 Read the final report of the Working Group - UNAIDS: Preparing for the Future
Since UNAIDS was established in 1996 the face of the pandemic, the scope and nature of the response, and the range of challenges facing the global community have all changed. The departure of the founding UNAIDS executive director is an opportune time to re-consider the role, responsibilities and opportunities for UNAIDS.
At this important juncture, CGD and the Global Economic Governance Programme of Oxford University have convened the UNAIDS Transition Working Group. The Working Group includes individuals with expertise in global health and development policy, HIV/AIDS programs and policies, and other relevant fields. The Working Group is independent of UNAIDS. Consultations with stakeholders will be an important part of the Working Group’s deliberations. A background paper which synthesizes information from official sources, academic literature and interviews with key informants will serve as a point of departure for these discussions. The final report for the Working Group has now been released.
Read the final report of the Working Group - UNAIDS: Preparing for the Future
Leadership and Composition
Chairs
- Ruth Levine, vice president and senior fellow, Center for Global Development
- Ngaire Woods, director, Global Economic Governance Programme, University College, Oxford
Senior Researcher
- Devi Sridhar, director of the Global Health Governance project, Global Economic Governance Programme, Oxford University
Working Group Members
- Joanne Csete, Independent
- Siddharth Dube, World Policy Institute
- Tim Evans, World Health Organization
- Jacob Gayle, Ford Foundation
- Geeta Rao Gupta, International Center for Research on Women (ICRW)
- Jim Kim, Harvard University
- Michael Merson, Duke University
- Lillian Mworeko, International Community of Women living with HIV/AIDS
- Nandini Oomman, Center for Global Development
- Elizabeth Pisani
- Nana Poku, University of Bradford
- Asia Russell, Health Global Access Project (HealthGap)
- Todd Summers, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
- Alan Whiteside, University of KwaZulu-Natal
- Anandi Yuvaraj, International Community of Women Living with HIV/AIDS (ICW)
Program Coordinators
Contact
Please contact Katie Stein for more information on the UNAIDS Transition Working Group.
Newest
Popular
Experts
Publications
Events
Multimedia
-
In this video, CGD vice president for programs and operations, and senior fellow Ruth Levine and director of the Health Economics and HIV/AIDS Alan Whiteside discuss a new CGD report UNAIDS: Preparing for The Future.
-
This report by the UNAIDS Leadership Transition Working Group argues that the new executive director of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS should focus on a few essential tasks: promoting evidence-based prevention and treatment strategies, ensuring that UN agencies adequately support countries severely affected by HIV, and pressing rich-country governments to live up to their pledges to help poor countries respond to the epidemic.
-
Director of the Center for Public Leadership at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, editor-at-large at U.S. News & World Report, and a senior political analyst for CNN, David Gergen joined CGD president Nancy Birdsall, and CGD senior fellows who authored essays in our recent book, The White House and the World: A Global Development Agenda for the Next U.S. President, for a lively discussion of the prospects for improved U.S. development policy under President Barack Obama.
-
U.S. spending on global AIDS is widely seen as a significant foreign policy and humanitarian success, but this success contains the seeds of a future crisis. Treatment costs are set to escalate dramatically and new HIV infections continue to outpace the number of people receiving treatment. Three bad options thus loom ahead for U.S. foreign policy: indefinitely increase foreign assistance spending on an open-ended commitment, eliminate half of other foreign aid programs, or withdraw the medicine that millions of people depend upon to stay alive. CGD senior fellow Mead Over provides another option: implementing a sustainable policy that concentrates on prevention in order to drastically cut new infections while sustaining the reduction in AIDS-related deaths.
-
Faced with many urgent challenges, the next U.S. president may be tempted to let global health issues bubble along on the back burner and simply allow reasonably well-funded programs that garner bipartisan support to continue unchanged. This would be a mistake. Instead, the president should set an ambitious course to improve global health by leveraging the full range of U.S. assets to create a more just and safe world.
-
Donors spend billions of dollars to fight HIV/AIDS in developing countries, but poor integration between donors and host country health systems risks undermining international efforts to prevent and treat AIDS. In this analysis, CGD’s HIV/AIDS Monitor argues that donors need to pay more attention to their overall effect on health systems, finding that the big international donors often create duplicate AIDS-specific systems that competitively draw on the health resources of developing countries. The report recommends taking specific steps to more broadly improve health information systems, improve supply chain systems, and strengthen the health workforce.
-
In this video, CGD senior program associate and director of the HIV/AIDS Monitor Nandini Oomman describes her recent finding from the Seizing the Opportunity on AIDS and Health Systems report and outline Monitors future goals.
-
In his paper on "Strategic Internationalization, Institutions, and Civil Society," Eduardo Gomez explains how Brazil outpaced the United States when it came to building an effective national AIDS program and policies since the 1990s. Notwithstanding broad structural similarities and responses to AIDS during the 1980s, Brazil eventually became more successful in creating an effective national AIDS program that continues to provide targeted financial and technical assistance to municipalities (despite pressures for greater devolution) while devising innovative prevention and treatment programs. Brazil shows the United States and other large federations, such as India, China, and Russia, that strategically working with the international community while creating ongoing incentives for bureaucrats to work closely with civil society is necessary for a successful institutional and policy response to HIV/AIDS. Join us for what promises to be a lively lunch discussion.
-
U.S. global AIDS spending is helping to prolong the lives of more than a million people, yet this success contains the seeds of a future crisis. Escalating treatment costs coupled with neglected prevention measures mean that AIDS spending is growing so rapidly that it threatens to squeeze out U.S. spending on other global health needs, even to the point of consuming half of the entire U.S. foreign assistance budget by 2016. Mead Over argues that AIDS treatment spending could quickly become a global entitlement since withdrawing funding for life-saving drugs would mean death for the beneficiaries. He offers suggestions for avoiding a ballooning AIDS treatment entitlement, including greatly stepped-up prevention efforts.
Learn More
-
How do AIDS donors provide money to countries affected by AIDS? Who receives this funding, and how is it spent? Is funding disbursed quickly and predictably? Does it build capacity? In a new paper from the HIV/AIDS Monitor, Nandini Oomman, Michael Bernstein and Steven Rosenzweig address these issues by describing and analyzing key features of the funding systems for three of the world's largest AIDS funders – PEPFAR, the Global Fund, and the World Bank. The paper examines these donors' practices in three African countries – Mozambique, Uganda and Zambia. The authors identify six best practices for donor funding, and make recommendations for how each donor could improve. A lively panel discussion with representatives from all three donors, and a recipient of their funding, will follow the presentation of key findings.
-
U.S. global AIDS spending is helping to prolong the lives of more than a million people, yet this success contains the seeds of a future crisis. Escalating treatment costs coupled with neglected prevention measures mean that AIDS spending is growing so rapidly that it threatens to squeeze out U.S. spending on other global health needs, even to the point of consuming half of the entire U.S. foreign assistance budget by 2016. Mead Over argues that AIDS treatment spending could quickly become a global entitlement since withdrawing funding for life-saving drugs would mean death for the beneficiaries. He offers suggestions for avoiding a ballooning AIDS treatment entitlement, including greatly stepped-up prevention efforts.
Learn More
-
Director of the Center for Public Leadership at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, editor-at-large at U.S. News & World Report, and a senior political analyst for CNN, David Gergen joined CGD president Nancy Birdsall, and CGD senior fellows who authored essays in our recent book, The White House and the World: A Global Development Agenda for the Next U.S. President, for a lively discussion of the prospects for improved U.S. development policy under President Barack Obama.
-
Donors spend billions of dollars to fight HIV/AIDS in developing countries, but poor integration between donors and host country health systems risks undermining international efforts to prevent and treat AIDS. In this analysis, CGD’s HIV/AIDS Monitor argues that donors need to pay more attention to their overall effect on health systems, finding that the big international donors often create duplicate AIDS-specific systems that competitively draw on the health resources of developing countries. The report recommends taking specific steps to more broadly improve health information systems, improve supply chain systems, and strengthen the health workforce.
-
How do AIDS donors provide money to countries affected by AIDS? Who receives this funding, and how is it spent? Is funding disbursed quickly and predictably? Does it build capacity? In a new paper from the HIV/AIDS Monitor, Nandini Oomman, Michael Bernstein and Steven Rosenzweig address these issues by describing and analyzing key features of the funding systems for three of the world's largest AIDS funders – PEPFAR, the Global Fund, and the World Bank. The paper examines these donors' practices in three African countries – Mozambique, Uganda and Zambia. The authors identify six best practices for donor funding, and make recommendations for how each donor could improve. A lively panel discussion with representatives from all three donors, and a recipient of their funding, will follow the presentation of key findings.
-
Faced with many urgent challenges, the next U.S. president may be tempted to let global health issues bubble along on the back burner and simply allow reasonably well-funded programs that garner bipartisan support to continue unchanged. This would be a mistake. Instead, the president should set an ambitious course to improve global health by leveraging the full range of U.S. assets to create a more just and safe world.
-
This report by the UNAIDS Leadership Transition Working Group argues that the new executive director of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS should focus on a few essential tasks: promoting evidence-based prevention and treatment strategies, ensuring that UN agencies adequately support countries severely affected by HIV, and pressing rich-country governments to live up to their pledges to help poor countries respond to the epidemic.
-
U.S. spending on global AIDS is widely seen as a significant foreign policy and humanitarian success, but this success contains the seeds of a future crisis. Treatment costs are set to escalate dramatically and new HIV infections continue to outpace the number of people receiving treatment. Three bad options thus loom ahead for U.S. foreign policy: indefinitely increase foreign assistance spending on an open-ended commitment, eliminate half of other foreign aid programs, or withdraw the medicine that millions of people depend upon to stay alive. CGD senior fellow Mead Over provides another option: implementing a sustainable policy that concentrates on prevention in order to drastically cut new infections while sustaining the reduction in AIDS-related deaths.
-
In this video, CGD senior program associate and director of the HIV/AIDS Monitor Nandini Oomman describes her recent finding from the Seizing the Opportunity on AIDS and Health Systems report and outline Monitors future goals.
-
In this video, CGD vice president for programs and operations, and senior fellow Ruth Levine and director of the Health Economics and HIV/AIDS Alan Whiteside discuss a new CGD report UNAIDS: Preparing for The Future.
-
In his paper on "Strategic Internationalization, Institutions, and Civil Society," Eduardo Gomez explains how Brazil outpaced the United States when it came to building an effective national AIDS program and policies since the 1990s. Notwithstanding broad structural similarities and responses to AIDS during the 1980s, Brazil eventually became more successful in creating an effective national AIDS program that continues to provide targeted financial and technical assistance to municipalities (despite pressures for greater devolution) while devising innovative prevention and treatment programs. Brazil shows the United States and other large federations, such as India, China, and Russia, that strategically working with the international community while creating ongoing incentives for bureaucrats to work closely with civil society is necessary for a successful institutional and policy response to HIV/AIDS. Join us for what promises to be a lively lunch discussion.
-
Nandini Oomman, Director, HIV/AIDS Monitor, and Senior Program Associate Nandini Oomman joined CGD in March 2006 as the director of the HIV/AIDS Monitor, which tracks the effectiveness of the three main aid responses to the epidemic: the Global Fund, the HIV/AIDS programs of the World Bank, and the U.S. President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).
-
Mead Over, Senior Fellow Mead Over applies economics and statistics in the search for more effective, efficient, and pro-poor health policies in developing countries. Among other topics, he is currently searching for paths the world might take towards a future in which AIDS will no longer be an important part of either the disease burden or the financial burden of any country.
-
UNAIDS: Preparing for the Future
- Mar 26, 2009
This report by the UNAIDS Leadership Transition Working Group argues that the new executive director of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS should focus on a few essential tasks: promoting evidence-based prevention and treatment strategies, ensuring that UN agencies adequately support countries severely affected by HIV, and pressing rich-country governments to live up to their pledges to help poor countries respond to the epidemic.
-
Opportunities for Presidential Leadership on AIDS: From an "Emergency Plan" to a Sustainable Policy (White House and the World Policy Brief)
- Sep 5, 2008
U.S. spending on global AIDS is widely seen as a significant foreign policy and humanitarian success, but this success contains the seeds of a future crisis. Treatment costs are set to escalate dramatically and new HIV infections continue to outpace the number of people receiving treatment. Three bad options thus loom ahead for U.S. foreign policy: indefinitely increase foreign assistance spending on an open-ended commitment, eliminate half of other foreign aid programs, or withdraw the medicine that millions of people depend upon to stay alive. CGD senior fellow Mead Over provides another option: implementing a sustainable policy that concentrates on prevention in order to drastically cut new infections while sustaining the reduction in AIDS-related deaths.
-
-
Seizing the Opportunity on AIDS and Health Systems
- Aug 4, 2008
Donors spend billions of dollars to fight HIV/AIDS in developing countries, but poor integration between donors and host country health systems risks undermining international efforts to prevent and treat AIDS. In this analysis, CGD’s HIV/AIDS Monitor argues that donors need to pay more attention to their overall effect on health systems, finding that the big international donors often create duplicate AIDS-specific systems that competitively draw on the health resources of developing countries. The report recommends taking specific steps to more broadly improve health information systems, improve supply chain systems, and strengthen the health workforce.
-
Prevention Failure: The Ballooning Entitlement Burden of U.S. Global AIDS Treatment Spending and What to Do About It - Working Paper 144
- May 5, 2008
U.S. global AIDS spending is helping to prolong the lives of more than a million people, yet this success contains the seeds of a future crisis. Escalating treatment costs coupled with neglected prevention measures mean that AIDS spending is growing so rapidly that it threatens to squeeze out U.S. spending on other global health needs, even to the point of consuming half of the entire U.S. foreign assistance budget by 2016. Mead Over argues that AIDS treatment spending could quickly become a global entitlement since withdrawing funding for life-saving drugs would mean death for the beneficiaries. He offers suggestions for avoiding a ballooning AIDS treatment entitlement, including greatly stepped-up prevention efforts.
Learn More
-
Strategic Internationalization, Institutions, and Civil Society: How Brazil outpaced the United States when it came to HIV/AIDS
- Jun 11, 2008
In his paper on "Strategic Internationalization, Institutions, and Civil Society," Eduardo Gomez explains how Brazil outpaced the United States when it came to building an effective national AIDS program and policies since the 1990s. Notwithstanding broad structural similarities and responses to AIDS during the 1980s, Brazil eventually became more successful in creating an effective national AIDS program that continues to provide targeted financial and technical assistance to municipalities (despite pressures for greater devolution) while devising innovative prevention and treatment programs. Brazil shows the United States and other large federations, such as India, China, and Russia, that strategically working with the international community while creating ongoing incentives for bureaucrats to work closely with civil society is necessary for a successful institutional and policy response to HIV/AIDS. Join us for what promises to be a lively lunch discussion.
-
What Are Donors Doing with AIDS Money? A Comparative Analysis of PEPFAR, Global Fund, and World Bank Funding in Mozambique, Uganda and Zambia
- Oct 10, 2007
How do AIDS donors provide money to countries affected by AIDS? Who receives this funding, and how is it spent? Is funding disbursed quickly and predictably? Does it build capacity? In a new paper from the HIV/AIDS Monitor, Nandini Oomman, Michael Bernstein and Steven Rosenzweig address these issues by describing and analyzing key features of the funding systems for three of the world's largest AIDS funders – PEPFAR, the Global Fund, and the World Bank. The paper examines these donors' practices in three African countries – Mozambique, Uganda and Zambia. The authors identify six best practices for donor funding, and make recommendations for how each donor could improve. A lively panel discussion with representatives from all three donors, and a recipient of their funding, will follow the presentation of key findings.
|
|
Print
Share
