Monitoring HIV-Related Laws and Policies: Lessons for AIDS and Global Health in Agenda 2030.

The National Commitments and Policy Instrument (NCPI) has been used to monitor AIDS-related laws and policies for over 10 years. What can be learnt from this process? Analyses draw on NCPI questionnaires, NCPI responses, the UNAIDS Law Database, survey data and responses to a 2014 survey on the NCPI. The NCPI provides the first and only systematic data on country self-reported national HIV laws and policies. High NCPI reporting rates and survey responses suggest the majority of countries consider the process relevant. Combined civil society and government engagement and reporting is integral to the NCPI. NCPI experience demonstrates its importance in describing the political and legal environment for the HIV response, for programmatic reviews and to stimulate dialogue among stakeholders, but there is a need for updating and in some instances to complement results with more objective quantitative data. We identify five areas that need to be updated in the next iteration of the NCPI and argue that the NCPI approach is relevant to participatory monitoring of targets in the health and other goals of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Increasing civil society participation in the national HIV response: the role of UNGASS reporting.

BACKGROUND: The 2001 Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS provided impetus for strengthening collaboration between government and civil society partners in the HIV response. The biennial UNGASS reporting process is an opportunity for civil society to engage in a review of the implementation of commitments. METHODS: Descriptive analyses of the National Composite Policy Index from 135 countries; a debriefing on UNGASS reporting with civil society in 40 countries; and 3 country case studies on the UNGASS process. FINDINGS: In the latest UNGASS reporting round, engagement of civil society occurred in the vast majority of countries. The utility of UNGASS reporting seemed to be better understood by both government and civil society, compared with previous reporting rounds. Civil society participation was strongest when civil society groupings took the initiative and organized themselves. An important barrier was their lack of experience with national level processes. Civil society involvement in national HIV planning and strategic processes was perceived to be good, but better access to funding and technical support is needed. Instances remain where there are fundamental differences between government and civil society perceptions of the HIV policy and program environment. How or whether differences were resolved is not always clear, but both government and civil society seemed to appreciate the opportunity for discussion. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative reporting by government and civil society on UNGASS indicators is a small but potentially valuable step in what should be an ongoing and fully institutionalized process of collaborative planning, implementation, monitoring, assessment and correction of HIV responses. The momentum achieved through the UNGASS process should be maintained with follow-up actions to address data gaps, formalize partnerships and enhance active and meaningful engagement.