|
Sixth
GAVI Board Meeting, 17 October 2001, Ottawa, Canada
October 2001
2. Roles and Responsibilities
Discussion
- As GAVI is now moving from initial phase of proposal
development and approval to a new phase of implementation, monitoring,
evaluation, and lesson learned, it is appropriate to take stock
of roles and responsibilities and ways of working, while keeping
in mind the guiding principles agreed upon earlier.
-
Even though GAVI is thought to have a light
structure, the organogram (Powerpoint
document 36kb) is actually quite complex, with task forces,
regional working groups, etc(1).
- The idea of a lean Secretariat is not quite accurate
the Working Group is acting as a virtual secretariat, with
the distinction that the members remain in the partner agencies(2).
What is important is that there is clear accountability for priority
tasks assigned by the Board, and that the authority of the Working
Group does not exceed that given to the Secretariat.
- The Board representatives from developing countries
expressed a need for clarification of their role, including delineation
of their constituencies and responsibilities for consultation.
In order to function effectively they need more support and more
time to turn around the documents that are circulated. It may
be that the Secretariat could provide additional logistical and
communication support to the new Board member from India, as it
is now doing for the Minister of Health from Mali.
- The role of the national ICCs should not be confused
with that of partners at the national level; ICCs have been created
to improve collaboration between partners, not as implementation
mechanisms. The same principle applies to all GAVI coordinating
mechanisms at all levels.
- As we review the Terms of Reference on Task Forces
and we consider devolving specific functions of task forces back
to partners, we need to maintain the coordination aspect
but this could be done through a lighter structure than a task
force.
- An external review of the functions of the Working
Group, task forces and other GAVI mechanisms may be helpful, in
order to design options for the future.
- We need to be careful about how we portray the
relationship between GAVI, the Vaccine Fund and the global immunization
community the Vaccine Fund is not at the center of our
work but a defined and limited effort within the larger context.
- Capacity building efforts must be within the context
of the health system; while we should not should dilute our own
focus from immunization, health systems improvements should be
an indicator for capacity building.
DECISIONS
The Board:
2.1 decided to further develop the "Roles & Responsibilities"
paper, taking into account discussions and any further input based
on the paper, and the time frames agreed upon in the Proto-Board
meeting(3). Specific decision points to be
put to the Board at the next meeting.
2.2 requested the Working Group to report back to
the Board as soon as possible with further clarification on:
2.2.1 the relationship between the
Working Group, Secretariat and Board; and
2.2.2 the relationship between the GAVI Board
and the Fund Board.
2.3 recommended that the Working Group consider
undertaking a cost analysis of the various GAVI mechanisms and the
structure as a whole (direct costs as well as costs assumed by Partners)
2.4 agreed that GAVI needs to remain flexible and
informal, but that workplans should be more outcome-focused
2.5 requested that the Working Group present the
Board with options, when appropriate, rather than single recommendations;
decision-making needs to be done at the Board level
2.6 requested that GAVI elaborate its workplans
linked to outputs so that progress may be more easily monitored
it should look more like a "business" plan
2.7 requested that the analysis of financial
contributions to immunization be produced urgently to assure that
the Vaccine Fund was not replacing other sources of funding.
1. Currently, the
GAVI Secretariat and the Independent Review Committee are the only
mechanisms that are completely supported by the Secretariats
budget; teleconference costs for the Working Group and Board are
also covered by the Secretariat. Task forces are primarily supported
by Partners (the Financing Task Force receives funding from the
Secretariat because of the budgetary constraints of the World Bank);
regional working groups are completely funded by Partners.
2. The Working Group,
composed of partner representatives located within the partner agencies,
work part-time for the Working Group and all costs are covered by
the partners.
3. The documents and decisions
made by the GAVI Proto-Board were subsequently adopted by the GAVI
Board at its first meeting.
|