Since the 1980s, the world’s programmatic response to the AIDS pandemic has been characterized by a short-term, crisis management approach that is easily recognizable at the country level. HIV interventions are usually small-scale and vary widely, instead of falling under a coordinated national program. Current policy choices are not guided by systematic efforts to gather data on the course of the epidemic and the most effective responses, but rather by replicating what has been considered successful elsewhere and relying on anecdotal evidence. Evaluation is rare and even more rarely used to shape planning. Mutual ownership and accountability—in which all key stakeholders take collective responsibility in the overall success of the response to AIDS—is uncommon.

The Programmatic Response Working Group is co-convened by Paul DeLay, UNAIDS, and Sigrun Møgedal, Ambassador on HIV/AIDS, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway. It will examine the following key questions:

1. What are the programmatic lessons learned from the past 27 years? What lessons have changed the programmatic responses? What changes need to be anticipated to understand future environments and potential lessons?
2. How can a structural, behavioural and biological transition be facilitated and what are the potential relevant ramifications beyond the programme response? How can the mindsets of programme-delivering organizations and individuals be changed to reap the maximum benefits of broader social change?
3. What might the future wider environment look like in the future and how will this impact the structural, behavioural and biological shifts; what are the catalysts and possible challenges?
4. What are the human resource needs across sectors and qualifications to ensure a successful transition to a sustained and integrated response where local government and the private sector achieve more integrated structural, biological and behavioural response strategies?

The Programmatic Working Group will work closely with the other aids2031 Working Groups to take into account how future financial environments, leadership priorities, the evolution of the epidemic’s social drivers, feasible scientific advances and so forth affect the AIDS response.