Second Board Meeting

Loading...
Date
YYYY-MM-DD
Board Meeting Decision Point Number Title
2002-04-22 B02 GF/B02/DP01 Adoption of agenda Adoption of agenda
<p>The Board adopted the agenda as presented in document GF/B2/1 with the amendments of “Designation of Rapporteur” as a new, second agenda item and an additional presentation (without discussion) on the process of recruiting the Executive Director in advance of the discussion on the new Executive Director.</p>
2002-04-22 B02 GF/B02/DP02 Constituency naming convention Constituency naming convention
Several representatives requested that the labeling of Board members and constituencies be revised to ensure that the full constituency is referenced rather than the resident country of the appointed Board member. 
2002-04-22 B02 GF/B02/DP03 Appointment of a rapporteur Appointment of a rapporteur
The Chair thanked the Foundation representative, Dr. Helene Gayle, for serving as rapporteur during the First Board Meeting and designated the Private Sector representative, Mr. Rajat Gupta, as rapporteur for the Second Board Meeting.
2002-04-22 B02 GF/B02/DP04 Approval of Board meeting report Approval of Board meeting report
<p>The Board adopted the minutes of the previous meetings as read with the proviso that the issue of multi-lateral employees to serve on the TRP be considered by the TRP Sub-working Group and brought back for review by the Board at its next meeting. The Board also took note of the longer report as drafted and the amendments suggested by the NGO Community representative to the short version.</p>
2002-04-22 B02 GF/B02/DP05 Country Coordination Mechanisms, Proposals and Eligibility Criteria - Part one Country Coordination Mechanisms, Proposals and Eligibility Criteria - Part one
<ol type="A"><li><u>Country Coordinating Mechanisms: </u><ol><li>The Board approved the principle of sub-regional Country Coordination Mechanisms for small countries, based on the small islands state classification of the United Nations.</li><li>The Board approved the eligibility of sub-national proposals provided that they are consistent with nationally formulated policies and that there is evidence of a legal framework for the sub-national entity stating its autonomy.</li><li>The Board confirmed that regional proposals can be accepted, provided that they clearly add value beyond the national level, include appropriate NGO and other civil society partners, and that they are supported by national Country Coordination Mechanisms."</li><li>Confirming that CCMs should be inclusive, involving members of civil society and the private sector as partners in preparation, approval and implementation of proposals, in accordance with the guidelines of proposals and stressing the importance of improving their effectiveness and capacity, the Board: – recognized the Secretariat as the lead advisor to the TRP and to the Board on CCM confirmation, as necessary;– noted the importance of linking this to the development and leverage of partnerships at the country level.</li></ol></li><li><u>Proposals: </u><ol><li>The Board adopted a three-year approach to balancing the portfolio between regions, diseases and interventions, subject to a mid-term review of balancing after the third round and after ongoing reviews and drawing on existing data from technical partners as well as recommending use of a needs assessment instrument.</li><li>The Board adopted an approach regarding the balance of prevention, care, support and treatment whereby if a given proposal can explain and document that a particular intervention is available through other arrangements it is not necessary that this intervention be a part of the proposal. The most appropriate balance of interventions will differ according to country contexts.</li></ol></li><li><u>Eligibility Criteria: </u><ol><li>The Board reaffirmed the decision that priority be given to proposals from countries in greatest need, as determined by level of poverty and disease burden and that proposals from members of the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) are not eligible for funding by the Global Fund.</li><li>The Board confirmed that proposals from eligible countries in lower need situations will be considered for funding, but will be given lower priority and lower overall allocation relative to those with greater need</li><li>The Board decided that proposals from eligible countries whose overall needs are of lower priority but which focus on particularly vulnerable populations will be considered as specified in the above decision.</li><li>The Board decided that multi-year proposals can be approved. The Fund will allocate funds for a two-year period with funding for the third and following years contingent on a satisfactory performance assessment and the Fund’s available resources at that time.</li></ol></li><li><u>Approval guidelines: </u><ol><li>The Board decided that multi-year proposals can be approved. The Fund will allocate funds for a two-year period with funding for the third and following years contingent on a satisfactory performance assessment and the Fund’s available resources at that time.</li><li>The Board endorsed the importance of additionality with regard to resources made available by the Global Fund relative to other sources of funding.The Board agreed that there is a need to further clarify the questions of funding ranges, resource gaps, percentage justification and additionality.</li><li>Noting the desire to ensure economies of scale, to have maximum impact, and not to overburden the operations of the Secretariat and the TRP, the Board agreed to the principle of a lower limit of total requested funds by a single applicant. The Board asked that exceptions to this limit be considered by the TRP on a case-by-case basis.</li><li>It was decided that the Secretariat would continue to work on the development of specific guidelines and report back to the Board at its next meeting.</li></ol></li><li><u>Emergency decision:</u> The Board decided that in the case of complex emergencies – identified by the Secretariat referencing international declarations such as those of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs – specific decisions on eligibility in each case should be made by the Executive Director in consultation with the Board to avoid delays in proposal review.</li><li><u>Next steps:</u> Recognizing the need to ensure high quality proposals from countries in greatest need and noting the existing availability of resources from current partners to work with countries at the local level, the Board requested the Secretariat to recommend at its next meeting specific ways for the Global Fund to support countries where capacity to prepare proposals is less strong both by leveraging existing partnerships and possibly catalyzing new processes.</li><li><u>Communication guidelines:</u><br/><ol><li>The Board authorized the Secretariat to share information on the reasoning behind the different decisions taken on proposals only with their authors, other groups that are part of the proposal (e.g. all members of a CCM listed on the CCM certification sheet), and Board Members and their representatives. All others making inquiries about specific proposals would be informed of these guidelines and directed to make their inquiries directly to the proposals’ authors.</li><li>The Board authorized the Secretariat to share information related to the review process so long as proposal-specific deliberations remain confidential</li><li>The Board requested the Secretariat to send a regular e-mail to Board members listing all inquiries made by Board members on information related to the review of specific proposals</li><li>The Board asked the Secretariat to make the arrangements for posting information of the approved proposals on the web site" <br/><br/></li></ol></li></ol>
2002-04-22 B02 GF/B02/DP06 Country Coordination Mechanisms, Proposals and Eligibility Criteria - Part two Country Coordination Mechanisms, Proposals and Eligibility Criteria - Part two
<p><u></u>The Board re-emphasized the urgent need for additional funding to fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria in countries of greatest need as determined by levels of disease burden and poverty. The Board furthermore stressed the importance of responding to the enormous interest and great need expressed through the submission of 322 proposals from 77 countries (and 7 multi-country proposals) within the deadline.</p><p>The Board indicated that all proposals reviewed by the TRP are considered as proposals in the pipeline, which will follow an expeditious and progressive process for potential approval in the near future. The fact that the Board, at this session, will approve funding for a given number of proposals should not be interpreted as an indication that other submitted proposals will not be approved for funding at a later stage.</p><ol><li>The Board requested the Secretariat to review new and resubmitted proposals to ensure consistency with the specific policy guidelines adopted by the Board at its second Board meeting as well as the Framework document.</li><li>The Board reconfirmed that non-CCM applications were not eligible unless the proposals satisfactorily explained how they met the exceptional circumstances set out in the framework document in this regard. The Board therefore agreed that non-CCM applications from the first round should be removed from category one and placed into category two, and follow the procedure for approval for category two. All decisions regarding categories one and two, as reported in the following section, were taken on the understanding that the categories had been amended in this way.</li><li>The Board gave preliminary approval to fund proposals in the first category recommended by the TRP, provided that: all proposal clarifications and additional information requested are received and reviewed by the Secretariat and endorsed by the Chair and/or Vice-Chair of the TRP; appropriate fiduciary, procurement, monitoring and evaluation (including agreed criteria and reporting guidelines) arrangements are in place in accordance with Board policy directives; appropriate fiduciary, procurement, monitoring and evaluation (including agreed criteria and reporting guidelines) arrangements are in place and approved by the Executive Director. The process of approval will be completed within six weeks on a continuous basis after the applicants received letter of notification from the Secretariat. Grant agreement negotiations for these proposals could then begin on a continuous basis as these proposals fulfill the criteria listed above.</li><li>The Board decided to approve the commitment to fund proposals in the second category recommended by the TRP, provided that clear guidelines to the applicants are provided by the TRP and the following: all proposal clarifications and additional information requested are received and reviewed by the Secretariat, and approved by the Chair and Vice-Chair of the TRP upon consultation of the proposal’s original primary reviewers;- appropriate fiduciary, procurement, monitoring and evaluation (including agreed criteria and reporting guidelines) arrangements are in place in accordance with Board policy directive and are approved by the Executive Director. The process of approval will be completed within six weeks on a continuous basis after the applicants received letter of notification from the Secretariat. These proposals shall finally be approved by the Board, through email, upon notification by the Secretariat that the above conditions have been met. Grant agreement negotiations for these proposals could then begin on a continuous basis as these proposals fulfill the criteria listed above.</li><li>The Board recommended that all proposals in category three need to be resubmitted for a full review by the TRP prior to being resubmitted for Board endorsement.</li><li>The Board decided to merge category 4 and 5. Proposals in this new category will be revised and reformulated using the new guidelines and forms for proposals and reviewed together with newly submitted proposals.</li><li>The Board requested the Secretariat to promptly communicate to applicants of proposals in all categories the additional information needed and/or issues raised by the TRP in order to provide technical guidance, including by relevant partners for an early revision or resubmission of proposals as recommended by the TRP.</li><li>The Board requested the Executive Director to negotiate the Grant Agreements for approved proposals, including detailed budget allocation, disbursement schedule and clear termination clauses as well as specifying the financial and program accountability and procurement mechanisms agreed.</li><li>The Board approved funding for the first two years of each proposal with subsequent years’ funding contingent on: a satisfactory performance assessment, to be completed no later than two years after the first disbursement; the Fund’s available resources at that time.</li><li>The Board authorized the Executive Director, after these conditions have been met, to enter into Grant Agreements and thereafter instruct the Trustee to disburse funds according to agreed disbursement plans and continuous reviews.</li><li>Applicants to the Fund who find that their proposal has not received a fair review by the TRP may appeal through a special procedure for which specific terms of reference will be developed by the Board Sub Working Group.</li></ol><p>The Board took note of the lessons learned and instructed the Secretariat and the TRP sub-working group to take the appropriate actions to revise current procedures and documentation in line with the guidelines developed in the sub-meeting and the revised ToR for the sub-working group.<br/><br/></p>
2002-04-22 B02 GF/B02/DP07 Appointment of the Executive Director Appointment of the Executive Director
<ol><li>The Board approved the appointment of Richard Feachem for the post of Executive Director for a two-year period. The contract will be renewable. </li><li>The Board requested the Recruitment Committee to agree on performance indicators at the time of the negotiation of the contract of the Executive Director.</li></ol>
2002-04-22 B02 GF/B02/DP08 Phase one agreement Phase one agreement
<ol type="I"><li><u>Guidelines:</u><br/><ol><li>The Board decided to approve the Phase one agreement.</li><li>The Board requested the Secretariat to seek clarity from the Trustee on the management of exchange rate risks as well as the request for different accounts, and that the donors be asked to clarify the intention to earmark funds.</li><li>The Board decided to request the CCMs in consultation with the Secretariat and the Trustee to identify a suitable, independent, credible and experienced partner organization at country level to assure readiness for implementation and adequate programmatic, financial and related standards; and thereafter to oversee the financial accountability and programmatic implementation of the primary recipients (which could be more than one). This organization will not manage or implement the program. Implementation will be the responsibility of the local country partners identified in the proposal by the CCM.</li><li>The Board requested the Secretariat in consultation with the Trustee and other partners to define the standards for the Global Fund on financial accountability and programmatic implementation requirements at the country level, and stressed the importance of linkages to procurement policy.</li><li>The Board agreed to grant the Executive Director authority to enter into agreement with the identified partner organization at country level on the basis of the above CCM process in consultation with the Trustee on accountability standards.</li><li>The country-level arrangements should, if possible, build on already existing structures in country and leverage new private and public partnerships. In addition, the arrangement should aim at increasing local capacity and ensuring local ownership</li><li>The Board will be continuously informed as arrangements with in-country partner organizations are made in each country. </li><li>The Board agreed that, in parallel to the immediate steps described above, the Secretariat in consultation with the Trustee and other partners should develop and specify the Global Fund’s long term fiduciary requirements corresponding to international standards.</li><li>The outcome of the discussions between the Secretariat and the Trustee concerning long-term fiduciary requirements will be reported at the next Board meeting.</li></ol></li><li><u>Monitoring and evaluation:</u><br/><ol><li>The Board endorsed the inclusion of monitoring and evaluation as integral components of the grant agreement negotiations for approved proposals, noting the likely need for additional information on monitoring and evaluation to be provided by applicants.</li><li>The Board requested that monitoring and evaluation revisions to the guidelines for proposals and proposal form be considered by the Sub-working Group on Proposals (former sub-working Group on TRP) with input from the Monitoring &amp; Evaluation and Results-Based Disbursement Working Group (MER).</li></ol></li><li><u>Procurement:</u><br/><ol><li>The Board instructed the Secretariat to solicit additional information on approved applicants' procurement and distribution systems and to review this information prior to the approval of disbursement in accordance with other pre-disbursement arrangements.</li><li>The Board instructed the Executive Director to create a Procurement Task Force – consisting of a limited number of technical experts from multiple sectors, including UN agencies, the private sector and civil society – acting in their personal capacity and selected based on suggestions by and the approval of the Board – and to instruct this Task Force to provide the Board by its third meeting with recommendations on possible procurement policies. The Task Force will be chaired by two members of the Board and invite other Board members to voluntarily participate. The Task Force may draw on other technical expertise as necessary and on an ongoing basis." <br/><br/></li></ol></li></ol>
2002-04-22 B02 GF/B02/DP09 Organizational structure, workplan and budget of the Secretariat Organizational structure, workplan and budget of the Secretariat
<ol><li>The Board approved the suggested organizational structure of the Secretariat in principle, stressing the importance of the in-coming Executive Director having a possibility to fine-tune the structure.</li><li>The Board approved the workplan and budget for a five month period (not exceeding USD 9,8 million) and the Board requested the Executive Director to present a revised budget at the Board at the next Board Meeting</li></ol>
2002-04-22 B02 GF/B02/DP10 Administrative Services Agreement with WHO Administrative Services Agreement with WHO
The Board approved the Administrative Services Agreement, with the minor modifications as requested, and authorized the Chairman of the Board to enter into this agreement with WHO.
2002-04-22 B02 GF/B02/DP11 Dates of Third and Fourth Board Meeting Dates of Third and Fourth Board Meeting
<ol><li>The Board decided that the Third Board Meeting be held in Geneva and that it be tentatively scheduled for the middle of September, 2002.</li><li>The Board decided that the Fourth Board Meeting be tentatively scheduled for the middle of November, 2002 and that during this meeting a second round of proposal approvals for 2002 be considered.</li></ol>
2002-04-22 B02 GF/B02/DP12 Working Group on Governance Working Group on Governance
The Board requested that representatives from the Private Sector and Italy chair a working group on governance and that the findings of this working group be presented at the Third Board Meeting.