BROADENING GLOBAL FUND ELIGIBILITY - FRENCH CHANGE

UNCLAS PARIS 000298 SIPDIS SENSITIVE STATE FOR S/GAC PPEARSON, OES/IHA; HHS FOR WSTEIGER E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: KHIV EAID TBIO FR SUBJECT: BROADENING GLOBAL FUND ELIGIBILITY - FRENCH CHANGE HEART REF: SECSTATE 6462 ¶1. (SBU) On January 12, EST Counselor contacted Dr. Frederic Goyet, responsible for the Division of Health and Social Development, Bureau of Development and Technical Cooperation, MFA, to inform him of the U.S. plan to seek a change in the guidelines for the Global Fund to permit a wider range of applications from upper-middle income (UMI) countries. EST Counselor expressed U.S. appreciation for the stance taken by Ambassador Guigaz at the June Fund Board Meeting. In the spirit of the Dublin Conference Guigaz had supported a broadening of the guidelines. Additionally, EST Counselor urged the French to "maintain that position" in light of the upcoming telephone conference meeting of the Portfolio Management and Procurement Committee (PMPC). ¶2. (SBU) In response, Goyet agreed with EST Counselor that the "Global Fund was always supposed to be global." In addition, he said there was definitely a need for additional assistance in addressing pandemics in a number of the UMI countries. However, he added that the question of opening the eligibility criteria for UMI countries raised "not only theoretical questions, but also problems of prioritization and availability of funds." He asked to consider the issue further with Ambassador Guigaz. EST Counselor provided him with the non paper contained in para 16 reftel. ¶3. (SBU) On January 14, Goyet replied that after having discussed the issue with Ambassador Guigaz that at this time the French side considered it not desirable to modify the criteria for eligibility of the UMI countries. France, like the U.S., he said, is very concerned about the evolution of AIDs and tuberculosis pandemics, even Malaria, in the UMI countries of Latin America and Eastern Europe. But, the current level of resources in the Fund requires that a choice be made "of prioritization and focus on the poorest countries." As far as France was concerned, he continued, the success of the upcoming replenishment mechanism would be a precondition for flexibility in the eligibility criteria of the Fund. EST Counselor asked what had occasioned this change of policy. Goyet restated that while France is concerned about the UMI countries, everything rests on the success of the reconstitution of Fund resources in 2005. Leach