This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS OTTAWA 002983 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
STATE FOR S/GAC: PEARSON; HHS FOR OGHA:STEIGER; 
STATE PASS AID FOR GH: MILLER 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: KHIV PREL TBIO CIDA
SUBJECT: U.S. GOALS FOR GLOBAL FUND BOARD MEETING IN 
ARUSHA, TANZANIA: CANADA 
 
REF: SECSTATE 232461 
 
¶1. (SBU)  SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUEST: Canadian aid officials 
take a more sanguine view than the US both of future funding 
prospects for the Global Fund and of performance of grants 
awarded so far, possbily because they rely for information on 
the Global Fund secretariat.  They would welcome more details 
of U.S. analysis of the problems we see in this area. Action 
request: please provide further details on U.S. views 
regarding specific grants and our overall analysis; we 
believe more detail might change Canadaian views on the 
issue.  On the Board review procedure, Canadian have promised 
us an answer next week. 
 
¶2. (U)  Post Delivered reftel demarche and paper to Dr. 
Ernest Loevinsohn, CIDA Director General for Program against 
Hunger, Malnutrition and Disease, (Canada, Germany, 
Swtizerland, UK rep) and followed up with Canadian Senior 
Coordinator Suzie Djakcasu. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) Responding to our arguments against proceeding with 
Round Five at this point, Djakcasu said that Canada is less 
concerned about the availability of funds than we are. 
CIDA's analysis is that actual donations have outpaced 
pledges to date and that, extrapolating from experience,  it 
is reasonable to expect that sufficient funds will be 
available for both Round 5 and renewal of existing grants. 
She commented that she understood why we might want to take a 
more conservative approach and want the funds actually in 
hand, but CIDA sees the planned replenishment mechanism, the 
first conference on which will take place next year, as 
evidence that we are moving toward a more predictable funding 
environment.  Djakcasu argued further that the Fund already 
makes commitments that are not fully funded, i.e. five-year 
grants for which only three are granted up front; in essence, 
the Fund is already effectively banking on the future.  She 
also observed that there is always substantial time between 
the calling of a new Round and the actual awarding of the 
grants in which Board members and the secretariat can get a 
clearer picture of the financing situation.  She promised to 
see if she could share CIDA's internal analytical papers with 
us. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Performance and accountability:  Djakcasu questioned 
our view that many grants are in trouble, and asked for more 
information on the precise proportion, or indeed which 
specific loans, we feel are in trouble and/or are 
inadequately reported and documented.  She noted that CIDA 
has relied for its evaluation of how grants are doing on  the 
performance review of the first 25 grants discussed at the 
Partnerships Forum.  CIDA's assessment from that meeting was 
that 8 were doing well, 12 were adequately documented, and 
that 5 were underperforming.  CIDA does not necessarily 
believe all is well, however.  The GoC has received scattered 
reports of trouble through its own missions,  and would 
welcome more detailed information on where we think the 
problems are.  ACTION REQUEST: Any further analysis that we 
can share with the Canadians would be helpful. 
 
¶5. (U)  With regard to the U.S. points on the proposed 
procedure for Board review of grants, CIDA will give us a 
response after a planned conference call early next week with 
the other constituency countries. 
 
 
 
 
Visit Canada's Classified Web Site at 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/ottawa 
 
CELLUCCI