Multilateral Aid Review summary - Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS)

UNAIDS is charged with delivering an effective response to the global HIV/AIDS pandemic. Its joint programme brings together the work of the 10 UN agencies (co-sponsors) that work on HIV/AIDS. It is present in 89 countries.

	comment
Contribution to UK development objectives	Satisfactory
	+	Strong strategic fit for meeting the MDGs (6) and the UK government priority to restrict the spread of HIV/AIDS.  It fills critical gaps in advocacy, coordination and leadership.
	+	Significant contribution to facilitating progress on HIV/AIDS at the global level.
	_	UNAIDS needs to scale up and target technical leadership.
	_	UNAIDS is one of several important global organisations trying to tackle HIV/AIDS. It needs to further strengthen partnerships beyond the cosponsors.
	_	Delivery in country is limited by the inconsistency of its key coordination role and lack of accountability by co-sponsor agencies for the joint team’s performance.
	+	UNAIDS has a strong gender focus including internal policies and use of evidence to inform policy and programme decisions.
Organisational strengths	Weak
	+	UNAIDS is committed to a reduction in budgeted travel costs and is supporting partner countries to focus on value for money.
	_	However, administration systems are high cost and there is no evidence of challenging co-sponsors on value for money.
	+	Strong partnership behaviour performance.
	_	Though UNAIDS has a clear mandate, there is no clear line of sight through to strategy and implementation plans, and its results framework is inadequate.
	_	Accountability between UNAIDS and the co-sponsoring organisations is unclear.
	_	Lack of clarity and authority creates insufficient leadership at country level.
	_	Recruitment processes need improvement.
	_	UNAIDS has no responsibility for managing poorly performing projects through co-sponsors and suffers from the complexity of using two financial systems.
	+	Funding to co-sponsors is predictable.
	_	UNAIDS is not very transparent and has no disclosure policy.
Capacity for positive change	Likely
	+	The Second Independent Evaluation will help overcome significant barriers to reform, with a clear set of recommendations.
	+	Co-sponsors seem willing to engage.