BURMA MEETING ON TB DRUGS; BIG PUSH FOR GLOBAL FUND

UNCLAS RANGOON 000920 SENSITIVE SIPDIS STATE FOR EAP/MLS, G, S/OGAC, OES BANGKOK FOR USAID HEALTH OFFICE DEPARTMENT PLEASE PASS TO USAID/AME E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: SOCI EAID PHUM KHIV PGOV SENV BM SUBJECT: BURMA MEETING ON TB DRUGS; BIG PUSH FOR GLOBAL FUND REF: A. RANGOON 842 ¶B. RANGOON 879 ¶C. STATE 115494 ¶D. STATE 105179 Summary -------------- ¶1. (SBU) Pledged donor funding for anti-tuberculosis drugs in Burma will decline in 2009 and fall off sharply thereafter. At a GOB-convened meeting December 1 to address this gap, the HEALTH Minister committed to increase government funding for anti-TB drugs to 3 percent of the 2010 requirement, a still-paltry sum of about USD 100,000. Most donors at the meeting argued for the return of the Global Fund (GF) -- though it appears the HEALTH Minister may be reconsidering a GF application in light of perceived U.S. opposition. Charge attended the TB meeting and reiterated U.S. views on the need for Burma to address in any application the problems that led to the GF's withdrawal in ¶2005. Several donor reps approached Charge afterwards and urged U.S. support for the GF, citing the humanitarian need and the GOB's generally positive record in cooperating with the 3 Diseases Fund (3DF) and combating TB. In doing so, the UK Ambassador asked specifically whether the U.S. has any flexibility on GF site access requirements, noting that the 3DF gains access to sites in "nearly all" cases, which the UK considers acceptable. Embassy Rangoon requests guidance in responding to the UK and other donors (see para 10). End summary. GDF winding up TB drug funding; Global Fund in the wings? -------------- -------------- ¶2. (U) The GOB convened a meeting on December 1 in Nay Pyi Taw with bilateral and NGO donors, UN entities, and others to discuss how best to address a looming gap in funding for anti-TB drugs. The Global TB Drug Facility (GDF),based in Geneva, has provided the drugs for the past six years, the usual maximum duration, and agreed to provide funding help on an "exceptional" basis for 2009 at a cost of approximately USD 2.5 million, leaving a gap for the coming year of USD 1.15 million. From 2010 on there is very little funding for anti-TB drugs in the pipeline. GDF sees a 2010 need of USD 8.2 million (half for that year's use; half to create a buffer stock),and intends to cover only pediatric drugs, a small portion of the total. Possible 2010 funding sources are the UN, the 3DF, bilateral aid, international NGOs, and GDF. GDF informed the meeting that the only obvious sources for 2011 and beyond are the GOB, itself, and/or the GF, which often provides funds to GDF to purchase and provide TB drugs. GDF assessment generally positive; emphasizes funding need -------------- -------------- ¶3. (U) The GDF presented findings from a week-long monitoring mission November 24-29 that generally observed a successful anti-TB program in Burma. The assessment saw a continued increase in detection of new cases, the maintenance of high treatment success rates, and an uninterrupted supply of anti-TB drugs and laboratory supplies over the past two years, with "excellent" drug management practices at all levels, and "highly competent and dedicated" staff. Prisons, military, police, and others follow treatment guidelines and "refer patients where and when possible and have access to services and products." The study noted challenges, including the funding gap, unfilled HEALTH positions, and irregular supervision due to lack of resources. The study recommended increased GOB funding and sustainable multi-year support from donors, including the GF. GOB to increase funding (from low base); most donors favor GF -------------- -------------- ¶4. (U) HEALTH Minister Kyaw Myint informed the meeting that his ministry is prepared to commit "no less than 3 percent" of the expected drug cost for 2010, about USD 100,000, with an intention to augment that amount by no less than 1 percent per year in the future. UN agency reps, GDF's General Manager Dr. Robert Matiru (Geneva),and Dr. Mario Raviglione, Director Stop TB Department (WHO Geneva),all argued that Global Fund is the obvious long-term answer and that the GOB should make every effort to apply in 2009 for Round 9. Matiru said GF is a "realistic and viable" option for Burma. He urged the GOB to look at the past and see how a future program can be made to work. Raviglione said of all the high-burden TB countries, Burma is the only non-participant in the GF. He said WHO strongly recommends an application and is keen to provide technical assistance. Per previous reporting, the British and Australians are also urging a Burmese Global Fund application, given what they see as generally positive GOB behavior during the past two years in implementing the 3DF (see Ref A). USG views on the table -------------- ¶5. (U) The Charge represented the USG at the meeting. Dr. John MacArthur, USAID RDMA Bangkok's infectious disease team leader, was unable to accompany due to the closure of the Bangkok airports. In an intervention, the Charge noted a recent large USG contribution to the Stop TB Partnership (which includes the GDF),and a recent USD 1 million USG contribution to WHO and PSI anti-TB efforts in Burma. As advised by Dr. MacArthur, Charge said RDMA is looking to see if it can find available funding to help cover the 2009 drug gap. Charge noted the ongoing USG dialogue with the GOB regarding the GF (refs B and C) including the marker that any Burma application needs to address up front and satisfactorily the past problems that brought GF withdrawal from Burma in 2005. Charge joined other donors in urging the GOB to increase its own contribution to the drug budget. Minister asks USG support for GF application -------------- ¶6. (U) In response HEALTH Minister Kyaw Myint said he badly wants to keep up momentum in the GOB's effort against TB. He said he would "crawl on his knees" if necessary to GOB decision makers (the senior generals) to try to increase GOB TB-drug funding. The Minister asked for Charge's "blessing" for USG support of a GOB GF application. Pretty unambiguous signal: no GF application? -------------- ¶7. (SBU) The UK and Australian Ambassadors were invited to a short chat with Kyaw Myint prior to the donor meeting. After the meeting, the Ambassadors informed Charge that the Minister had left a "pretty unambiguous" impression that he does not intend to apply for GF Round 9. The Minister said he "doesn't want to be humiliated again" and will "err on the side of caution." The Minister seemed convinced the USG intends, in the end, to block an application. UK believes USG should support GF for Burma -------------- ¶8. (SBU) Per refs B and C, Charge in recent weeks provided as clearly as possible USG views on the GF to the HEALTH Minister and ONE of the two Deputy HEALTH Ministers, noting U.S. understanding of Burma's HEALTH needs, but also explaining the USG belief that the GOB must satisfactorily address in its GF application several important problems from the past: the need for full access to GF program sites; a market-rate currency exchange mechanism; appropriate tax exemptions; and assurance no funds would flow through the GOB or its proxies. The UK Ambassador emphasized to us later his government's agreement that the USG issues are important; but the UK also believes the GOB in its work with 3DF (the European/ Australian funding mechanism for Burma in the absence of GF) is demonstrating its willingness to meet GF requirements satisfactorily. The UK Ambassador, who chairs the 3DF process, said "access" is the ONE question mark. The GOB has provided nearly all the access 3DF has requested; not always immediately and in a couple of cases not at all, but nearly always, he stressed. The UK sees that "not black and white but only a little gray" situation as acceptable, given the life and death TB issues at stake. Charge promised to convey, again, that view to Washington and seek any further guidance, particularly on whether the USG can envision any flexibility at all on the access issue. Lack of message in Geneva...a worry -------------- ¶9. (SBU) On the margins of a post-meeting luncheon, Stop TB's Dr. Raviglione approached Charge to argue that the USG's issues regarding a GF application should be addressed in technical discussion down the road, not in the application itself. Charge referred to Ref D instruction in which Washington made clear it does not agree with that approach, believing the GF's own rules for a Burma application require addressing problem areas in the application. Raviglione expressed puzzlement why the USG has not made its variety of points to GF in Geneva. When Charge said he is quite sure U.S. Mission Geneva has delivered the points, Raviglione said the U.S. raised no such points at a GF Board discussion of Burma in Geneva in early November. Comment and action request -------------- ¶10. (SBU) Given the GF previous withdrawal from Burma, the USG has appropriately raised the issues that need addressing in any new application process. The other participants at this week's meeting seemed united in believing that the GOB's overall positive record with the 3DF and its generally very helpful approach in combating TB argue persuasively for a return of the GF. A critical factor in that analysis is the undoubted reality that a funding failure would, in this "high burden" country, lead to the loss of many thousands of lives and a significant public-health threat to the rest of the Southeast Asia region. Factors weighing against include the risk that the GOB will not satisfactorily meet or sustain necessary GF commitments, and the paltry sums Burma's senior generals are prepared to spend on health, compared to huge amounts spent on major construction projects. At present, most other donors perceive the USG stance on GF for Burma as overly rigid, not acknowledging that useful work can be done in the HEALTH sector with what most others perceive to be adequate safeguards. We continue to urge Washington and GF Geneva to engage in discussion regarding Burma. In the meantime, we request guidance for responding to the UK Ambassador on whether the USG is willing to accept some "degree of gray" -- i.e., show some amount of flexibility -- in our view of how much access to GF sites in the future is essential here. Please advise. DINGER