Global Development: Views from the Center
« Salon.com on Microfinance: Calves vs. Cows | Main | Development Goals and the Art of the Possible »
November 02, 2006
Global Fund Delays Leader Choice: Here's Why
Posted by Steve Radelet at 09:59 AM
Last night the Board of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria admitted that it has been unable to reach a decision on its new Executive Director, and decided to extend the search until April. Apparently the Board narrowed the list of five final candidates to two front runners, but was unable to reach consensus on a final candidate. The impasse reflects the unusual structure of the Board, its strong emphasis on consensus, and its desire to give the new ED a strong (rather than split) mandate. (The new ED will need a strong mandate if he or she is to tackle the agenda set forth in The Future of the Global Fund: Challenges and Opportunities for the New Executive Director, the new CGD report by a working group that I chaired.)
The Global Fund's Board is unique among international bodies. It puts a very strong emphasis on broad participation among donors, recipients, NGOs, the private sector, and people living with the diseases in an attempt to take seriously the ideas of broad participation, transparency and democracy. The Board consists of 20 voting members (and four non-voting ones). The Board's by-laws (.pdf) formally divide these twenty seats into two groups of ten each: a "global north" group consisting of eight donors, one private foundation representative, and one private company representative; and a "global south" group consisting of seven recipient countries, a northern NGO, a southern NGO, and a person representing communities living with the diseases.
For any proposal to pass a vote, the by-laws require a double two-thirds super majority -- that is, 7 of 10 votes in each of the two groups. This standard obviously is a high one for any organization to reach, and reflects the importance the Global Fund puts on consensus and broad agreement. But in this case it was unable to reach its own standard: each of the two final candidates received the two-thirds needed from one group, but not the other. This divide reflected differences in views between the donors and recipients, a strong push from each group to assert more control over the organization, and inevitable horse-trading between political constituencies for votes. Alas: democracy is messy.
Obviously, it would have been far better for the Fund if the Board had been able to reach a clear consensus around one candidate, and the delay is not a good outcome for the Fund. But the Board deserves credit in two ways.
First, there has been widespread criticism of how leaders are chosen in the World Bank, the IMF, and other bodies when essentially one country or a block of countries decides on a candidate and the choice is rammed through without much debate and with little voice from developing countries. The Global Fund has tried to move far in the other direction and give many different constituencies a voice. This is laudable, but not easy.
Second, the Board could have continued the debate this week and probably ultimately reached the double two-thirds needed for one of the candidates. But the new ED would have had a weak mandate from the start, with half the Board clearly not supportive, which would not have been good for the Fund in the long run. The Board recognized this potential problem, and ultimately decided that extending the search to find a candidate that would receive a strong mandate was better in the long run than pushing forward to agree on one with a split mandate. Given where they were, this was the right decision.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
/mt/mt-tb.cgi/677
Comments
Great post, Steve. Given how problematic the World Bank choice has turned out to be, and given the likelihood that the new UN Secretary-General will prove to be more secretary than general, it's clear that international organizations are all struggling with these issues. The most successful recent appointment I can think of is Kemal Dervis for UNDP. Given that he was a CGD fellow, I suspect you may agree....
Posted by: Sebastian Mallaby at November 2, 2006 03:09 PM
Sorry guys, you let us down.
We are writing as members of communities affected by and NGOs concerned with HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria.
We are deeply concerned and disappointed that the Board of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM) has failed in their responsibility to promptly choose a qualified candidate for next director of the Global Fund which is prerequisite for high political advocacy, raising funds as well as enhancing performance, governance and transparency of its funded programs.
The Board of the Global Fund is in danger of creating a disastrous paralysis in the global struggle against HIV, TB, and malaria by delaying the prompt naming of a new Executive Director (ED) for the Global Fund at this week's Board meeting in Guatemala.
While there have been disagreements among individuals and delegations about which of five candidates from short-list would be the best candidate in our view the urgency of filling the leadership gap and ameliorating the uncertainty regarding the future of the Global Fund without a strong new ED mandates that the Board set aside differences and expeditiously choose from among the top three qualified candidates at its current meeting in Guatemala, which concludes tomorrow night.
There is still time to address this crisis by moving to closure promptly.
In our view there are at least three candidates from the short list of ED candidates who have the qualifications to be the next ED of the GFATM.
We have heard that the Board deadlocked in spite of the fact that sixteen delegations were able to support one of the leading three candidates as the next ED.
In our view the failure of the Board process to allow the candidate with the support of 80% of the delegations is inexcusable and a breach of trust.
We call upon the Board to step to its responsibility and to name an Executive Director promptly, and not to prolong the uncertainty and extend the current paralysis of leadership for another six months, during which time 1.5 million people will die from AIDS, 2.5 million people will become infected with HIV, 900,000 people will die of tuberculosis, 500,000 will die of malaria, and the current crisis of extensively drug resistant (XDR) TB in southern Africa will likely spread further.
If you fail to act we will hold you collectively responsible for failing to meet your responsibilities to unite on behalf of the lives of people living with or at risk for HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria.
Yours truly,
[list in formation. We are signing as individuals, not organizations...]
David Oyat Abang, Kampala, Uganda
Dario Abarca
Ecuadorian Coalition of PLWHA
Ecuador
Olayide Akanni, Nigeria
Alexey Bobrik, Russia
Lucy Chesire, TB/HIV activist, Kenya
Monica Ciupagea, Romania
Believe Dhliwayo, Canada
Lorena Di Giano, Argentina
Vitaly Djuma, Russia
Mark Harrington, USA
Aruna Hewapathirane, Sri Lanka
Amani Hitimana, Rwanda
Beri Hull, International Community of Women Living with HIV, USA
Catalina Iliuta, Romania/Lithuania
Adama Kompaoré Association African Solidarité, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso
Natalia Leonchuk, East European & Central Asian Union of PLWH Organisations
Simon Leopold Lobo, New Delhi, India
Lillian Mworeko, Uganda
Kevin Moody, The Netherlands
Rolake Ngwagwu, Nigeria
Kim Nichols, African Services Committee, USA
Therese Omari, fondation femme plus Kinshasa, DR Congo
David Otiashvili, Georgian Harm Reduction Network, Georgia
Nelson Juam Otwoma, Kenya
Rodrigo Pascal, Chile
Mikhail Rukavishnikov, Russia
A. Sankar, Tuticorin, India
Rotimi Sankore, African Health Rights Campaigner, Zimbabwe
Anya Sarang, Russia
Nora Stojanovik, Macedonian Harm Reduction Network
Raminta Stuikyte, Lithuania
Armand Totouom, Association SunAids, Douala, Cameroon
Alexander Tsekhanovich, Russia
Pervaiz Tufail, Pakistan
Wim Vandevelde, Portugal
Sasha Volgina, Russia
Matthias Wienold, Germany
Nonmidé Jacob Zannou, Benin
Vladimir Zhovtyak, Chair of the Coordination Council, All-Ukrainian Network PLWH
Posted by: Mark Harrington at November 4, 2006 05:08 AM
I hear two sides of this story. One of them is the political side that begs us to recognize the importance of coming up with a leader for the Fund who has a strong mandate. In other words, an *effective* leader, not just *any* leader. This is a positive goal to strive towards because obviously, in order to have the best benefits for the communities around the world that the Fund seeks to help, the leader of the board must be able to lead strongly and take into concern both sides of the North-South relationship equally well. I appreciate this effort and cannot condemn its philosophy.
The other side of the story is the people who are really suffering every day and who long for the funding and leadership that the Global Fund gives their organizations and support networks. Strong political philosophy is all well and good but when it stands in the way of providing the care and services that the Fund has courageously committed to provide, it can be an impediment as well.
There must be a way to alleviate the concerns raised by Mr Harrington's comment and his co-signers. I agree that leaving gaps in service because of internal disagreement is unacceptable but also that the aims of the board are admirable in terms of securing a powerful mandate. Is there a stop-gap measure that could at least part-way satisfy the needs of the benefactors of the Fund's services and also leave room for continued searching for a strong leader of the board?
Also, I would like to know which side of the debate is stalling the appointment of a candidate supported by 16 delegations.
Posted by: Michael Soule at November 6, 2006 12:26 PM