Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Re: Medarticles articles required

Buzz It
thank you sir

--- On Tue, 5/7/11, anandkumarreddy <anandkumarreddy@gmail.com> wrote:

From: anandkumarreddy <anandkumarreddy@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Medarticles articles required
To: medarticles@googlegroups.com, "selva priya" <selvidec_7@yahoo.co.in>
Date: Tuesday, 5 July, 2011, 6:44 PM

enclosed

anand
http://www.indiasarkarinaukri.com/

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:06 AM, selva priya <selvidec_7@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
hi
Can any one get me the following articles?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1823657

Thank You

--
You can edit your Group Email settings by visiting the following link.
 
http://groups.google.com/group/medarticles/subscribe
 
You can choose abridged email or digest email so that you will receive only one email per day.

--
You can edit your Group Email settings by visiting the following link.
 
http://groups.google.com/group/medarticles/subscribe
 
You can choose abridged email or digest email so that you will receive only one email per day.

--
You can edit your Group Email settings by visiting the following link.
 
http://groups.google.com/group/medarticles/subscribe
 
You can choose abridged email or digest email so that you will receive only one email per day.

Re: Medarticles Please Help me with this articles

Buzz It

Thanks a lot

--
You can edit your Group Email settings by visiting the following link.
 
http://groups.google.com/group/medarticles/subscribe
 
You can choose abridged email or digest email so that you will receive only one email per day.

[socialactionfoundationforequity:14037 Remarks were taken out of context, clarifies Azad

Buzz It

Remarks were taken out of context, clarifies Azad

IANS India Private LimitedBy Indo Asian News Service | IANS – Tue, Jul 5, 2011

New Delhi, July 5 (IANS) A day after sparking off a controversy with his remark that men having sex with men (MSM) was a 'disease' and 'unnatural', Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad Tuesday sought to clarify that the remarks were taken out of context and had referred to the high rate of prevalence of HIV/AIDS among this section of populace.

'It was taken out of context,' he told reporters here. He asserted that he had prefaced those remarks by saying that there was a lot of controversy about MSM.

'Some people say it's unnatural, some say natural. Some people say that there should be a law against this, and others not. Many countries have laws, while others do not. I also said that I do not want to go into the controversy. That was not quoted,' Azad said, explaining his stance after being pilloried by gay and HIV/AIDS activist.

On Monday at a conference on HIV/AIDS, Azad said: 'The disease of MSM is unnatural and not good for India. We are not able to identify where it is happening as it is less reported also.'

Meanwhile, the minister Tuesday said he was concerned with the issue of high prevalence rate among MSM. 'As a health minister, the problem is that while we have lowered it (prevalance) among truckers, female sex workers, but in MSM, we have not been able to lower the prevalence. That is because it is difficult to target them.'

He noted that while HIV prevalence among the adult population was only 0.31 percent, it was 7.3 percent among MSM.

'If I have said something, I have said in favour of those men having sex with men. It is a big challenge for the ministry to identify them, treat them and counsel them. I am sorry that the news is being carried as I am the big villain for the MSM,' he said.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/remarks-were-taken-context-clarifies-azad-135823781.html

 

"Reproduced from the Global Fund Observer Newsletter (www.aidspan.org/gfo), a service of Aidspan."

 

 Forwarded by:

---------------------------

 Yours in Global Concern,

 A.SANKAR

Executive Director- EMPOWER  INDIA - Professional Civil Society Organisation

Founder and General Secretary - Confederation of Indian Civil Society Organisation’s (CICSO)

National Convener- National Alliance for Health, Environment and Rights ( NAFHER)

107J / 133E, Millerpuram

TUTICORIN-628 008, TN, INDIA

Telefax: 91 461 2310151; Mobile:   91 94431 48599: www.empowerindia.org

·         You are invited to join an E FORUM AIDS-TN. To join this free E  Forum kindly send an e  mail    to AIDS-TN-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

·           This e Forum moderated by   EMPOWER, a Non-profit, Non-Political, Voluntary and Professional Civil Society Organisation.

 

[socialactionfoundationforequity:14037 GLOBAL FUND OBSERVER (GFO) - Issue 152: 5 July 2011

Buzz It

GLOBAL FUND OBSERVER (GFO), an independent newsletter about the Global Fund provided by Aidspan to over 8,000 subscribers in 170 countries.

Issue 152: 5 July 2011. (For formatted web, Word and PDF versions of this and other issues, see www.aidspan.org/gfo.)

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 
CONTENTS
 
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

1. NEWS: Global Fund Publishes Eligibility List for Round 11

According to the Round 11 country eligibility list, published by the Global Fund, 78 countries have a history of recent funding for one or more of the disease or HSS components - thus rendering them ineligible to apply in Round 11 for those components. Applicants may be able to apply for an exemption to the recent funding criterion by submitting a pre-proposal (called a "proposal concept") by 22 July 2011.

2. ANALYSIS: Consolidated Proposals, Single-Stream-of-Funding Agreements and Grant Consolidation

The concept of the new funding architecture is not difficult to grasp, but how the concept is being implemented is fairly complicated. This article describes the relationship between consolidated proposals, single-stream-of-funding agreements and grant consolidation. The article also contains an erratum concerning an article published in GFO 145.

3. NEWS: How will grants work after Round 11?

By the time proposals for Round 11 are approved, the Global Fund will be well on its way to implementing the new grant architecture. This article describes how grants - oops!, sorry, we mean "single streams of funding" - will work in future.

4. NEWS: High-Level Panel Issues Interim Report

The Global Fund's High-Level Review Panel says its final report will provide significant, detailed and far-reaching recommendations to protect the Global Fund's resources and provide assurance to donors. This information is contained in the Panel's interim report. The Panel says that it sees significant areas that require improvement, "but nothing that cannot be fixed."

5. NEWS: Germany Reinstates Part of Its 2011 Pledge to the Global Fund

Germany has released the first half of its promised €200 million 2011 contribution to the Global Fund. Earlier this year, Germany suspended payment of its 2011 contribution following media reports about the misuse of grant funds in a small number of countries.

6. ERRATUM

We correct an error in an article in GFO 151 concerning an HIV proposal from Pakistan that was approved in Round 9 following an appeal of the original rejection.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

1. NEWS: Global Fund Publishes Eligibility List for Round 11

Seventy-eight countries may be ineligible to apply for one or more disease or HSS components because they have a history of recent funding

These countries may be able to request an exemption to the history of recent funding criterion, but must do so by 22 July 2011

According to the Global Fund Secretariat, 78 countries have a history of recent funding for one or more of the disease or HSS components, thus rendering them ineligible to apply in Round 11 for those components - unless they qualify under one of the exceptions to the history of recent funding criterion. Applicants seeking an exemption under this criterion must submit a pre-proposal (called a "proposal concept") by 22 July 2011.

Under the recent funding history criterion, if an applicant has an existing Global Fund grant for a particular disease or HSS component for which the implementation start date was after 15 December 2010 - i.e., within 12 months of the closing date for Round 11 proposals - the applicant is not eligible to submit a Round 11 proposal for the same disease or HSS component. There are two exceptions to this rule: (1) where the Round 11 proposal has a different geographical coverage compared to the existing grant; and (2) where the proposal calls for the roll-out of new technical guidance requiring significant investment. (See GFO article on the history of recent funding criterion here.)

The information on the number of countries with a history of recent funding is contained in the country eligibility list for Round 11 recently issued by the Global Fund. The list is available on the Fund's website here. The list details the eligibility of countries that might wish to apply as single-country applicants in the general pool or the targeted pool with respect to four criteria: (1) income level, (2) disease burden, (3) the OECD-DAC filter, and (4) history of recent funding. (The OECD-DAC is the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The OECD-DAC filter applies only to HIV proposals.)

IMPORTANT CAVEAT: The Global Fund Secretariat cautions that it developed the eligibility list for information purposes only; that the list is based on the Secretariat's best estimates at the time it was issued; that applicants should check the information on the eligibility list against the eligibility requirements as set out in the Global Fund's Eligibility, Counterpart Financing and Prioritization Policy (available here; see "new policy"); and that, in the event of any inconsistency between the eligibility list and the requirements as set out in the policy, the policy shall prevail.

The following is a list of the countries identified by the Global Fund as having a history of recent funding for one or more of the disease or HSS components. The relevant components are shown in parentheses.

Afghanistan (TB, HSS)

Angola (HIV, TB, malaria)

Argentina (HIV)

Armenia (TB)

Bangladesh (TB)

Belarus (TB)

Belize (HIV, HSS)

Burkina Faso (HIV)

Cambodia (HIV)

Cameroon (HIV, TB, malaria)

Cape Verde (malaria)

Central African Republic (TB, malaria)

China (malaria)

Columbia (HIV, TB)

Comoros (HIV, HSS)

Congo (HIV, TB)

Cote d'Ivoire (HIV)

Dem. Rep. of Congo (TB, malaria, HSS)

Djibouti (TB, malaria)

Ecuador (HIV, TB)

Eritrea (HIV, TB, HSS)

Ethiopia (TB, HSS)

Georgia (HIV, TB)

Ghana (TB)

Guatemala (malaria)

Guinea (HIV, malaria, HSS)

Haiti (TB, malaria)

Honduras (HIV, TB)

Indonesia (TB, HSS)

Iran (malaria)

Jordan (TB)

Kazakhstan (HIV)

Kenya (HIV, TB, malaria)

Kosovo (TB)

Kyrgyzstan (HIV, TB)

Lao (TB)

Lesotho (HIV)

Liberia (TB, malaria, HSS)

Malawi (malaria)

Malaysia (HIV)

Mali (TB, malaria)

Mauritania (HSS)

Mexico (HIV)

Mongolia (TB, HSS)

Morocco (HIV, TB)

Mozambique (HIV, malaria, HSS)

Myanmar (HIV, TB, malaria)

Namibia (TB)

Nepal (HIV)

Niger (TB, HSS)

Nigeria (TB)

Pakistan (HIV, malaria)

Papua New Guinea (HIV, HSS)

Peru (HIV)

Russian Federation (TB)

Sao Tome & Principe (HIV)

Senegal (TB, malaria)

Sierra Leone (malaria)

Somalia (TB, malaria, HSS)

South Africa (HIV)

Sri Lanka (HIV, HSS)

Sudan North (HIV, malaria)

Sudan South (malaria)

Swaziland (TB)

Syrian Arab Republic (HIV)

Thailand (HIV, TB, malaria)

Timor-Leste (HIV, malaria)

Togo (malaria)

Uganda (HIV, TB, malaria, HSS)

Ukraine (HIV, TB)

Tanzania (malaria, HSS)

Uruguay (HIV)

Uzbekistan (HIV)

Viet Nam (HIV, TB, HSS)

Yemen (TB)

Zambia (HIV)

Zanzibar (TB)

Zimbabwe (malaria)

Note: The Secretariat said that Mali's status concerning history of recent funding for HIV has yet to be determined.

Applicants that wish to submit a concept proposal can obtain the necessary form from the Global Fund Secretariat.

In addition to listing the countries and components where there is a history of recent funding, the eligibility list provides the following information:

·  Income level. Each country is categorised as low income, lower lower middle income, upper lower middle income, or upper middle income.

·  OECD-DAC filter. Each country is categorised as "yes" (on the OECD-DAC list); "no" (not on the list); or "not applicable."

·  Disease burden. Each disease component for each country is categorised as having a "low," moderate," high," "severe" or "extreme" disease burden.

·  Funding pool. For each disease component for each country, the list indicates whether the country is eligible to apply for that component in the general pool or in the targeted pool. (For each component, countries can apply in one pool or the other, providing they meet the eligibility requirements, but not both.)

The eligibility list also provides a partial "pre-TRP" prioritisation score for each country and disease component. The prioritisation criteria will be invoked only if there is insufficient money available to fund all TRP-recommended proposals. The criteria are based on a scoring system; points are awarded for three factors: the TRP technical merit rating, the country's income level and the country's disease burden for that particular disease. The partial prioritisation score shown in the eligibility list is based on income level and disease burden only; the TRP technical merit rating won't be known until after the TRP reviews all Round 11 proposals.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

2. ANALYSIS: Consolidated Proposals, Single-Stream-of-Funding Agreements and Grant Consolidation

Editor's Note: This is a condensed version of a section in Volume 1 of the "The Aidspan Guide to Round 11 Applications to the Global Fund."

The Global Fund's new grant architecture is designed to streamline and improve both the applications process and programme implementation. One of the ways it does so is by consolidating programmes and grants so that there is only one agreement per principal recipient (PR) per disease or health systems strengthening (HSS) programme.

The concept is easy enough to grasp, but how it is implemented can be fairly complicated. In this article, we describe the relationship between consolidated proposals, single-stream-of-funding (SSF) agreements and grant consolidation.

Grant consolidation involves merging two or more existing grants for the same PR and disease into one. Anytime two or more existing grants have been consolidated into one, an SSF agreement is signed with the PR. SSF agreements are very similar to the grant agreements that have been used up to now. The most significant differences are (a) the provisions for periodic reviews (replacing Phase 2 reviews); and (b) the fact that the SSF grant agreements will be revised after each periodic review and whenever additional funding for the PR is approved in a future round. Under the new grant architecture, the periodic reviews will be carried out at the same time for all SSF agreements for a given disease/HSS programme, regardless of how many different PRs are involved.

A consolidated proposal describes the entire disease programme for which the applicant is seeking funding. Round 11 consolidated proposals will include information (e.g., objectives, service delivery areas, activities, targets and costs) for both (a) new initiatives for which funding is being sought, and (b) all existing grants for the same disease (except for grants that are scheduled to end before the proposed start date of the new initiatives). All agreements signed as a result of Round 11 proposals will be SSF agreements.

How will this work in practice? In the following examples, we use a fictitious country (Ruritania). Also, whenever we refer to an existing grant, we assume that the grant will not end before the proposed start date of the new initiatives in the Round 11 proposal.

First example: Ruritania has an existing TB grant being managed by PR A. Ruritania submits a consolidated TB proposal in Round 11 and nominates PR A to manage the new initiatives in the proposal. The Round 11 proposal is approved.

The Global Fund Secretariat will sign an SSF agreement with PR A. The agreement will cover both the activities that were retained from the existing TB grant and the new initiatives in the Round 11 proposal. The "old" grant agreement with PR A will be terminated. This is not called "grant consolidation" because there is no separateprocess to merge the two grants. The "consolidation" is done via the consolidated proposal: The objectives, SDAs, activities, indicators and budgets for the existing activities and the new initiatives will have all been brought together into one unified framework in the consolidated proposal.

Second example: Ruritania has two TB grants, one being managed by PR B, the other by PR C. Ruritania submits a consolidated TB proposal in Round 11 and nominates PR B to manage the new activities in the proposal. The Round 11 proposal is approved.

In the second example, an SSF agreement will be signed with PR B, covering both the activities that were retained from the existing TB grant with PR B and the new initiatives in the Round 11 proposal. As with the first example, this is not referred to as "grant consolidation." In addition, an SSF agreement will be signed with PR C, even though the existing grant being managed by PR C is not involved in any "consolidation." It is necessary to sign an SSF agreement with PR C to ensure that PR C is on the same implementation and periodic review schedule as PR B.

Third example: Ruritania has two TB grants, both being managed by PR D. Ruritania submits a consolidated TB proposal in Round 11 and nominates PR E to manage the new activities in the proposal. The Round 11 proposal is approved.

In the third example, an SSF agreement will be signed with PR E, covering the new initiatives in the Round 11 proposal. In addition, an SSF agreement will be signed with PR D, covering all of the activities that are being retained from the two existing grants being managed by PR D. The "old" grant agreements with PR D will be terminated. PR D does not need to go through a formal grant consolidation process because all of the information needed to produce an SSF agreement will be in the Round 11 consolidated proposal.

Fourth Example: Ruritania has two TB grants, both being managed by PR F. Ruritania submits a consolidated TB proposal in Round 11 and nominates PR F to manage the new activities in the proposal. The Round 11 proposal is notapproved.

In the fourth example, because the Round 11 consolidated proposal was not approved, Ruritania will not be required to consolidate the two existing grants being managed by PR F. (Ruritania may choose to consolidate the two existing grants, but it is not a requirement. If Ruritania does choose to consolidate the two existing grants, an SSF agreement will be signed with PR F.)

Fifth Example: The Global Fund already has an SSF agreement with Ruritania's PR G covering TB. Ruritania submits a consolidated TB proposal in Round 11 and nominates PR G to manage the new activities in the proposal. The Round 11 proposal is approved.

In the fifth example, the SSF agreement with PR G will be amended to add the new initiatives in the Round 11 proposal (and, if applicable, to make any changes to the initiatives from the existing SSF agreement).

Note: These examples cover some of the more common situations that will arise, but not every possible situation. Potential applicants should contact the Global Fund Secretariat if they are unsure about how their own situation will be handled.

"Getting a Head Start," Volume 1 of the "The Aidspan Guide to Round 11 Applications to the Global Fund," is available on the Aidspan website here. The Global Fund has issued an information note on consolidated proposals, available here.

==========

Erratum

There were two errors in our article on "Grant Consolidation and Round 11" in GFO 145.

(1) The article provides several examples of hypothetical situations where grants would be consolidated as part of the Round 11 proposal process. As explained above, technically speaking these are not referred to as "grant consolidations" because there is no separate process to consolidate the grants.

(2) The article provided the following example:

Fourth example: Ruritania has two TB grants, both being managed by PR A. Ruritania submits a consolidated TB proposal in Round 11 and nominates PR B to manage the new activities in the proposal.

and said that, in this example, "A new SSF grant agreement would be signed with PR B, and the existing grant agreements with PR A would continue unchanged." The last part is not correct. An SSF agreement would also be signed with PR A covering all of the activities being retained from the two grants PR A is managing. (See the third example in the article above, which is identical to this example.)

==========

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

3. NEWS: How will grants work after Round 11?

How do you fit a five-year proposal into a three-year implementation period?

By the time proposals for Round 11 are approved, the Global Fund will be well on its way to implementing the new grant architecture. The word "grant" may still be around (as in "new grant architecture"), but what we now know as a "grant" will be called a "single stream of funding," or maybe even "SSF" for short. And what we used to call a "grant agreement" will be called a "single-stream-of-funding agreement," or maybe "SSF agreement" for short.

All proposals submitted for Round 11 have to be consolidated proposals. For all of the proposals approved in Round 11, single-stream-of-funding agreements will be signed with principal recipients (PRs). In most cases, a single-stream-of-funding agreement will cover not only new initiatives included in the proposal, but also all of the PR's active "grants" for that disease (except perhaps for a grant that is about to expire). So, once the Round 11 single-stream-of-funding agreements have all been signed, there won't be all that many "old" grants around with more than a few months left to run. By the time the Round 12 single-stream-of-funding agreements have all been signed, the old grant agreements will be an endangered species.

Under the new grant architecture:

·  the single streams of funding may last indefinitely, providing new funds are approved periodically for that PR;

·  implementation periods for each disease/HSS programme will last up to three years; and a periodic review will be conducted at the end of each implementation period;

·  the periodic reviews will be conducted at the same time for all PRs implementing programmes for the disease or HSS programme in question;

·  each applicant will submit a "request for additional financial commitment" (this used to be called "request for continued funding") for the next implementation period about nine months prior to the end of the current implementation period;

·  the Global Fund Board will decide whether to approve the request for additional financial commitment (and for what amount) about six months prior to the end of the current implementation period; and

·  if the Board approves continued funding, an amendment to the single-stream-of-funding agreement will be negotiated and signed.

(For the balance of this article, we are assuming that the reference above to "up to three years" means, in fact, three years.)

The implementation periods remain fixed at three years, regardless of when new funds are approved for that PR. Let's take the example of an HIV single-stream-of-funding agreement signed in December 2012 with PR A from Ruritania, a fictitious country, as a result of a Round 11 proposal having been approved. Let's assume that this is the first HIV programme being managed by PR A. The implementation schedule for this agreement could look something like what is shown in the table below.

Table: Possible Implementation Schedule for a New Single Stream of Funding

Month Number

Actual Date

Event

Month 0

Dec. 2012

Agreement signed

Month 1

Jan. 2013

Start of first implementation period

Month 20

Aug. 2015

New funds added; agreement amended

Month 27

Mar. 2015

Applicant submits request for additional financial commitment for next implementation period; periodic review conducted

Month 30

Jun. 2015

Board approves request for additional financial commitment

By month 36

Dec. 2015

Agreement amended

Month 37

Jan. 2016

Start of second implementation period

Month 63

Mar. 2018

Applicant submits request for additional financial commitment for next implementation period; periodic review conducted

Month 66

Jun. 2018

Board approves request for additional financial commitment

By month 72

Dec. 2018

Agreement amended

Month 73

Jan. 2019

Start of third implementation period

etc.

etc.

Note: Because the agreement described in the above table was newly signed (in December 2012), the first periodic review will cover a period of only two years (Jan. 2013 to December 2014); each subsequent periodic review will cover a period of three years.

The table depicts the first six years (plus one month) of a new single-stream-of-funding agreement. It shows (in bold italics and also in red, unless you are looking at a black and white printout) an infusion of new money in Month 20. Let's assume that the new funds were added to PR A's stream of funding as a result of the Ruritania CCM having submitted a new five-year proposal and the Board having approved it. Since PR A's first implementation period was scheduled to end at Month 36, the Board initially formally approved funding for only the first 17 months of the proposal (corresponding to Months 20 through 36 of the implementation schedule). The next portion of funding from the new proposal would be formally approved (or not) when the CCM submitted its request for additional financial commitment for the second implementation period (in Month 27).

Note that at Month 20, when the first portion of funding from the new proposal was added, the single-stream-of-funding agreement was amended. The agreement is amended at each periodic review and each time new funding is added.

Thus, there is no correlation between the period covered by a proposal (up to five years) and the implementation period for a stream of funding (three years). The implementation periods remain fixed; and new money is added to the stream of funding whenever a new proposal is approved by the Global Fund.

This concept may take a little getting used to for people familiar with the old system - where a proposal covered a five-year period; funding was formally approved for the first two years; a request for funding was submitted and a Phase 2 review conducted; and funding was then formally approved for the remaining three years (or a portion thereof).

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

4. NEWS: High-Level Panel Issues Interim Report

Panel is reviewing a sample of grants from 40 countries

Final report will provide "detailed, significant and far-reaching" recommendations

In its interim report, submitted on 30 June 2011, the Global Fund's High-Level Review Panel says that it sees significant areas that require improvement, "but nothing that cannot be fixed."

The Panel said that in its final report, which it promised to deliver by 15 September 2011, the panel will offer "recommendations to protect the Global Fund's resources [and] provide assurance to donors.... Our recommendations will be detailed, significant and far-reaching, and will deal with subjects that range from high-level governance to the practices and procedures of the Fund Secretariat and the OIG [Office of the Inspector General]."

The Panel expressed satisfaction with the reforms that the Global Fund has already introduced or is in the process of implementing.

The full name of the Panel is the "High-Level Independent Review Panel on Fiduciary Controls and Oversight Mechanisms." It was established earlier this year after the mainstream media reported on the misappropriation of grant funds in some countries as detected by the OIG. The Panel is co-chaired by former President of Botswana Festus Mogae and former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Michael O. Leavitt.

The interim report does not contain any conclusions or recommendations; it reads more like a progress report, describing what the panel has done and what its main areas of inquiry are. Although it is working with very tight timelines, the Panel's areas of inquiry are quite broad. For example, with respect to the Global Fund Secretariat, the Panel said that it will review not only the work of the fund portfolio managers (FPMs), but also "the entire structure, incentive schemes, management policies and procedures."

Concerning principal recipients (PRs), the Panel said that its "principal approach is to identify the major weaknesses for each PR in the countries in the representative sample, as indicated by the pre-signature LFA assessments and the Conditions Precedent in the grant agreements, and to track them over time through the documents that describe grant implementation." Among the documents that the Panel is reviewing are original grant agreements; progress updates / disbursement requests (PU/DRs); Phase 2 LFA assessments; Phase 2 decision documents; OIG audit reports; In-country external audit reports; and management letters.

The Panel is looking at a representative sample of grants from 40 countries. By the time its work is finished, the Panel expects to have conducted field visits to 14 countries (Djibouti, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Ghana, Kenya, Kyrgyz Republic, Indonesia, Malawi, Papua New Guinea, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Thailand and The Gambia).

The Panel will also review the work of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). It will examine the governance of the OIG and the OIG's processes and policies, "especially with regard to transparency, including the publication and disclosure of findings from audits and investigations." The Panel will also examine how several other agencies handle the audit function. With respect to the OIG, the Panel said that it will also examine the definition of "loss," as well as the "denominator" against which to compare losses.

One section of the interim report lists the Panel's many areas of inquiry. The following are a few examples:

·  nomination and selection of PRs

·  selection and supervision of sub-recipients

·  Secretariat communications with country coordinating mechanism (CCMs), PRs and local fund agents (LFAs)

·  the issue of whether the Secretariat requires a field presence

·  contracts and scope of work of LFAs

·  scope of work and composition of CCMs; COI issues on CCMs; and expertise of CCM members

·  the Global Fund's accountability and risk management frameworks

The Panel has hired a team of seven consultants to work on specific deliverables; and an external professional services firm to assist in the analysis of documentation related to the representative sample of grants and PRs.

The interim report was distributed to all Global Fund Board members and alternates, and to all members of the Board delegations, along with a covering note from the Panel's co-chairs. However, the report is not available on the Global Fund website.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

5. NEWS: Germany Reinstates Part of Its 2011 Pledge to the Global Fund

Some conditions attached

Germany has released the first half of its promised €200 million 2011 contribution to the Global Fund. The announcement was made after the High-Level Review Panel submitted its interim report (see previous article).

This information was contained in a press release issued by the Global Fund on 1 July 2011. Germany had suspended payment of its 2011 contribution after the media reported that individuals in some recipient organisations in four countries had misused some Global Fund money. (Sweden and Ireland also suspended their contributions.)

The German Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development attached some conditions to the release of its contribution. When we went to press, information concerning the conditions was not available. The Global Fund's press release said that the Fund will work with the Ministry to clarify the conditions. It also said that the Fund is "bound by a basic principle that public donors cannot restrict their contributions to specific recipients, and the leadership of the organization will work with the Ministry to find the best way to align these elements."

Germany is the fourth largest donor to the Global Fund, having pledged more than $2.1 billion since the Fund's creation in 2002. Of this, $857 million is for the period 2011-2013.

The Global Fund's press release is available here.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

6. ERRATUM

In an article in GFO 151 ("MSF Says Funding Squeeze at Global Fund and PEPFAR Means Fewer HIV Services in Many Countries"), we said that Pakistan had HIV proposals rejected in Rounds 8 and 9 (and did not apply for HIV in Round 10). Although it is true that Pakistan's Round 9 HIV proposal was initially rejected, it was subsequently approved on appeal. Thanks to the alert reader who pointed out the error.

 

"Reproduced from the Global Fund Observer Newsletter (www.aidspan.org/gfo), a service of Aidspan."

 

 Forwarded by:

---------------------------

 Yours in Global Concern,

 A.SANKAR

Executive Director- EMPOWER  INDIA - Professional Civil Society Organisation

Founder and General Secretary - Confederation of Indian Civil Society Organisation's (CICSO)

National Convener- National Alliance for Health, Environment and Rights ( NAFHER)

107J / 133E, Millerpuram

TUTICORIN-628 008, TN, INDIA

Telefax: 91 461 2310151; Mobile:   91 94431 48599: www.empowerindia.org

·         You are invited to join an E FORUM AIDS-TN. To join this free E  Forum kindly send an e  mail    to AIDS-TN-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

·           This e Forum moderated by   EMPOWER, a Non-profit, Non-Political, Voluntary and Professional Civil Society Organisation.

P

 cid:image001.gif@01CC1D41.432C53C0             Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.

             S.v.p. ne pas imprimer ce courriel à moins d'en avoir vraiment besoin.

 

 

 

gsk

https://secure.shareit.com/shareit/checkout.html?PRODUCT[300429992]=1&languageid=1&stylefrom=300429992&backlink=http%3A%2F%2Fforexguide.blogspot.com&cookies=1¤cies=USD&pts=VISA,MASTERCARD,AMEX,DC