of CCO. This is a system that facilitates a focused approach and it also means an effective way of doing business. But it is also clear that it require a well functioning CCO mechanism and well established information and communication routines in between the CCO and the UNAIDS secretariat.

8 7.2.2 PCB related matters 7.2.2.1 Speaking protocol and decision making at the PCB

• - All members of the Board have equal opportunity to speak at Board meetings.

Through its decision 3.9 on December 8, 2006, the PCB gave all members of the Board equal

• pportunities to speak at Board meetings. This was an important decision for civil society

representatives that always have had to wait until everybody else had spoken. Such a decision was possible to make within the framework of relevant ECOSOC resolutions. Going one step further, for example changing the voting rights rule will need further analyses and consideration; see para 7.3 below. 7.2.2.2 Election process

• - In order to bring the period of Chair/Vice Chair into harmony with the periods for which

members of the PCB are elected and this eliminate the risk that an incumbent Chair/Vice Chair is no longer a Board member, a solution could be to elect the Chair/ Vice Chair for one calendar year at the second PCB meeting of the preceding year. Such a new procedure could enter into effect from 2009. The PCB would then in June 2008 elect a Chair/ Vice Chair until 31 December 2008 with the tacit understanding that the same Chair/ Vice Chair would be re- elected for the full calendar year of 2009 at the second PCB meeting in 2008.

• - Further ways to improve coordination on electoral matters between ECOSOC and PCB.

should be explored. 7.2.2.3 PCB Bureau and rotation of duties

• - Establish a geographical rotation plan for Chair, vice-chair and rapporteur, representatives
• f co-sponsors and of NGOs.

Since the first PCB meeting in 1995 there was no rotation plan for Chair, Vice Chair and

• Rapporteur. For planning purposes, such a system could be helpful; for UNAIDS but also

within regional groups. It might even facilitate the work to find the most relevant and motivated Board members/Chairs/Vice-Chairs/rapporteurs. 7.3 Matters that require further analyses and deliberations Ideas identified earlier on in this paper (most of them) should be possible to decide upon and implement without a lot of further analyses and negotiations. They should also be in accordance with the present ECOSOC framework. But there are also a number of other, more far reaching, ideas that could be relevant for further review. Some of them are the following:

• - Number of PCB members, where some voices have been heard that it would be good to

reduce the number, to make the PCB “more participatory but smaller”. A further deliberation

• n this idea should take account of questions such as suitable number of seats; which part of

the composition of PCB members (some or all) to be reduced and how many ; a possible allocation of seats to new stakeholders should be absorbed by a reduction in existing seats; etc.

9

• - Status of PCB members, including voting rights; there might be partners that see the PCB

decision from December 2006 on speaking protocol only as a first step.

• - Constituency systems for NGO´s, where some thoughts have been heard that the present

system, based on regional groupings, is not the most efficient one.

• - Global Peer Review; another topic that have been discussed, but with very little consensus
• n possible action.
• - Secretariat; more meetings and higher demand on the Secretariat also require more staff

resources; important not to forget.

• 8. Process and timeline

5 April 2007: A paper will be distributed by the Chair and Vice-Chair to all Board members,

• bservers and other relevant partners.

19 and 20 April 2007: Consultations with Member States, Cosponspors and Civil Society. Presentation of the paper. Discussion and comments. 25 April: A second version of the paper will be distributed by the Chair and Vice-Chair. Board members and observers will be invited to present written comments on the draft, not later than 2 May 2007. Following written comments the Chair and Vice-chair will finalize the text by 7 May 2007, the text then to be sent for editing, translation etc, later on to PCB members as an official Board document for the 20th PCB meeting in June 2007.