GLOBAL FUND OBSERVER (GFO) NEWSLETTER, a service of Aidspan.
Issue 20 – Sunday 21 March 2004.
(For formatted web, Word and PDF versions of this and other issues, see www.aidspan.org/gfo/archives/newsletter )
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
NOTE
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
This issue of GFO is devoted almost entirely to decisions made at the Global Fund board meeting that took place on Thursday and Friday March 18 and 19.The descriptions of decisions made are in Aidspan's own words.Analysis and comment on some of the underlying issues will be provided in future issues. [Note: Aidspan and the Global Fund have no formal connection, and Aidspan accepts no grants or fees from the Global Fund. The Global Fund bears no responsibility for the content of GFO or of any other Aidspan publication.]
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
CONTENTS
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
BOARD DECISIONS: Highlights
At the Global Fund board meeting that took place on Thursday and Friday March 18 and 19, decisions were taken regarding governance, the approving of grants, administration, resource mobilization, and grant implementation.
BOARD DECISIONS: Board Decisions Regarding Governance
NGO representative chosen as Global Fund Vice Chair
Need for vote for communities living with the diseases
Board committees
New members of TRP
Ethics policy
BOARD DECISIONS: Board Decisions Regarding the Approving of Grants
Approving grants when there is insufficient money available
Renewing grants as they approach the end of Year 2
Round 3 appeals
BOARD DECISIONS: Board Decisions Regarding Administration
2004 budget
Executive Director
Secretariat staffing
BOARD DECISIONS: Board Decisions Regarding Resource Mobilization
Replenishment mechanism
Promissory notes
BOARD DECISIONS: Board Decisions Regarding Grant Implementation
Standard template for grant agreement
Additional Safeguard Policy
Procurement agents
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
BOARD DECISIONS: Highlights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The highlights of the Global Fund board meeting that took place on Thursday and Friday March 18 and 19, discussed further below, are as follows:
· The board chose Dr. Helene Rossert, the board member representing Developed Country NGOs, as Vice Chair.
· Nine new members were chosen for the Technical Review Panel (TRP).
· The board agreed a procedure that will be followed in Round 4 and later if the money available is not sufficient to finance all grants recommended for approval by the TRP.
· An approach was agreed on how to set about the renewal of grants as they approach the end of their second year.
· Three of the six eligible appeals regarding Round 3 decisions were approved.
· A 2004 budget was agreed, and the employment contract of the Executive Director was renewed.
· A "replenishment conference" will take place late this year, at which donors will agree on their main pledges for 2005 and 2006.
An unofficial record of all the resolutions passed at the board meeting is available at www.aidspan.org/gfo/docs/gf7bm.doc.
In other news, Aidspan has just released a second edition of "The Aidspan Guide to Applying to the Global Fund." It is available for download at www.aidspan.org/guides.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
BOARD DECISIONS: Board Decisions Regarding Governance
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
1. NGO representative chosen as Global Fund Vice Chair
In a surprise to all present, the Global Fund board chose Dr. Helene Rossert, the board member representing Developed Country NGOs, as Vice Chair at its meeting on March 18-19. This is the first time that a nongovernmental delegate or a woman has been chosen as the Fund's Chair or Vice Chair.
Dr. Rossert is a medical and public health doctor with more than 15 years' experience working on HIV/AIDS. As Director General of AIDES, the largest French AIDS organization, she directs 1,500 staff and volunteers in France, Africa, and elsewhere.
"I am truly honored to be elected to this important position," said Dr. Rossert. "Since the inception of the Global Fund, civil society has sought an equal seat at the table with governments. My election is a step in the right direction."
Rita Arauz Molina, the board member representing Developing Country NGOs, said, "Helene truly represents the shared values of civil society. We fully endorsed her candidacy and strongly believe that her election sends a clear message to Global Fund partners around the world."
Dr. Rossert replaces Dr. Suwit Wilbulpolprasert of Thailand, who had resigned as Vice Chair because he had ceased to be a board member. Dr. Rossert will serve for one year, joining Tommy Thompson, US Secretary of Health and Human Services (Global Fund Chair) and Richard Feachem (Global Fund Executive Director) as the Fund's key decision-makers between board meetings.
There were two candidates for the Vice Chair position: Dr. Rossert, and Mrs. Sushma Swaraj, India's Minister of Health. Global Fund rules state that last year and this, the Chair must come from the "donor group" (developed country governments, private sector, and foundations) and the Vice Chair must come from the "recipient group" (developing country governments, developing country NGOs, and developed country NGOs). Next year, a new Chair and Vice Chair must be chosen, and that time the Chair must be from the recipient group and the Vice Chair must be from the donor group.
Immediately before the vote, when it came time for the two candidates to make brief speeches to the board explaining why they were standing, Mrs. Swaraj stood up and withdrew her candidacy, saying she felt it important that the board unite behind one candidate. Dr. Rossert was then unanimously elected.
Prior to the vote, the prevailing opinion was that more votes were likely to be cast for Mrs. Swaraj than for Dr. Rossert. However, many of the likely votes for Mrs. Swaraj (who was attending her first Global Fund board meeting) were based not on her experience, but on the perception by some government board members that it was India's "turn" to be Vice Chair. Supporters of Dr. Rossert pointed out that this is an attitude that prevails in United Nations bodies; but the Global Fund is a new type of organization where things should be handled differently.
2. Need for vote for communities living with the diseases
Over time, increasing numbers of board members have felt unhappy that the board member representing communities living with HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria (the "communities" board member) does not have a vote. At present, there are 18 board members with a vote and five with no vote. The voting members consist of nine in the "donor" group (seven donor governments, private sector, and private foundations) and nine in the "recipient" group (seven recipient governments, developing country NGOs, and developed country NGOs). The non-voting members are "communities," UNAIDS, WHO, World Bank, and a seat representing Switzerland, where the Fund is based.
The board voted at this meeting to have its Governance and Partnership Committee examine ways in which the "communities" delegation can become a voting member, and to report back to the next board meeting in June.
One idea that was widely discussed in the hallways is for one vote to be given to the communities delegation, increasing the "recipient" group to ten, and, for reasons of balance, for one vote to be given to a new donor, increasing the "donor" group to ten. A more innovative idea that some raised was for there to be three voting groups: "donors" (seven governments), "recipients" (seven governments) and "civil society" (seven seats, consisting of developing countries NGO, developed countries NGO, private sector, foundations, communities, and two others), with four from each group being needed for a vote to pass.
3. Board committees
Much of the work of the board is conducted by four board committees that review certain issues between the three-times-per-year board meetings and then make recommendations that the full board votes on. Some committees have been more effective than others, and some have felt over-burdened. The board resolved that a study should be conducted regarding the structure, role and composition of the board committees, with recommendations to be presented to the next board meeting.
4. New members of TRP
After an evaluation of applications from 576 people, the board chose nine new members of the Technical Review Panel, as follows: Andrei Beljaev (Russia); David Burrows (Australia); Kaarle O. Elo (Finland); Antonio Pio (Argentina); Jayasankar Shivakumar (India); Godfrey Sikipa (Zimbabwe); Stephanie Simmonds (UK); Michael J. Toole (Australia); Stefano Vella (Italy). These will first serve on the TRP when it meets in May to review Round 4 applications.
The new members will join the following 17 people who served on the TRP in one or more of the previous rounds: Jonathan Broomberg (South Africa); John Chimumbwa (Zambia); Mary Bourke Ettling (USA); Paula I. Fujiwara (USA); Peter Godfrey-Faussett (UK); Wilfred Griekspoor (Netherlands); Hakima Himmich (Morocco); David Hoos (USA); Lee-Nah Hsu (USA); Michel D. Kazatchkine (France); Fabio Luelmo (Argentina); Giancarlo Majori (Italy); Munar (first name not known) (Colombia); Pierre-Yves Norval (France); David H. Peters (Canada); Richard L. Skolnik (USA); Standing (first name not known) (UK);
5. Ethics policy
The board approved an extensive policy on ethics and conflict of interest. The policy applies to board members and alternates, board committee members, TRP members, and Secretariat employees.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
BOARD DECISIONS: Board Decisions Regarding the Approving of Grants
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
6. Approving grants when there is insufficient money available
The board agreed a policy that will be applied in situations where the money available is not sufficient to finance the first two years of all grants recommended for approval by the TRP. This has not happened in the past, but it might in the future. (Note that paying for Years 3 to 5 of existing grants will take priority over paying for Years 1 to 2 of new grants. Thus, there will be an increased chance of insufficient funds to finance new grants once extensive grant renewals are taking place. This will not be the case for Round 4, but it will be the case for Round 5 and later.)
When insufficient financing is available, the board will proceed as follows:
· If possible, finance all proposals in TRP Category 1, then all proposals in Category 2A, then all proposals in Category 2B.
· If there is not enough money to finance all proposals in a particular category, assign all proposals in that category a score ranging from 1 to 8 based on the country's disease burden and poverty level. Proposals from countries with a "very high" disease burden (defined below) get 4 points, and those from any other eligible country get 1 point. And proposals from countries defined as "low income" by the World Bank get 4 points, from "lower middle income" countries get 2 points, and from "upper middle income" countries get 0 points. Thus, each proposal gets 4 or 1 point based on disease burden, plus 4, 2 or 0 points based on poverty level. Total possible points are 8, 6, 5, 4, 3 or 1.
· If possible, finance all those proposals that have 8 points. Then, if possible, finance all those that have 6 points. Then all those that have 5 points. And so on, until there is a score which cannot be fully financed.
· In Round 5 and later (but not in Round 4), it is possible that there will also be a score based on repeated past failures, or on not having previously applied.
· The definition of "very high" disease burden is as follows: For HIV/AIDS: if the country’s ratio of adult HIV seroprevalence (as reported by UNAIDS, multiplied by 1000) to Gross National Income per capita (Atlas method, as reported by the World Bank) exceeds 5. For tuberculosis: if the country is included on the WHO list of 22 high burden countries, or on the WHO list of the 36 countries that account for 95% of all new tuberculosis cases attributable to HIV/AIDS. For malaria: if the country experiences more than 1 death due to malaria per 1000 people per year.
· Grants recommended by the TRP but for which financing is not available will not be approved. Thus, presumably, the only chance for those proposals is if they are resubmitted in future rounds, where they will be competing against proposals newly generated in that round.
7. Renewing grants as they approach the end of Year 2
The board approved a procedure that will be followed when grants are coming towards the end of their second year and are ready to seek funding for Years 3-5. This will first happen in late 2004. For each such grant, the procedure will be as follows:
· The objectives for Years 3-5 of the grant must be "broadly consistent with the original approved proposal," though some reprogramming may be negotiated with the Secretariat.
· The Secretariat will collect a considerable body of information about how successfully the grant was implemented during Years 1-2. This information will relate to "grant performance, financial accountability and contextual considerations." The information will be compiled and recorded in Grant Fact Sheets and Grant Score Cards, which will be made publicly accessible both before and after they are filled in by the Secretariat.