Coordination − fit for purpose: Striving for more effective AIDS coordination at country level

1. Coordination − fit for purpose: Striving for more effective AIDS coordination at country level AIDS Architecture - Emerging Issues for Discussion Cindy Carlson

2. AIDS governance and coordination is a key element of the AU Roadmap 1 More diversified, balanced and sustainable financing models 2 Access to medicines – local production and regulatory harmonisation 3 Leadership, governance and oversight for sustainability Priority actions • Use strategic investment approaches for scale-up of basic programmes • Support communities to claim their rights and participate in governance of the responses • Ensure investments contribute to health system strengthening • Mobilise leadership at all levels to implement the Roadmap • Invest in leading medicines manufacturers – focusing on AIDS, TB and malaria • Lay foundations for a single African regulatory agency • Acquire essential skills through technology transfers and south-south cooperation • Incorporate TRIPS flexibilities and avoid "TRIPS-plus" measures in trade agreements • Develop financial sustainability plans with clear targets • Ensure development partners meet commitments and align with Africa’s priorities • Maximise opportunities to diversify funding sources and increase domestic resource allocation

3. The beginnings of a new national AIDS architecture • Time for a rethink on AIDS governance and coordination • Some countries are alreadymaking changes • These efforts need to besupported and shared • The purpose of this meeting is to consider the role of regional bodies in supporting national efforts.

4. AIDS Architecture – what do we mean? • ‘AIDS Architecture’ refers to the structures and mechanisms developed to coordinate and manage the national HIV response. • In most developing countries governance, coordination and management has been through some form of ‘national AIDS coordinating authority’ – NACA, and its secretariat, • The AIDS strategy is operationalised through multiple implementingi partners • Countries receiving Global Fund financing also have country coordinating mechanisms (CCMs)

5. What have been the primary coordination and management functions? • Responsibility for developing and coordinating national policy and the NSP • Monitoring and evaluation of the HIV response • Mainstreaming and Partnership relations • Resource mobilisation • Grant management

6. How have main functions been situated to date?

7. Examples of different coordination

8. What has worked well with AIDS coordination? • Raised the profile of HIV and AIDS in most countries; • Promoted inclusive multi-stakeholder and multi-sectorial approaches including for planning and implementing strategies; • Promoted one M&E framework and one coordinating authority; • Supported the mobilization of financial resources • Promoted rights based approaches to AIDS • Created some momentum for government and donors to harmonize with one AIDS strategy

9. What have been the key challenges? NACAs: • problems with public accountability mechanisms and getting high level representation Secretariats • Too often dependent on donor funds and operating more as ‘PMU’ than national coordination body • Weak coordination of implementation, monitoring and poor accountability for national AIDS response results across all partners • Effectiveness more to do with inter-personal relationships rather than high level placement (weak political support) • Challenges with maintaining smooth working relationships across government, especially between NAC Secretariats and MOHs • Slow and costly decision making processes

10. What lessons have we learned? • Structures are not a substitute for political commitment • Location of NAC is not as critical as function of NAC • Creation of new structures with weak or no legal mandate limits institutional effectiveness, leading to • Duplication and unhealthy competition with other government structures. • Lack of sustainability • Stand alone NACs have been very expensive (e.g. up to 20% of HIV programme costs in some Asian countries) and have been highly dependent on external support • One size does not fit all!!

11. Why are we talking about needing change now (1)? Changes in AIDS science and epidemiology: • Growing evidence indicates that the majority of effective investment is bio-medical in nature, including treatment as prevention, PMTCT and circumcision, implying need to; • Strengthen national health sector response and underpinning health systems • Increase integration of HIV and AIDS services with other health services • Other, non-medical, prevention interventions, e.g. BCC, should be contributing to, and learning from, experiences of both infectious and chronic disease prevention • Progress in national responses means AIDS is no longer an emergency -> now needs long term, sustainable interventions and related governance

12. Why are we talking about needing change now (2)? • Changes in funding ->Declining funding for development assistance generally and HIV sepcifically • But still need to achieve results (getting to zero), using funding more effectively and efficiently • Bring AIDS ‘out of isolation’ and build synergies between HIV and other national development priorities. • Attention to who, what and how for: • Leadership and accountability for achieving results • Sustainable structures for medium and long term with legal mandates • Greater integration of programme interventions and management for greater effectiveness and efficiency of HIV investments.

13. HIV responses – alternatives post 2015 Type of strategy Stand alone HIV strategy HIV fully integrated into health or development strategies HIV a chapter in national development plan with sectoral action plans Strengthening of HIV approaches in sector strategies with accountability integrated into national health or development coordination Multi-sectoral aspects defined as part of ‘health is everybody’s business and managed through MOUs with a government body charged with coordination Multi-sectoral aspects determined in NSP and coordinated via NAC

14. AIDS Architecture– Main principles • Government should be central to governance of the HIV response within the context of shared responsibility and global solidarity • Coordination that includes HIV and AIDS needs to remain inclusive of multiple stakeholders (across government sectors, civil society, people living with HIV and AIDS and the private sector). • Coordination that includes HIV and AIDS structures should adapt and embed innovations from HIV programming in other areas of health and development sectors (and vice versa). • Any new configuration of coordination that includes HIV and AIDS should not conform to a prescribed model. • The core role of any coordination that includes HIV and AIDS should be to continue to lead and coordinate the planning and monitoring of the HIV/AIDS response. • A further important role is also to ensure alignment of partner resources to national priorities, accountability for achieving results and investments represent better value for money.

15. How can we move things forward? • Critical analysis of the national AIDS responses and their strategies • Analysis of who needs to be involved to directly implement the strategies and who needs to be involved to enable its implementation. • Critical analysis of the current coordination arrangements • Analysis of what resources are available from domestic and from external sources • Prioritisationof the whole sphere of AIDS response action

16. Anything is possible!