Ninth Board Meeting

<ul type="disc"><li>Ms. Lucia Fiori from the Italian Constituency is designated as Rapporteur for the Ninth Board Meeting.</li></ul>

<ul> <li>The agenda for the Ninth Board Meeting is approved.</li> </ul>

<ul> <li>The report of the Eighth Board Meeting is approved.</li> </ul>

The Board approves the nomination of Mr Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations, as Chair and Mr Sven Sandström as Vice Chair of the Voluntary Replenishment Mechanism of the Global Fund. The Board expresses its appreciation to both Mr Annan and Mr Sandström for their commitment and their willingness to undertake this important task.

<p>Decision Point 1:</p> <p>The Board takes note of the lessons learned presented in the report and instructs future Steering Committees and the Secretariat to take these into account for future events.</p> <p>There are no material budgetary implications for this recommendation.</p> <p>Decision Point 2</p> <p>The Board will consider the reconstitution of the Partnership Forum Steering Committee (PFSC) at its Eleventh meeting in July 2005. </p> <p>There are no material budgetary implications for this recommendation.</p>

<p>Decision Point 1</p> <p>The Board adopts the following requirements for CCMs:</p> <ol type="a"> <li>All CCMs are required to show evidence of membership of people living with and/or affected by the diseases;</li> <li>CCM members representing the non-government sectors must be selected by their own sector(s) based on a documented, transparent process, developed within each sector;</li> <li>CCMs are required to put in place and maintain a transparent, documented process to: <ol type="i"> <li>Solicit and review submissions for possible integration into the proposal;</li> <li>Nominate the Principal Recipient and oversee program implementation;</li> <li>Ensure the input of a broad range of stakeholders, including CCM members and non-members, in the proposal development and oversight process</li> </ol> </li> </ol> <p>There are no material budgetary implications of this decision.</p> <p>Decision Point 2</p> <p>The Board agrees to make the following word substitution in the CCM Guidelines:</p> <p>When the PRs and Chair or Vice Chairs of the CCM are the same entity, the CCM must should have a written plan in place to mitigate against this inherent conflict of interest.</p> <p>There are no material budgetary implications of this decision.</p>

<p>The Board approves the Memorandum of Understanding with Roll Back Malaria attached as Annex 3 to the Report of the Governance and Partnership Committee (GF/B9/7), and requests the Secretariat to provide periodic reports on cooperation between the Fund and RBM under the agreements.</p> <p>There are no material budgetary implications of this decision.</p>

<p>The Board amends the Committee Rules and Procedures, para. 1.2.3, to read as follows:</p><p>The Ethics Committee may conduct business only when three or more members and the Chair are present.</p><p>There are no material budgetary implications of this decision.</p>

The Board approves the Guidelines for the Fifth Call for Proposals.

The Board agrees to launch a Call for Proposals for Round 5 with the intention of reviewing and approving recommended proposals at the Eleventh Board Meeting in July 2005.

<p><b>Decision Point 1:</b> </p><p>The Board requests the Secretariat to commission a background study of the options and choices available to the Global Fund in its fiscal management structure and processes. </p><p>There are no material budgetary implications for this decision point as it is anticipated that this study can be done on a pro-bono basis.</p><p><b>Decision Point 2:</b> </p><p>The Board requests the MEFA Committee to pursue a review of the Comprehensive Funding Policy and report back at the Tenth Board meeting in April 2005. </p><p>There are no material budgetary implications for this decision point.</p>

<p>The Board adopts the following recommendations on Committee structure, role and process:</p> <ul> <li>Streamline the number of core Board Committees from 6 to 4 to reflect the changing needs of the Fund<br /><br /> <ul> <li>Strategy &amp; Policy Committee</li> <li>Portfolio Management Committee</li> <li>Finance &amp; Audit Committee</li> <li>Ethics Committee</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <ul> <li>Maintain the Ethics Committee as a small standing committee. The Committee is to meet as ethical issues arise and are referred by the Board. The Committee will maintain its current size and continue to be comprised of Board members or their alternates only</li> </ul> <ul> <li>Require financial literacy to serve as the Chair or Member of the Finance &amp; Audit Committee</li> </ul> <ul> <li>Require Committee Chair selection to explicitly consider the Chair's Committee leadership and management skills, specifically an ability to enforce adherence to the Committee's role and an ability to drive meetings efficiently</li> </ul> <ul> <li>Confirm that only one delegate is permitted per Committee and that that delegate is expected to be available for all Committee meetings. In the event that membership must permanently change from one delegate to another, permit an overlap period of one committee meeting</li> </ul> <ul> <li>Confirm the role of Committees to frame issues and bring options and recommendations on major strategies and policies, with supporting rationale, to the full Board for decision - to provide operational oversight but otherwise leave implementation activities to the Secretariat</li> </ul> <ul> <li>Request Committee Chairs and Secretariat liaisons hold quarterly telephone calls. Parties should confirm that each is adhering to respective roles and discuss points of issue. This confirmation should be sent to the Board Chair and Vice Chair. Lack of agreement on roles should be reported to the Board Chair and Vice Chair for assistance in resolution if required.</li> </ul> <ul> <li>Eliminate duplicate assignment of issues to Committees and resolve issues of consistency and duplication at the end of each Board meeting among decisions taken by the Board</li> </ul> <ul> <li>Create a standard initiation manual for new Committee members and staff that communicates the roles and functions of the Committees and staff and expectations of Committee members to be approved by the Strategy and Policy Committee</li> </ul> <ul> <li>Committees should monitor their own performance and conduct an annual "health check" - formal role and scope should be assessed every 2-3 years</li> </ul>

<p>Decision Point 1:</p> <p>The Board revokes, until the Thirteenth Board meeting, Decision 3* of Agenda Item 5 of the Seventh Board Meeting (reference GF/B8/2), and decides that Phase 2 decisions shall be made by the Board in accordance with the processes and subject to the policies set out in Annex 3 to Board Document GF/B9/8. </p> <p>The Board approves, until the Thirteenth Board meeting, the amendments to the Bylaws and Board Operating Procedures set out in Annex 4 to Board Document GF/B9/8.</p> <p>Budgetary implications for this decision point:</p> <p>The additional cost of this decision point is estimated at US$140,000, reflecting assumptions around the need for a) some level of periodic Fund Portfolio Manager effort to work with CCMs and grant recipients to answer questions and provide clarifications to the Board in response to situations where the Board does not endorse Secretariat recommendations for Phase 2 funding; and b) costs incurred to handle the communications protocol described above, including the development of the web pages to hold the Phase 2 materials, the compilation and posting of all materials in a timely manner, and the correspondence with Board constituencies as required by the process.</p> <p>Decision Point 2:</p> <p>The Board approves, at the final Board Meeting of each year, a maximum amount for Phase 2 commitments during the next calendar year; and</p> <p>The Board asks the Secretariat to report back to the Board at every Board Meeting on the Phase 2 decisions taken since the previous Board Meeting, including the cumulative amount approved to date in the current calendar year.</p> <p>There are no material budgetary implications for this decision point. </p>

<p>Decision Point 1</p> <p>The Board mandates the Secretariat to develop an early warning system to identify technical support needs and engage, in a timely and coordinated manner, partners in technical collaboration.</p> <p>Decision Point 2</p> <p>The Board requests the Secretariat to work closely with partners (multi- and bilateral partners, international and national NGOs, horizontal collaboration initiatives, private sector, academia) to facilitate the provision of technical support throughout the life cycle of the grant (proposal development, grant negotiation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation).</p> <p>Decision Point 3</p> <p>The Board mandates the appropriate committee(s) to provide guidance on the allocation of a specified proportion of grant money to be used for technical support to CCMs.</p> <p>Decision Point 4</p> <p>The Board recognizes the increased need for funding to respond to the rising demand placed on partners for technical support. The Board further mandates the appropriate committee(s) to provide guidance on the development of:</p> <p>a. specific funding mechanisms for technical partners to effectively respond to the growing technical support needs.</p> <p>b. appropriate funding strategies to facilitate the meaningful participation of affected communities and civil society organizations in CCMs and all phases of grant implementation.</p>

<p>Decision Point 1</p> <p>The Board approves the list of persons contained in Annex 3 of the Report of the Portfolio Management and Procurement Committee (GF/B9/9) who have been recommended by the Portfolio Management and Procurement Committee and the Executive Director to fill the vacancies on the Technical Review Panel.</p> <p>There are no material budgetary implications for this decision point. </p> <p>Decision Point 2</p> <p>The Board approves the list of persons contained in Annex 4 that have been recommended by the PMPC and the Executive Director to comprise the TRP Support Group.</p> <p>There are no material budgetary implications for this decision point. </p> <p>Decision Point 3</p> <p>Board decides that the language used in its decisions for the approval of Category 2 proposals shall be modified to read as follows:</p> <p>"Recommended proposals provided adjustments and clarifications are met within a limited timeframe (the initial reply to TRP adjustments and clarifications should be received within 6 weeks of the applicant's receipt of the initial decision of the Board, and any further adjustments and clarifications should be completed within 4 months from the receipt of the initial reply from the applicant). The TRP Chair and/or Vice-Chair shall give final approval based on consultations with the primary and secondary reviewers."</p> <p>There are no material budgetary implications for this decision point. </p>

<p><b>Decision Point 1</b> </p><p>The Board adopts the following system for addressing continuity of services in the context of the Phase 2 renewal decision:</p><ol type="a"><li>A recipient (typically a CCM) whose Request for Continued Funding is not approved may submit an Extra-ordinary Request for Continued Funding for Treatment.</li><li>The Extra-ordinary Request will be limited to expenses directly related to the continuation of treatment (including medicines [which, in the case of discontinuation of antiretroviral therapy, includes drugs for HIV-related opportunistic infections], diagnostics, and, as appropriate, costs for medical staff and other personnel directly involved in care of the patients on treatment) for those people already placed on life-long treatment under the existing proposal at the time of the Extra-ordinary Request.</li><li>The Extra-ordinary Request will be limited to the amount required to provide services directly related to the continuation of treatment for one year from the date of submission of the Extra-ordinary Request, less the amount granted under the Phase 1 proposal not disbursed at the time of the Extra-ordinary Request.</li><li>In addition to a budget, the Extra-ordinary Request shall contain a description of the steps that are being taken to find sustainable sources of financing for the people on treatment, and to ensure that treatment is being delivered effectively.</li><li>The Secretariat will review these plans for sustainable financing and the budget, and provide a recommendation to the Board on their appropriateness. The Extra-ordinary Request will not be subject to a performance-based review unless the Secretariat has pre-existing information to suggest that the approach to care and/or quality of care was inadequate. The frequency and modality for the provision of the Secretariat's recommendations, and the mechanism by which funds are committed to the Extra-ordinary Requests will be in line with the decision that the Board adopts for the broader Phase 2 decision-making process.</li><li>Throughout the process, the Secretariat will actively engage with technical partners to identify mechanisms to ensure continuity of services.</li></ol><p>There are no material budgetary implications for this decision point.</p><p><b>Decision Point 2</b> </p><p>The Board asks the Secretariat to explore with key partners (including WHO, UNAIDS, the World Bank, bilateral agencies, recipients, non-governmental organizations, and people living with the three diseases) a process that will result in long-term solutions to the issues of continuity of treatment, care and support, and prevention services for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. The Secretariat should report back to the PMPC on the process before the Tenth Board Meeting. The Secretariat should report back to the Board through the PMPC on potential solutions in time for the Eleventh Board Meeting.</p><p>Budgetary implications: The additional cost of implementing this recommendation is estimated at $90,000.</p>

<p>Decision Point 1</p> <p>The Board decides to use the following language in its decisions for the approval of Category 1 and 2 proposals in order to recognize that the Secretariat may ask the Technical Review Panel to re-review proposals in the course of implementation:</p> <p>"This approval is subject to re-review by the Technical Review Panel if, after consultation with the recipient but in the sole discretion of the Global Fund, changes in scientific evidence (as identified in collaboration with WHO and other technical partners) materially affect the proposal."</p> <p>The Board further decides that following such re-review, should the TRP recommend that, in light of the new scientific evidence, the approach taken in the proposal should be changed, the Board should reconsider the approval of the proposal. The recipient will have the opportunity to submit a revised version of the relevant parts of the proposal prior to the Board's decision.</p> <p>There are no material budgetary implications for this decision point. </p> <p>Decision Point 2</p> <p>The Board expands the circumstances in which the Phase 2 decision-making process can be accelerated by modifying the existing decision on the Phase 2 process, as set forth in GF/B8/2, page 7, to read as follows:</p> <p>"The decision may be taken earlier in cases of (i) accelerated implementation; (ii) severe exchange rate fluctuations; or (iii) additional financing needs resulting from changes in scientific evidence."</p> <p>There are no material budgetary implications for this decision point.</p>

<p>The Board replaces the phrase "Option (c) is applicable only until December 31, 2004" in the Board decision on quality assurance (compliance with quality standards) from the Third Board Meeting (GF/B4/2, p. 23) with "Option (c) is applicable only until December 31, 2005</p><p>The Board invites the World Health Organization to work with the Secretariat to assess the impact of the expiry of the transition period established in Option (c) and to develop options on the quality assurance of single- and limited-source products, and to report back to the PMPC in time for the development of recommendations for the Tenth Board Meeting.</p>

<p>Decision 1:</p> <p>The Board adopts the proposed methodology for measuring the Executive Director's performance:</p> <ul> <li>Assessment of Executive Director against two dimensions (Key Performance Indicators and competencies);</li> <li>Adoption of best practice "balanced scorecard" approach to define Executive Director Key Performance Indicators;</li> <li>Use of a system that can be used consistently at all levels of the Secretariat to measure performance, and integrated into other key processes such as talent development, strategic planning and budgeting.</li> </ul> <p>Decision 2:</p> <p>The Board approves the proposed 14 Key Performance Indicators for the Executive Director and associated 2005 targets (see page 10 of Annex 1 to GF/B9/15).</p> <p>Decision 3:</p> <p>The Board approves the competency model and associated behaviors that will be used to assess how the Executive Director has achieved targets (see page 12 of Annex 1 to GF/B9/15).</p> <p>Decision 4:</p> <p>The Board agrees to the timing and process for annual evaluation of Executive Director performance:</p> <ul> <li>KPIs and targets proposed by Executive Director and approved by Board before start of year;</li> <li>Assessment of competencies led by external evaluator (professional assessment firm);</li> <li>Final report on Executive Director performance prepared by a small Performance Assessment Committee (consisting of Board members) in January-February of each year.</li> </ul> <p>Decision 5:</p> <p>The Board agrees to the adoption of 5 key Board objectives, metrics and targets for which it has responsibility (related to results and impact, mobilizing resources, supporting country-level implementation, deciding on long-term strategy and providing best practice governance ), and agrees to an annual self-evaluation against these targets (see page 19 of Annex 1 to GF/B9/15, for details).</p>

<p><b>Decision Point 1</b> </p><p>The Board approves the 2005 Secretariat Budget and associated Secretariat staffing as attached in Annex 6 to the report of the October 12 - 13 MEFA meeting and as informed by that report. </p><p><b>Decision Point 2</b> </p><p>The Board takes note that the additional budgetary costs associated with any new rounds of proposals are excluded from the base 2005 budget and are highlighted separately.</p><p><b>Decision Point 3</b> </p><p>The Board approves that the agreed costs associated with Rounds 5 and 6 will be treated by the Board as an integral part of the decision to launch the relevant Round.</p>

<p><b>Decision Point:</b> </p><p>1.1 The choice of currency will apply only to new proposals submitted after 1 January 2005. Specifically:</p><p>1.2 Grants approved in Rounds 1 through 4 which have not been signed by 1 January 2005 will continue to be denominated in USD (i.e. the currency choice applies from Round 5 onwards)</p><p>1.3 Phase 2 renewals are not regarded as new proposals and hence will continue to be denominated in the currency chosen for Phase 1.</p><p>1.4 The currency choice must be made at the time of submission of the Proposal. Specifically, the applicant cannot change its chosen currency at any time after submission of the Proposal (including during implementation). </p>

<p>Decision Point 1:</p> <p>The Board approves the Board Calendar for 2005 as attached.</p> <p>Decision Point 2:</p> <p>The Board accepts with gratitude the offer from Sweden to host the 1^st Replenishment Conference in Stockholm.</p> <p>Decision Point 3:</p> <p>The Board accepts with gratitude the offer from the United Kingdom to host the 2^nd Replenishment Conference.</p> <p>Decision Point 4:</p> <p>The Board accepts the invitation of Morocco to host the Twelfth Board meeting, and Latin America and the Caribbean to host a Board Meeting in 2008.</p>

The Board extends the deadline for the signing of a grant agreement for the Andean Regional Project - Malaria control in cross border areas of the Andean countries for three months to 19 June 2005.