MAIN DECISIONS MADE AT BOARD MEETING
Author:
David Garmaise
Article Type:Article Number: 2
ABSTRACT This article provides a summary of the main decisions made by the Global Fund Board at its Accra meeting.
On 20-21 November 2011, the Global Fund Board held its 25th meeting in Accra, Ghana. GFO was present, with observer status. The main decisions made at the meeting, in chronological order, were as follows. (For precise wording of what the Board agreed, see the decision points document that is due to be posted at www.theglobalfund.org/en/board/meetings/twentyfifth. Background documentation will also, in time, be posted by the Global Fund at the same location.)
Strategy 2012-2016. The Board approved a new Strategy which establishes the general direction of the Global Fund for the next five years. Unlike previous strategies, the new Strategy includes some goals and targets. Further details are provided in Article 3 below. [See Decision Point 5.]
Consolidated Transformation Plan. The Board approved a Consolidated Transformation Plan (CTP) that will serve as a roadmap for the Global Fund over the next 18 months. The CTP, which contains 31 projects and 162 deliverables, is based on input from a variety of sources, including the report of the High-Level Panel, and the Global Fund Strategic Plan 2012-2016 (also adopted at this meeting). Further details are provided in Article 4 below. [See Decision Point 6.]
Governance reform. The Board approved a charter for each of the three new standing committees of the Board: the Strategy, Investment and Impact Committee; the Finance and Operational Performance Committee; and the Audit and Ethics Committee. (The “old” standing committees had terms of reference; the Global Fund decided to use the term “charter” instead.) The Board also approved terms of reference for the new Board Coordinating Group; operating procedures for the Board and its committees; and revisions to the Bylaws (required to reflect the changes in Board structure). This completes Phase 1 of governance reform. Phase 2 will focus on, among other things, Board composition and the role of the non-voting seats. [See Decision Point 7.]
TERG replenishment. The Board extended the terms of five current members of the Technical Evaluation Reference Group (TERG) until the completion of the process to recruit and select new TERG members as required under the TERG TORs. This is a housekeeping matter, designed to give the new Strategy, Investment, and Impact Committee time to undertake the recruitment and selection process. [See Decision Point 8.]
Evaluation Strategy 2012-2016. The Board approved a five-year Evaluation Strategy. The Strategy is built around three types of evaluations: (1) programme reviews to assess performance, efficiency and quality; (2) thematic evaluations to assess the success of key initiatives; and (3) impact evaluations at country and global levels. [See Decision Point 9.]
Corporate performance framework. The Board tasked the Secretariat with revising the Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Framework to reflect a recently commissioned independent review, the High-Level Panel recommendations and the Global Fund Strategy 2012-2016 (adopted at this meeting). [See Decision Point 10.]
TRP membership. The Board authorised the Chair and Vice-Chairs of the Technical Review Panel (TRP) to fill vacancies on the TRP (for permanent and alternate members) from amongst members of the TRP Support Group. Previously, the Board made such appointments itself. The Board will continue to appoint the members of the TRP Support Group. The Board also authorised the Chair and Vice-Chairs of the TRP to add members, as required, for a given round of proposals. Such members will be selected from amongst alternate members of the TRP and, where necessary, former TRP members. [See Decision Point 11.]
Voluntary Dispute Resolution Process. The Board approved a process to provide principal recipients with a non-binding alternative to arbitration to resolve disputes related to OIG final audit and investigation reports. [See Decision Point 12.]
Human resources (HR) strategy. The Board approved what it called a Medium-Term Human Resources Strategy. The strategy consists of five “pillars”: (1) strengthen the institutional environment for managing human resources; (2) develop the people management skills of line managers; (3) establish a comprehensive policy framework; (4) strengthen HR services; and (5) provide strong HR support to the implementation of the Consolidated Transformation Plan. [See Decision Point 13.]
Committee leadership. The Board appointed Todd Summers (Private Foundations delegation) and Shaun Mellors (Communities) as Chair and Vice-Chair of the Strategy, Investment and Impact Committee; Viorel Soltan (Eastern Europe and Central Asia) and John Monahan (USA) as Chair and Vice-Chair of the Finance and Operational Performance Committee; Brian Brink (Private Sector), Claude Rubinowicz (France) and Karlo Boras (Developing Country NGOs) to serve as members of the Audit and Ethics Committee, with Brian Brink also serving as Vice-Chair. The remaining four seats on this committee (one of them also to serve as Chair) are reserved for independent members, to be filled later. All will serve for two-year terms. [See Decision Point 14.]
2012 operating budget.The Board approved a 2012 budget of $369.9 million. Of this amount, $17.8 million represents additional costs due to the decline in the value of the U.S. dollar. Without that adjustment, the proposed budget is $19.0 million (or 6%) higher than the 2011 budget. The OIG portion of the budget goes from $19.8 million in 2011 to $28.0 million in 2012, an increase of 41%. The OIG budget includes a $3 million contingency, which the OIG will have to get approval to use. The LFA budget is up $10.3 million (14%). [See Decision Point 15.]
Round 11, and grant renewals. Described in Article 1, above. [See Decision Point 16.]
Executive session deliberations. In the course of the Board meeting, the Board spent several hours in executive session, during which only voting Board members and alternates were present. All those present signed confidentiality agreements. No announcement was subsequently made about what transpired during those sessions. (No formal decisions were made, because if they had been made, the full Board meeting would have been informed.)
