IAPB Board 17 Sept. 2013

Minutes

IAPB Board of Trustees Meeting

September 17, 2013

HILTON METROPOLE, BRIGHTON (UK)

MINUTES

  1. Welcome

J. Trimmel welcomed trustees, staff and observers to the meeting. He passed on B. McMullan’s regrets for his inability to chair the meeting due to an inescapable prior commitment with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. He also noted apologies from B. Spivey, A. Holte, B. Holden (proxy to K. Naidoo), M. Head and HRH Prince Abdulaziz (proxy to A. AlRahji).

As the quorum was met, he declared the meeting open.

1.1.Approval of Consent Agenda

J. Trimmel referred to the consent agenda circulated in advance. Two consent agenda items required clarification as follows –

  • Item 2.2 Membership Update: the membership application from Eye Need Sight was pulled out from the lot to be approved as lacking necessary regional endorsement with explanation to be provided under Any Other Business;
  • Item 2.4 Approval of IAPB Policies:
  • Fraud reporting policy to be re-submitted under Any Other Business with some minor changes;
  • Child protection policy to be pulled out from the policies to be approved as the Audit Committee in its earlier meeting had identified the need for substantial modifications.

All noted the above changes and S. Resnikoff moved the following motion, seconded by K. Spahn -

RESOLUTION:To approve all resolutions in the consent agenda as amended above.

In Favour all, Against 0, Abstentions 0

(See appendix I for the full list of consent agenda resolutions approved)

As there were no further changes to the discussion agenda, this was adopted.

1.2.Minutes of the last meeting

The minutes of the last meeting were approved.

1.3.Matters arising from the minutes

There were no matters arising that were not already covered in the agenda.

  1. Opening Remarks from the Chairman

As there were many substantial issues up for discussion, without further delay, J. Trimmel moved to the next item on the agenda.

  1. IAPB Strategic Plan 2013-2017

3.1.Approval of final draft strategic framework

P. Ackland referred to the attached final version of the new strategic framework 2013-2017. He highlighted the process since the discussions undertaken at the last board meeting, with all decisions from the meeting reflected in a new draft, members consulted on itand final draft discussed and endorsed by the Executive Committee.

K. Spahn moved the following motion, seconded by B. Doolan –

RESOLUTION:To approve the new IAPB strategic framework 2013-2017.

In Favour all, Against 0, Abstentions 0

P. Ackland thanked R. Bennett for the support provided during the development of the plan.

3.2.Discussion on rolling priorities

P. Ackland referred to the attached paper, which included the first attempt to produce a format on IAPB 2/3 years rolling priorities. He noted that these had been introduced with the new strategic framework to highlight key priorities for each of the strategic aims in the short/medium term of the new strategic timeframe. The list included all activities IAPB would be focusing on, however some absolute priorities were highlighted following feedback from the Executive Committee.

He noted that the paper indicated current status and desired outcomesin future years for each objective. The staff team’s operational plans would then underpin these, but they would not be submitted to the board being operational in nature. The plan would be for the rolling priorities document to be submitted to the board annually in order to monitor progress towards the implementation of the strategy.

Discussion ensued, including the following points:

  • Prioritisation of some key activities should not lead to the sidestepping of other priorities/activities included in the broader strategic framework;
  • Focus on outcome was praised as an effective way to monitor progress;
  • It was noted the opportunity to use unequivocal language, for example being clear whether reference to regions meant WHO or IAPB regions (it was clarified that the current document meant the former).

J. Trimmel thanked the Secretariat for the work in producing the rolling priorities document and acknowledged that this provided a good starting point for monitoring progress towards the strategy.

  1. Advocacy

4.1.Advocacy & PR Committee’s update

K. Naidoo reported from the earlier meeting of the Advocacy & PR Committee and highlighted the following key issues:

-The renewed Terms of Reference for the Action Plan Work Group had been discussed and feedback would be provided during the discussion of the relevant agenda item, however the Committee agreed on the need for a group to be in place;

-The upcoming review of the WHO essential medicines listin particular had been discussed, and the need to use this as an opportunity to advocate for wider availability and access to drugs in developing countries – as a result the Committee had commissioned key members to produce a discussion paper for its next meeting;

-The Committee had also agreed on the need to look into the transition from VISION 2020 to the new Action Plan and recommended that a group should be charged with exploring the implications for all key constituencies (in particular national bodies and regions) with the aim to better frame the issue and provide clear guidelines and direction;

-World Sight Day (WSD) had also been discussed in detail and the new approach to WSD as an advocacy platform well received, including the content and format of the new WSD report.

Discussion ensued, particularly around the VISION 2020 transition, including the following points:

  • The Audit Committee also had discussed the VISION 2020 transitionas a risk for IAPB, and, even though the risk was not currently rated high, it had been recognized that clear guidelines on how to manage the brand as we move towards the new Action Plan must be put in place;
  • There was consensus that VISION 2020 was overall still a strong brand and its successes should be built upon and celebrated;
  • It was noted that a first step in framing the issue would be to ask VISION 2020 national bodies and concerned regions to feedback on the implications of the transition in their particular areas;
  • It was also agreed that we should stress the fact that VISION 2020 was not only about the year 2020, but about a broader vision to eliminate avoidable blindness, message which was still relevant and valid even in the new Action Plan framework.

ACTION: P. Ackland to liaise with J. Gersbeck and any other relevant party to produceinitial paper with global communications guidelines onthe VISION 2020 brand to be circulated to the board as soon as possible.Further broader consultation can then be carried out with the possibility of a havinga follow-up discussion at the next board meeting.

4.2.Diabetic Retinopathy Work Group update

K. Spahn reported on the Diabetic Retinopathy Work Group meeting. There were almost 50 attendees, with a two-part agenda split between programmes and advocacy. The President of the International Diabetes Federation had also attended and as a result closer engagement with national diabetic societies was now possible. Among the many topics, research attracted a lot of interest and the Research Work Group was going to be involved in taking the DR research agenda further.

4.3.Post-2015 Work Group update

J. Trimmel reported on progress made on the engagement with the Post-2015 framework. He noted that IAPB focus had so far been to support messages from the disability movement on inclusion, equity and access, as well as, on the health front, to call for Universal Health Coverage (UHC) to be included as a stand-alone area in the next development goals framework. He clarified that the objective was not for the inclusion of eye health as such (unrealistic expectation given the broad scope of the Post-2015 process), but to ensure there were a number of entry points for eye health, in particular disability, UHC and the NTD/NCDs areas.

J. Trimmel thanked in particular the successful synergy with the World Blind Union and ICEVI through the Vision Alliance in taking this work forward.

4.4.Action Plan Work Group – terms of reference

J. Trimmel referred to the attached paper containing the proposed new terms of reference for the Action Plan Work Group, in particular the proposed areas the group’s activities should focus upon. He noted the issue had been subject of extensive discussions at both the Executive and Advocacy committees and now the board was asked to comment on what should be the priorities of the group, and who should be part of it:

Discussion ensued, including the following points:

  • There was overall agreement that in order to be successful as its predecessor, activities of the group should be very specific and focused on areas where it could really make a difference;
  • It was noted that the work group should not duplicate work being carried out already by other bodies (for example in the area of research, or World Sight Day);
  • It was important to have clear measuresof success and that the group was properly resourced;
  • Focus should be advocating at national level and some suggested the 33 countries who supported the approval of the new Action Plan at WHA would provide a good starting point;
  • It was also noted however, that those countries with a political landscape less receptive to the objectives of the new Action Plan may actually be those that required more concentrated efforts on our part, and that ultimately country prioritization was a balancing act between the degree of need and the level of local enabling conditions, such as predisposition of the government, NGOs (local and international) and development of the health system;
  • Some suggested that carrying out of feasibility studies would be a key activity for the group;
  • It was also noted that the new Action Plan Work Group could provide further opportunities for collaboration in advocacy with rehabilitation groups;

Given the broad range of opinions and key role of the group, J. Trimmel proposed he would lead on further developingthe terms of reference, with the aim to make them more specific and to identify key priority countries. He would co-opt an interim group of people to help him on this, so that all key constituencies would be involved and/or consulted on the matter, including regional chairs, and CEOs of the larger NGOs. The interim group would also work to identify the right people to be part of the Action Plan Work Group, ideally a small properly resourced group of individuals with the right skills to carry out its activities.

Following a question it was also clarified that this was wholly an IAPB group, and did not include a WHO presence on it.

ACTION: J. Trimmel to start consultations with key individuals to form interim group and start driving agenda forward in the immediate, while the final touches to the terms of reference and membership of the work group are being made.

  1. WHO Collaboration

5.1.Update on support to WHO

P. Ackland referred to the attached paper reporting on discussions with WHO on identifying areas of activity IAPB could contribute to. He reminded the board of its decision to focus support mainly on WHO activities rather than staff. The recommendations for support included in the paper focused on areas which WHO was uniquely placed to deliver on:

  • Convening regional workshops to promote implementation of the Action Plan in countries across the region;
  • The development of an eye care services assessment (ECSA) tool by WHO and its subsequent roll out at regional and country level;
  • The generation of evidence on the prevalence of visual impairment and its causes, through RAAB studies;
  • Updating the eye medicines included in the essential medicines list.

He noted that some progress had already been made towards covering some of the activities’ costs, for example for the regional workshops via the VISION 2020 workshop programme and with regards to the ECSA tool which the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust had expressed an interest in funding the development of.

The proposal therefore was to contribute funds for the upcoming review of the essential medicines list and to support travel of I. Kocur, the WHO PBD member of staff mainly responsible to drive the implementation of the Action Plan. As the requirements were small, these could also be coming directly from the IAPB budget.

He thanked S. Resnikoff and C. Harper for their work on this and highlighted the significant improvements in the quality of the conversations with WHO, and also the value of the new Action Plan which provided a renewed focus on the tasks ahead.

All agreed with the proposal.

  1. Finance

6.1.Financial Report (up to date) 2013 & Draft Budget 2014

A. Poffley referred to the attached financial papers. He highlighted the final position for the current financial year currently forecasted at around USD700K reserves. He reassured the board that appropriate mechanisms were in place to manage IAPB finances, in terms of debtor control, cash-flow oversight and foreign exchange risks.

The board noted the latest financial report and forecast.

A. Poffley then updated the board on the review of the reserves policy carried out by the Audit Committee. He clarified that no changes had been made to the principles and method for calculating the levels of reserves required and that no recommendations were being made to change the board attitude towards to the reserves (i.e. a pragmatic approach that allowed for time to time to draw down reserves as long as a strategy for replenishing them in a suitable timeframe was in place).

Therefore the review had mainly focused on assessing whether the current reserves requirement were still appropriate given IAPB’s current legal commitments, expected future unrestricted income, and ongoing operational costs. The review identified a required ratio of reserves between USD320K and USD570K, with the former as an absolute minimum level under which no draw down should take place and the latter as the trigger point under which a replenishing strategy must be in place.

He noted that the top level of reserves required was now USD70K higher than the previous one.

K. Spahn moved the following motion, seconded by A. Hopkins:

RESOLUTION:To raise the current reserves requirements as per the above proposal.

In Favour all, Against 0, Abstentions 0

A. Poffley then drew the board’s attention to the 2014 budget. He asked the board to consider whetherthe income projections were appropriate, and whether it was satisfied with the expenditure choices; he noted the level of reserves was forecastedfor the end of 2014 at USD460K. As this was lower than the required level, the understanding was that a replenishing strategy would be presented at the next board meeting.

He also highlighted that all income forecasts were conservative, but also that the current budget did not include the possible support to WHO from IAPB core funds discussed on agenda item 5.1 above. He explained that the budget was in any case subject to regular updates as circumstances changed.

K. Spahn moved the following motion, seconded by A. Hopkins:

RESOLUTION:To approve the IAPB budget for 2014.

In Favour all, Against 0, Abstentions 0

6.2.Income generation report

J. Conlon referred to the attached paper and highlighted the following:

  • Secured income for 2013, not considering the Seeing is Believing programme, nor AusAid funding to the Western Pacific region, stood at just under USD3 million;
  • Potential income for 2014 had been broken down between secure and potential, and there was optimism for the prospects;
  • The quality of the relationships with funders had also largely improved since the new income generation team had been in place.

The board noted the report and welcomed the work of the team.

  1. Governance

7.1.Audit Committee’s update - risk register

B. Chappell referred to the attached risk register and noted the following:

  • Failure to implement the new Action Plan was now the number one risk for the organization;
  • As noted in the discussion under agenda item 4.1, poortransition from VISION 2020 had now been added as a risk;
  • He reminded that the risk register was produced by the staff and reviewed by the Audit Committee and Board once a year, and it only reported on high level risks or those without appropriate mitigating strategies in place (a lower level risk register was regularly reviewed by staff only).

The Board noted the updated risk register.

7.2.Membership and Governance Review - terms of reference

J. Trimmelintroduced the item by noting that the key rationale of the review was to ensure that IAPB had the right structure in place to deliver its strategy.

J. Conlon referred to the attached paper and highlighted the following:

  • The review had been prompted by members’ feedback during the strategic planning consultations;
  • The key driver was to create a stronger, more transparent and accountable membership organization, which all members felt compelled to invest in;
  • The fact that a new leadership and new strategy were in place provided a promising starting point compared with reviews carried out in the past which had did not quite delivered on expectations;
  • Given the interconnectivity between membership and governance, the review was broad in focus and the timetable highlighted the focus on consultation and transparency;
  • She also noted that the consultant proposed for the work had specific experience in membership bodies, and the trust of the members having carried out the strategic planning process.

Discussion ensued, including the following points:

  • It was clarified that the review was not going to cover the issue of IAPB’s jurisdiction registration (which is currently in the UK) as this issue was being looked at already in a separate exercise led by T. Morris, formerly IAPB Chief Financial Officer;
  • It was noted that the review may also be an opportunity to look at the management functions of IAPB and the boundaries between management and leadership;
  • It was suggested that the consultation should include former members as well as current ones;
  • In order to guarantee the independence (and perception of transparency) of the review, the consultant’s terms of reference should be amended to ensure he lead the exercise with staff on a supporting role;
  • Some also suggested the possibility of undertaking a pro bono legal review of IAPB functions and structures as part of the process;
  • The issue of ensuring appropriate engagement of regional chairs, including the idea of involving a regional representation in the Executive Committee’s discussions of the review, was raised;
  • It was also clarified that any changes requiring amendments to the IAPB’s memorandum and articles of associations will have to be approved by the Council.[1]

ACTION: to amend the terms of reference in view of the discussion above and proceed with the review.