1. Report of the IRC Monitoring team
1.1 Approved the financial implications of the IRC monitoring team recommendations concerning continued support: Total commitment: $127 million.
1.1.1 $ 34,868,746 for Immunization Services Support including US$ 26,685,400 for reward payments and US$ 8,685,400 for third investment payments
1.1.2 $ 13,310,800 for Injection Safety Support.
1.1.3 $ 78,668,500 for New Vaccines Support
The Secretariat will forward the request to the Vaccine Fund Executive Committee on behalf of the GAVI Board.
1.2 Endorsed all of the proposed actions, suggested by WHO and supported by the Working Group, to respond to the policy recommendations of the IRC monitoring team, namely:
1.2.1 The ad hoc monitoring and evaluation group should, in light of the 2004 experience, further review the past Board policy decision allowing countries which failed the DQA to request a coverage survey to validate their reported DTP3 coverage. The group will revert to the GAVI Working Group with its conclusions.
1.2.2 On behalf of countries under stress or emergency situations
1 the main technical partners, WHO and UNICEF, should continue to prepare proposals for country support, monitoring reports and other GAVI/VF requirements such as the financial sustainability plans (FSP). Flexible rules should be used in reviewing such proposals and if WHO/UNICEF are asked to implement such activities the implementation modalities will generally conform to their established rules and procedures.
1.2.3 The GAVI Working Group should further consider special incentive measures for high performing countries and those with declining populations which currently do not qualify for ISS rewards.
1.2.4 The Board should make a strong advocacy statement highlighting the importance of sustaining injection safety efforts for all immunizations -- particularly including those for children under 1 year of age.
1.2 5 Countries should be encouraged to use their ISS funding to support waste management activities, and injection safety activities more broadly including strengthening of the National Regulatory Authority (NRA).
1.2.6 Regional working groups (RWGs) can have a useful role reviewing reports and monitoring activities, however, it is important to remember the recommendation of the 2003 GAVI Board Sub-Group Review of Task Forces which very clearly specified that RWGs cannot become implementing entities.
1.2.7 WHO will consult with its Regional Offices to explore including peer review of GAVI Annual Progress Reports during EPI Manager meetings.
1.3 Welcomed the proposal by UNICEF to communicate with its country representatives to encourage ICC’s to ensure that ISS funding is used optimally.
1.4 Requested UNICEF to develop a proposal to address its concern that the EC (and the Board) maybe spending too much time on relatively “minor decisions” e.g, allocation of small amounts of funds, etc.