UNAIDS: The First 10 Years

UNAIDS The First 10 Years22the UN agencies could not reach agreement on a single approach, three options wereproposed, involving different balances between the Secretariat and the Cosponsors.Debate over different approaches to the new Programme was heated, with UNICEFsupporting a small Secretariat for exchange of information, UNDP supporting a middleoption and donors generally supporting the option of a strong Secretariat.“We faced … threats from all the heads of agencies”, recalls Moerkerk. Kastberg agreesthat “it was not easy. It was also a question of getting Member States engaged. Wemade clear that what we wanted at the global level was one voice around where is thepandemic, what is happening, what are the main avenues for treatment, what are thenumbers we’re talking about. It was clear that the Secretariat should have a normativestrength”.Eventually, in October 1993, the UN Secretary-General convened a meeting of theexecutive heads of the six agencies and expressed his support for option (A), the optionpreferred by the Task Force and the most far reaching in terms of reform, giving theProgramme a high level of coordinating control over the Cosponsors. It proposed a unifiedSecretariat, headed by a director and governed by a Programme Coordinating Board(PCB) consisting of representatives from donor governments, recipient governments,nongovernmental organizations and the Cosponsors.“It was clear thatwhat we neededwould besomething thatwould be viewedas something thathad the ownershipof a broad set ofUN agencies”.In general, the donors were satisfied with the decision, although Moerkerk explainedthat “we in the Task Force wanted the new programme to be a funding agency, like theGlobal Fund is now, but UNICEF, UNDP and the World Bank were too powerful andwould not allow it to be more than a coordinating and advocacy organization”.So when WHO published the requested study on the new Programme in December1993, it stated that ‘a consensus was reached among the secretariats of five of the organizationsin favour of option A’. The World Bank required more information at this point.Despite some scepticism, the Executive Board of WHO endorsed the plan for the newProgramme in January 1994 and requested endorsement from the Economic and SocialCouncil (ECOSOC) 40 as well. The final decision would be made during 1994. Significantly,GPA did not renew the contracts of any staff beyond December 1995.Given the reluctance of the Cosponsors, especially WHO, to agree to such a programme,the period of time between the formation of the initial idea and agreement on thestructure was fairly brief. The view of several involved at the time was that the cospon-40ECOSOC serves as the central forum for discussing international economic and social issues, and forformulating policy recommendations addressed to Member States and the UN system. It is responsible forpromoting higher standards of living, full employment and economic and social progress. ECOSOC wasestablished under the UN Charter as the principal organ to coordinate economic, social and related work ofthe 14 UN specialized agencies, 10 functional commissions and five regional commissions. It also receivesreports from 11 UN funds and programmes.