Steven Sinding welcomed all participants. Each participant gave an introduction on their areas of expertise and interest for the benefit of the new members. Apologies: Ana Langer, EngenderHealth, Gill Walt, LSHTM and Uma Lele. Resignation of Cheikh Mbacke, Rockefeller Foundation was also noted. Steven Sinding will be standing down as Chair and Tom Merrick was introduced as the incoming Chair. Tom Merrick joined the Advisory Group via telephone link later for 30 minutes.
The Agenda was reviewed and agreed.
The minutes for the CAG meeting on 9 December 2005 were reviewed and agreed. There were no matters arising.
Director’s presentation on progress and issues facing RPC in developing research strategies (see Annex 1)
The meeting also looked at the documentation on results of the mid-year review of progress which noted how each of the main areas is progressing and where there are causes for concern.
Discussionof presentation points
Hilary highlighted the issue of where to keep the balance between concentrating on agreed research themes and going for new opportunities. She raised the question of whether or not the RPC should allocate a proportion of time to scanning for new opportunities.
One key question is whether we should be doing more on the themes laid out in the DFID-AFD conference in March this year on population growth and economic development. Hewlett is moving forward particularly in this area which is at the intersection between economics and demography and is keen to engage us.
Steven noted that this agenda is both a macro-economic and a micro-economic one. The RPC does not have comparative advantage in macro-economics and we should not attempt to engage at that level. There are also possible tensions between the rights agenda and the population agenda that we should avoid getting sidetracked by. But there is a very important micro-economic agenda, particularly in developing an understanding ofthe poverty implications of adverse outcomes at household level and better economic costing of reproductive health conditions. Tom Merrick strongly endorsed this as an important theme. However, it was also acknowledged that the RPC is not strong on economists and economic analysis.
In this context, IDS has received an institutional invitation from the Population Reference Bureau for a conference in London on 1-3 November 2006. This is being funded by Hewlett and aims to explore the state of the field on population and economic development.It is one outcome of the March conference and provides an opportunity for non-US based institutions to come together and define a research agenda. The Director is not able to attend so RPC partners (LSHTM and APHRC) will advise her if anyone has been invited from their institutions or if they would like to be represented at this event.
The Committee recommended that the RPC should try to find an effective way to balance between the RPC work that is already been done and how this could be enhanced by other opportunities. Susannah suggested that we should try to link these themes more closely into our existing research agendas. There are options for linking to other RPCs with economists who are strong in this area, e.g. the LSHTM Health Systems and financing RPC. In particular, the abortion and contraception themes could look at the economic implications of e.g. unsafe abortion. In this connection, IDS has been approached by Hewlett to assist it in moving forward its work on the economic costs of unsafe abortion. A proposal to organise a workshop on next steps has been put forward and accepted by Hewlett.
There was a lively discussion about the value of work on policy process, with one view that we should be working more on getting the research evidence that might influence policy, rather than studying policy processes themselves. For instance, Tom noted the huge gaps in information on measuring morbidities and the importance of this to policy. Nana put an alternative point of view, noting the value of this kind of work for empowering advocacy groups.
Discussion of summary table on progress
Hilary presented the outcome of the midyear review and her own summary of where progress is weak or strong (see Annex 2). She raised an overall concern about the large number of activities and thematic areas the RPC is presently committed to and sought views on how to manage this, e.g. by dropping or prioritising areas. There is also the question of how to find further significant funding for the RPC and sell the agenda to potential funders. Clarity on how to approach new funding is important.
There was general agreement that the RPC should prioritise the following areas, which are all strongly endorsed by DFID:
- Unsafe abortion
- Gender based violence
- Universal access to services
- Rights based work
Steven noted that a global safe abortion movement is just taking off through a growing international movement to introduce safe abortion laws and there is a willingness to take on opposition to move this agenda forward. Abortion should be top of the RPC research agenda. Many donors (Gates, Packard, Hewlett, Sida, NORAD and DANIDA) are interested in this area and the RPC should pursue this. An RPC meeting is planned for later this year to try to identify key themes and our comparative advantage in this area.
Violence is a very important area, although we need to be aware that a lot of other work is going on. However, the RPC is well positioned. LSHTM has got a grant from the Sigrid Rausing Foundation to set up a violence centre. APHRC has several initaitives underway in this area and has been invited to be part of a consortium in Nairobi on violence. Nana noted the interest in Ghana among women’s groups and the lack of good information on prevalence, absence of protocols and training for providers and poor sectoral linkages.
On universal access, it was suggested that a simple set of protocols on universal access to RH services that are scalable to the national level could be a great contribution to the measurement and universal access RPC themes.
There was also agreement that the RPC should continue its strong focus on partner countries but links should be sought with other countries, particularly capitalising on the regional capacities of partners.
Closer working with other RPCs in HIV/AIDS, future health systems, MNCHis important, especially given the high degree of overlap of partners, e.g. BRAC is involved in six RPCs. Existing linksbetween the various Consortia was highlighted by Hilary and further discussions will be held with the HIV and RH RPC at LSHTM regarding how to make the two programmes more synergistic. This could perhaps be by putting a dedicated strand of work under both universal access and revitalising contraception in Africa across both RPCs.
Problems in moving the neglected diseases subtheme forward were noted, due to lack of a strong convenor. One area highlighted for this is fistula and DfID was also interested in this. However, it was noted that fistula has now moved up the policy agenda, thanks to the recent UNFPA campaign and it may make sense for the RPC to pull back from this as a priority area. At the same time, it is a key issue in Bangladesh where there is interestin developing a decentralised model of service delivery. It was agreed that fistula should be seen as a rights issue within the framework of the RPC.
In summary it was agreed that the RPC should re-prioritise and think about representing some themes and activities while not dropping any areas of work. The RPC was encouraged to collapse some themes into fewer major areas.
It was noted that the RPC has good links with DfID country offices in Kenya and Bangladesh. DfID is pulling out of Ghana and the RPC needs to make links with the Dutch who are taking over the DFID portfolio. .
Funding possibilities
An initial trawl of potential funders is underway (See table in Annex 3)
It was agreed that the Director should do a round of donor visits for fund raising. The following points were made and areas of development noted:
- Steven and Tom to assist in this endeavour. Steven to assist with the Gates Foundation and to help gauge their funding priorities as the new team takes shape within the foundation.
- Ana to help with Latin America and Macarthur foundation.
- Packard should be approached for funding for the communications work.
- SAREC is interested in the RPC work and willing to discuss further.
- RPC should look for alternative funds if the DELPHE proposal on capacity building is not successful.
- PANOS – follow through links with them on media, journalists and parliamentarians.
- Explore European Unionfunding possibilities.
- Keep check on funding givenby Hewlett to the ESCRC on population issues.
- Approaches should also be made to bilateral/multilateral donors NORAD – Paul Ffife,and Dutch).
- The RPC needs to develop a clear portfolio onwhat it is asking for.
Dissemination opportunities
Samantha Reddin, the new RPC communications officer, introduced herself and showed the template for the new RPC brochure. General opportunities for disseminating RPC work were highlighted
Parliamentarians are a key target group for the RPC. It was noted that five parliamentarians from each country are represented on ECOWAS. Every two years, UNFPA convenes a parliamentarians’ meeting and we should keep a watch out for the next one in two years time as a potential dissemination opportunity. Ghana partners are actively working with parliamentarians and commissions and have arranged two meetings.
The Ford Foundation has given $75,000 and other funding to APHRC to produce a book from the recent sexuality conference and disseminate outputs.
There are several major international events coming up. Eliya is currently leading the organisation of the 2007 African Population Conference and will become President next year. The next Asia Pacific conference on sexual and reproductive health is in Delhi in Nov 2007. We could consider doing something generic for both.
Other opportunities are The Global Forum 2007 in Geneva and the International Society for Equity in Health in October 2008 in Dhaka.
It was agreed that we should seek as far as possible to capitalise on these existing events for our dissemination. It was suggested that to mark our midterm, we hold regional stakeholder meetings in early 2008.
Hilary will draw up some guidelines on the next annual reporting round to take account of CRD’s new reporting format.
Next meeting
Steven thanked everyone for their participation. The date for the next CAG meeting will beagreed later but the proposal is to hold the next one shortly before next year’s planning meeting, with a clear set of questions for the CAG to consider. There was agreement that the RPC director could call upon the CAG to ask for advice on broad questions prior to the Consortium planning meeting.
Annexe 2
SUMMARY TABLE ON PROGRESS
Topic / Concept paper produced / Work plan agreed / Activities started or planned / Additional funding explored / RiskDiagnostic research on SRH problems / Yes / No /
- Workshop on fistula & menstrual problems?
- Ongoing work on men’s sexual health and on syphilis
Activities disparate
Improving access to new/ low cost technologies / Yes / ? / Meeting of partners in Ghana
Activities on:
- Emergency contraception
- Syphilis screening
- HPV vaccines
- Microbicides
- Menstrual technologies
Good range of topics and partner involvement, some high risk, crowded areas, will require strongconvening.
Links with HIV-RH prog good but role of RR-RPC not clear
Revitalising contraception in Africa / Yes / Yes? /
- DHS data analysis
- Workshop with INDEPTH sites planned
Defining, measuring and implementing universal access to SRH services / Yes - two / ? /
- Exploratory work on developing indicators
- Partner consultations
- Bangladesh informal providers mapping study
Sexual rights and responsibilities / Yes / Yes /
- Sexuality and development workshop held
- Regional workshop planned
- Links with WE RPC work on sexuality being developed
Proposal development workshop planned / Medium-low
Some activities already funded
But needs stronger push to get funding for larger concept
SRH and rights based approaches / No – various activities under this topic /
- Ghana review of law, policy and rights
- Other on-going partner activities
Gender based violence (cross cutting theme) / Yes / No /
- A lot of existing work going on in this area
- Theme workshop planned for later this year
Important area for DFID, need to clarify overall area of work and links between projects
Policy and programme processes (including initial proposed work on abortion / Yes - two / Yes /
- Two policy analysis papers
- Ongoing work on abortion policy
- Workshop on how to take abortion work forward planned
- Ongoing work on tools for rights based work
Abortion an important area for DFID
Annex 3
Organisation / Funding Opportunities / Maximum Grant / Length of Grant / Criteria / Deadline / How to applyWellcome Trust
/ Society awards:
focus on public engagement in biomedical science. However, strong emphasis is on biomedical research. / <£50,000 / Possibly eligible? – see printout / 1 March
2006 (maybe next year) / Application form
MacArthur
/ Population and reproductive health: maternal mortality and morbidity
Main focus on India, Mexico and Nigeria but occasionally international projects / $1.6m / Multi-year
support / Eligible / None / Letter of inquiry
Gates Foundation
/ Reproductive and maternal health (However emphasis is on market and technological innovations to increase access) / Undisclosed but previous grants were $ms / Multi-year support / Eligible / Ongoing / Letter of inquiry
Packard
/ Population country programmes
(Global institutions, global solutions does not accept unsolicited proposals) / 2006 grant budget $30m / Only accepts unsolicited proposals for India, Ethiopia and Nigeria / Ongoing / Letter of inquiry
Rockefeller
/ Health Equity programme
Strengthening Developing Country Health Systems seems most relevant / Rarely provides funding to unsolicited proposals / Ongoing / Letter of inquiry
African Women’s Development Fund
/ Health, reproductive rights or womens human rights
No grants have yet been given for reproductive rights and grants are usually small / $1000-25,000 / Organisation s from Africa
Women-led projects / 2 cycles each year / Proposals following guidelines
Ford Foundation
/ Eligible for funding through Asset building and community development program / <$200,000 / Ongoing / Letter of inquiry
Wallace global fund
/ Women’s human rights – reproductive health rights
Objective 9 seems the most relevant program / $2,000-$400,000 / 1/multi year / Eligible / Ongoing / Initial concept paper followed by proposal
Sigrid Rausing Trust
/ Women’s rights
Pre-application process in order to be considered for invited application / >£270,000 / ? / Yes / Ongoing / Initial one-page letter
Public Welfare Foundation
/ Reproductive and Sexual Health Program / <$100,000 / Yes / Yes / Ongoing / Letter of inquiry
Oak Foundation
/ Issues affecting women programme / $25,000- $6,900,000 / Yes / Yes (Issues affecting women) / Ongoing / Letter of inquiry
Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation
/ Women’s health rationale
(May only provide grants to US programs) / ? / ? / Yes / Ongoing / Written request (no more than 5 pages)