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

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 DUBLIN 000048 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EAID KHIV TBIO
SUBJECT: IRELAND OPPOSES BROADENING GLOBAL FUND ELIGIBILITY 
CRITERIA 
 
REF: A. STATE 6462 
 
     ¶B. PAMELA PEARSON E-MAIL OF 1/12/05 AND PREVIOUS 
     ¶C. 1-14 EMBASSY LONDON DAILY REPORT 
 
¶1.  Summary: Ireland does not favor broadening Global Fund 
eligibility criteria to ensure that Upper-Middle Income (UMI) 
countries have access to Fund-related technical assistance 
and financing.  Due to the Fund's resource constraints, 
Ireland supports a prioritization of assistance to countries 
where epidemics are most serious, particularly in Sub-Saharan 
Africa.  According to Irish aid officials, UMI countries have 
their own resources and access to other international funding 
mechanisms to address their domestic needs.  End summary. 
 
¶2.  On January 13, Post delivered ref A talking points and 
ref B draft guideline text to Nicola Brennan, Senior 
Development Specialist for HIV/AIDS in Development 
Corporation Ireland (DCI, a division of the Department of 
Foreign Affairs (DFA)).  Gerry O'Dwyer, DCI Consultant for 
the Global Fund, and David Weakliam, DCI Health Development 
Specialist, also attended the meeting.  Brennan noted that 
the Department of Health and Children is not engaged on the 
Global Fund and defers to DFA on the subject.  (O'Dwyer is a 
former Secretary General of the Health Department.) 
 
Resources Too Constrained to Widen Eligibility 
--------------------------------------------- - 
 
¶3.  Ireland does not favor broadening Global Fund eligibility 
criteria to ensure that Upper-Middle Income (UMI) countries, 
particularly in Eastern Europe and Latin America, have access 
to Fund-related technical assistance and financing, said 
Brennan.  She observed that Ireland had taken this position 
in view of the Fund's resource constraints, which dictated a 
prioritization of assistance in favor of the poorest 
countries, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa.  (Note: Africa 
is the principal recipient of Ireland's official development 
assistance (ODA), a focus that derives from a history of 
Irish missionary efforts on the continent.)  Brennan 
explained that the Global Fund was supposed to receive USD 7 
billion per year in contributions, but had not secured even 
half that amount.  Given this shortfall, Ireland believed 
that it would be dangerous to broaden the Fund's eligibility 
criteria and risk reductions in support for countries with 
the highest epidemic rates and weakest health care systems. 
 
¶4.  Brennan noted that this position had been discussed 
thoroughly within the "Point Seven Constituency," a grouping 
of Ireland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway -- 
countries that had taken on the Millennium Declaration 
commitment to set aside 0.7 percent of GNP for ODA. 
(Ireland's ODA currently stands at 0.4 percent of GNP.)  She 
added that Sweden, as the constituency's chair, would voice 
this position in the January 18 telcon by the Global Fund 
Portfolio Management and Procurement Committee (PMPC). 
O'Dwyer pointed out that the Point Seven Constituency had 
contributed roughly euro 175 million per year to the Fund. 
 
UMI Countries Have Access to Alternative Resources 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
 
¶5.  Econoff explained that a failure to address current needs 
among UMI countries could lead to even more serious resource 
constraints for the Global Fund if epidemics in those 
countries were to reach higher levels.  Brennan observed that 
the Global Fund was not the only international funding 
mechanism available to address epidemics.  She noted that the 
World Bank, for example, had given substantial funding to 
Eastern Europe in recent years to combat HIV/AIDS.  She also 
pointed out that UMI countries could apply for Global Fund 
assistance through a joint regional proposal, as eight 
Caribbean countries had recently done.  Weakliam added that 
UMI countries, particularly in Eastern Europe, had more 
domestic resources upon which to draw to address their needs, 
as compared with Sub-Saharan Africa.  He explained that 
Ethiopia spent USD 2 per year per capita on health, whereas 
UMI countries had the capacity to spend more than 100 times 
that amount. 
 
¶6.  In reply, econoff cited UMI countries' willingness to 
take on a significant level of co-financing to secure Fund 
assistance.  Econoff also mentioned that Ireland's position 
against widening eligibility criteria could have the perverse 
effect of excluding South Africa -- the country with the 
largest absolute number of HIV-positive people -- from Fund 
assistance if South Africa were to enter the UMI bracket this 
year.  Brennan responded that this scenario was a significant 
concern for Ireland and might merit a review of the country 
categorization methods used to determine Fund eligibility. 
 
Comment: Suggestion for a Joint Demarche 
---------------------------------------- 
 
¶7.  Ireland's position is similar to views expressed by HMG 
in ref C.  Also, Brennan mentioned that Latin American and 
Eastern European countries had not contacted the GOI on the 
eligibility issue.  Post would suggest that Department 
consider a joint demarche with those countries to Ireland 
(and perhaps other Point Seven Constituency members) in the 
run-up to the April Global Fund Board meeting. 
KENNY