Fourth Board Meeting

Mr. Seiji Morimoto, Vice Chair will chair this meeting as approved by the Board.

Dr. Julian Lob-Levyt is designated rapporteur of the 4^th Board meeting.

Regarding the election of Board Chair and Vice Chair, it is approved that this decision will be deferred until Friday, 31 January 2003. Nominations will be accepted by 1200 noon and announced at 1400 on Thursday, 30 January 2003.

<p>1. The Board of the Global Fund accepts the procedure for the conduct of the current Election for Chair and Vice Chair of the Board as presented in the Proposed Election Procedure to the Board on 31 January 2003.</p><p>2. The Board of the Global Fund mandates the Governance and Partnership Committee to constitute a sub-group to develop election procedures for future elections and a success policy and to revise the Board Operating Procedures accordingly.</p>

<p>1. The nomination of Secretary Tommy G. Thompson of the United States of America for Chair of the Board of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis &amp; Malaria.</p><p>2. The nomination of Doctor Suwit Wibulpolprasert of Thailand for Vice Chair of the Board of The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis &amp; Malaria.</p>

<p>One additional item is added to the Board’s agenda, proposed at 1800 today. The Board approves the revised Agenda.</p>

<p> Ratification of Board Committee leadership and composition: Approved to defer the ratification of Board Committee Chairs and Vice Chairs and committee composition until Friday, 31 January 2003, after the election of Board Chair and Vice Chair and after the committee reports have been heard.</p> <p>Report of the Third Board Meeting (GF/B4/2): The Board approves the Report of the Third Board Meeting with the deletion of the reference to any Article number in section 9.2.1, so that the last sentence reads, "(Legal advice will be sought on whether the implementation of this decision requires a change of the By-Laws)".</p>

<ul><li>Mandates the Committee to work with the Secretariat to develop a comprehensive proposal for the Partnership Forum for the June Board Meeting.</li></ul><ul><li>Decides, exceptionally, to hold the Forum during the first half of 2004.</li></ul><ul><li>Recommends to the Committee to link the Forum with another meeting, preferably a Board Meeting, to minimize costs.</li></ul><ul><li>Requests the Secretariat to research similar events and establish lessons learned (e.g. from GAVI).</li></ul><ul><li>Requests the Secretariat to provide a list of events for 2004 for consideration at the June Board Meeting.</li></ul>

<ul><li>Adopts the revised Conflicts of Interest Policy (amendments on gifts and institutional definition) as presented.</li></ul><ul><li>Ask the Governance and Partnerships Committee to address the additional issues raised by the Board members, which the members shall put in writing.</li></ul><ul><li>Adopts the revised Disclosure of Interest Form and requests all covered individuals to submit the form by the deadline specified.</li></ul><ul><li>Requests the Board Chair to identify three of its members to form the Conflicts (or Ethics) Committee and mandates the Governance and Partnership Committee to establish procedures for the functioning.</li></ul><ul><li>Instructs the Executive Director to appoint an Ethics Officer from the Secretariat</li></ul>

<ul><li>Adopts the Guidelines on Constituency Processes as a useful compilation of best practice.</li></ul><ul><li>Adopts the Constituency Operations Statement as a transparent tool for understanding the processes of stakeholder groups and requests Board Members to complete the statement for their constituency, understanding that this statement will be made public.</li></ul><ul><li>Notes the importance of the role of focal points and supports the facilitation of the attendance of focal points for recipient country constituencies in attending Board and Committee Meetings.</li></ul>

<ul><li>Requests the Chairs of the Governance and Partnership Committee and the Portfolio and Procurement Committee consult together with the Executive Director to identify inputs on this issue for the Revised Proposal Guidelines for Round 3;</li></ul><ul><li>Requests the Committee to revisit the issue of CCMs, based on inputs from Board Members, and prepare recommendations for the next Board meeting;</li></ul>

<ul><li>Adopts the revisions to the Board Operating Procedures as proposed, except for paragraphs 22 and 23.</li></ul><ul><li>The Board has recognized the need for a revision of the By Laws and asks the Governance and Partnership Committee and Secretariat to review the By Laws and report back to the Board at their June 2003 meeting.</li></ul>

<ul><li><b>(Not Approved)</b> Acknowledge the approach to partnerships outlined in the paper and authorizes the Secretariat to pursue such partnerships as appropriate.</li></ul><ul><li>Asks the Governance Committee to examine and comment on partnership arrangements negotiated by the Secretariat in light of the framework and present them to the following Board for acknowledgement, or as appropriate, for approval.</li></ul><ul><li>Requests the Executive Director to provide ongoing updates of Global Fund partnership activity in his communications with the Board.</li></ul><ul><li>Board takes note with satisfaction of the MOU with UNAIDS.</li></ul>

<ol start="1" type="1"><li><b>(Deferred) </b> Agree that Board commitments should be fully covered by pledges, with agreement by donors that pledges for a given calendar year are callable on demand following commitments made in that or subsequent years.</li></ol><ol start="2" type="1"><li><b>(Deferred) </b> Agree that signed Grant Agreements should be fully covered by cash assets received in the Trustee Account, implying that payment of any unpaid pledges made for a current or previous calendar year must rapidly follow commitments.</li></ol><ol start="3" type="1"><li><b>(Not approved) </b> Endorse the financial targets and instruct the Executive Director and the proposed Board Resource Mobilization standing committee to pursue a corresponding resource mobilization strategy.</li></ol><ul><li><b>In 2003, a total of USD 2.5 billion is the minimum needed </b> to make commitments to high-quality proposals anticipated in Rounds Two and Three. This requires USD 1.6 billion of new pledges and payments in addition to payment of outstanding pledges for 2002 (equal to 90 million) and current pledges for 2003 (equal to 305 million).</li></ul><ul><li><b>In 2004, approximately USD 3.8 billion is needed </b> to make new commitments to high-quality proposals anticipated in Rounds Four and Five. New pledges of USD 3.5 billion are required in addition to payment of current pledges earmarked for 2004 (equal to 305 million).</li></ul>

<ol start="1" type="1"><li><b>(Deferred) </b> The Board is requested to instruct the Secretariat to pursue a resource mobilization strategy to achieve the fundraising targets for 2003 and 2004 identified in the Financial Prospectus (GF/B4/6a).</li></ol><ol start="2" type="1"><li><b>(Deferred) </b> The Board is requested to instruct the Resource Mobilization Committee to work with the Secretariat in the pursuit of these targets, particularly by identifying specific ways that Board Members can support the Fund's resource mobilization efforts.</li></ol><ol start="3" type="1"><li><b>(Deferred) </b> The Board is requested to encourage the Private Sector Board Delegation to prepare for the Resource Mobilization Committee a framework for options and processes by which the Fund can accept and/or channel in-kind donations in support of efforts to mobilize resources for its grantees.</li></ol>

<p>The PMPC recommends that PSM Advisory Panel consider necessary policies for the Global Fund related to the procurement of diagnostics and other products related to the provision of medications. Refer to GF/B4/7) for further details.</p><p><b>(No options are approved by a 2/3 majority vote) </b> The PMPC requests that the Board adopt one of the three policies on domestic production as discussed GF/B4/7).</p><ul><li><b>Option 1:</b> Zero Price Premium</li><li><ul><li>Donors: Yes: 7 No: 2</li><li>Recipients: Yes: 2 No: 6 Abstain: 1 </li></ul></li><li><b>Option 2:</b> 15% Price Premium over the lowest price imported generics </li><li><ul><li>Donors: Yes: 1 No: 7 Abstain: 1  </li><li>Recipient: Yes: 0 No: 8 Abstain: 1</li></ul></li><li><b>Option 3:</b> 15% Price Premium over lowest imported product </li><li><ul><li>Donors: Yes: 2 No: 6 Abstain: 1</li><li>Recipients: Yes: 6 No: 2 Abstain: 1</li></ul></li></ul> <p>The PMPC recommends that the Board amend the policy adopted on exemption on duties, tariffs and taxes to allow but not to encourage that Fund resources be used to pay possible product duties, tariffs and taxes. The amended policy should read as follows: "The Fund strongly encourages the relevant national authorities in recipient countries to exempt from duties and taxes all products financed by Global Fund grants and procured by NGOs or any other Principal Recipient or sub-recipient."</p><p>The Board is invited to acknowledge PMPC's decisions 4.a - 4.l on pages 6-10.</p><ul><li>4a: The PMPC has agreed to the creation of a PSM Advisory Panel, according to the Terms of Reference in Part 1 Annex II, to provide technical advice to the PMPC as required</li><li>4b: The PMPC has agreed to consider the subject of product quality monitoring processes, on the basis of both WHO input and advice by the PSM Advisory Panel, and make appropriate recommendations to the Fifth Board Meeting.</li><li>4c: The PMPC has agreed to consider how the Global Fund should ensure the assessment of NDRA recognized laboratories for product quality monitoring, drawing on the advice of the PSM Advisory Panel, and make appropriate recommendations to the Fifth Board Meeting.</li><li>4d: The PMPC has agreed to consider potential PSM-related conflicts of interest based on advice of the PSM Advisory Panel and make appropriate recommendations to the Fifth Board Meeting.</li><li>4e: The PMPC has agreed to consider issues related to global bidding mechanisms based on advice from the PSM Advisory Panel and make appropriate recommendations to the Fifth Board Meeting.</li><li>4f: The PMPC has agreed to approve the importance of capacity building for procurement and supply management as proposed by the PSM Task Force and request the Secretariat to ensure that information on the subject be made available to potential grantees and Principal Recipients.</li><li>4g: The PMPC has agreed on the Terms of Reference for a Pricing Reporting Mechanism design study, as attached in Part 1 Annex III, and has directed the Secretariat to commission this study and implement the resulting system for collecting and reporting prices paid for pharmaceutical products by Global Fund recipients by September 2003.</li><li>4h: The PMPC has agreed to refer the issueof the direct payment of suppliers to the Secretariat,with further analysis by the Advisory Panel as necessary.</li><li>4i: The PMPC has agreed to refer the issueof product prices used for budgeting proposals to the Secretariatfor operationalization, with further analysis by the Advisory Panel as necessary.</li><li>4j: The PMPC has agreed to consider issues related to in-kind contributions, if they are considered eligible by the Board of the Global Fund for resource mobilization, based on advice from the PSM Advisory Panel and make appropriate recommendations to the Fifth Board Meeting.</li><li>4k: The PMPC has agreed to consider the previous recommendation made to the Third Board Meeting on the issue of international and national law, based on advice from the PSM Advisory Panel and make appropriate recommendations to the Fifth Board Meeting.</li><li>4l: The PMPC has agreed to consider the previous recommendation made to the Third Board Meeting on the issue of supply chain management, based on advice from the PSM Advisory Panel and make appropriate recommendations to the Fifth Board Meeting.</li></ul>

<p>The PMPC in order to ensure the sustainability and continuity of the TRP and to have a good proportional balance among the different experts recommends that:</p><ul><li>TRP membership should be expanded from 22 to 25 members, by adding 3 cross cutting experts.</li><li>The new membership should consist of 11 cross-cutters, 7 HIV/AIDS experts, 4 Malaria experts and 3 TB experts. While there is to be a maximum of 25 members of the TRP and 11 members must be cross-cutters, the chair and vice chair of the TRP may, at their discretion, adjust the number of experts from the different fields of disease expertise, with reference to the proposals submitted and the needs of the TRP.</li><li>The current Chair and Vice-Chair retain their positions as Chair and Vice-Chair and the 5 members who joined for Round 2 retain their positions on the panel on a voluntary basis</li><li>The remaining 18 seats be filled through an open, transparent, criteria-based selection process</li><li>7 of the seats be reserved for original members who may reapply (assuming 7 or more of them do so). If more than 7 reapply, those performing best against the criteria will be selected</li><li>Members of the Secretariat are ineligible to serve as TRP experts</li><li>Board/Alternate/Focal Points and CCM members must stand down from these roles if selected</li><li>Members would serve in their personal capacities</li></ul><ul><li>A qualified member from the PLWA (Persons Living with AIDS) community should be actively recruited among applicants.</li><li>Following TRP renewal, approximately one-third of the TRP members will be rotated each year. Members appointed from 2003 onwards will be appointed to serve a term of three years.</li><li>By April 2003, the PMPC and the Executive Director will recommend to the Board the candidates for the TRP for approval. The PMPC may decide to call on external and/or multi-lateral agencies (WJHO, UNAIDS, World Bank) for assistance as required. Further working methods will be developed on the 28^thof January 2003.</li><li>By the 3^rdround of TRP 64% of the TRP members will be new in comparison to the TRP appointed in March 2002</li><li>TRP members must not attend Board or Committee meetings as members of their constituency</li></ul><p>Staff from multilateral organizations will be allowed to serve on the TRP.</p>

<p>The PMPC, after considering the report from the Secretariat recommends the following to the Board regarding the revision of eligibility criteria:</p> <ul> <li>Poverty and disease-related need (which encompasses both current disease burden and risk of growth) are the criteria that will be used to determine eligibility to apply for financing from the Global Fund.</li> </ul> <ul> <li>For the Third Round of applications to the Global Fund:</li> </ul> <p>a. Countries classified as "Low Income" by the World Bank are fully eligible to apply for support from the Global Fund;</p> <p>b. Countries classified as "Lower-Middle Income" by the World Bank are eligible to apply for support from the Global Fund but must meet additional requirements, including co-financing, focusing on poor or vulnerable populations, and moving over time towards greater reliance on domestic resources;</p> <p>c. Countries classified as "Upper-Middle Income" by the World Bank are eligible to apply for support if they face a very high current disease burden (a list of such countries will be provided to the Board and included in the Guidelines for Proposals) and they meet the additional requirements, including co-financing, focusing on poor or vulnerable populations, and moving over time towards greater reliance on domestic resources;</p> <p>d. Countries classified as "High Income" by the World Bank are not eligible to apply for support from the Global Fund;</p> <ul> <li>For the fourth and subsequent Rounds of applications to the Global Fund, WHO and UNAIDS will be asked to provide matrices categorizing countries based on disease-related need and poverty. These matrices will be used as the basis for categorization of eligible countries for each disease and will be presented to the Fifth Board meeting for use beginning with the Fourth Round of applications to the Global Fund.</li> </ul>

<ul> <li>While the methodology for identifying the neediest and poorest countries is being developed, the Secretariat will supply information on needy and poor countries that have not received funding in Rounds 1 and 2 to the 4^thBoard meeting. The information presented to the 4^thBoard meeting on needy and poor countries will also be provided to partners to encourage them to support these countries in the process of applying to the Global Fund.</li> </ul> <ul> <li>(Deferred)For the Fifth Board meeting, the PMPC will provide recommendations on mechanisms for ensuring that the neediest and poorest are not systematically excluded from funding.</li> </ul>

<ul> <li>(Deferred) The PMPC recommends that the Board endorse upper and lower limits for proposals submitted to the Global Fund.<br /><br /> <ul> <li>The PMPC recommends that the Board endorse the strongly preferred recommendation to use a lower limit of US$2 million per year per proposal.</li> <li>Alternatively, the minority option supports the use of a lower limit of US$2 million per year per proposal on all CCM applications, and a lower limit of $1 million per year per proposal on all non-CCM applications.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <ul> <li>The Board encourages the Secretariat, working with the Portfolio Management and Procurement Committee, to include in the revised Guidelines for Proposals for the Third Round language regarding the preferred scale of grant applications. This should provide guidance to applicants to ensure that proposals are neither excessively large, in view of both national programmatic capacity and the limited resources of the Global Fund, nor excessively small, in view of both the Global Fund's goal to scale-up country responses and the administrative costs of processing applications.</li> </ul> <ul> <li>(Not Approved) The PMPC recommends that the Board endorse the strongly preferred recommendation to use a lower limit of US$2 million per year per proposal. Alternatively, the minority option supports the use of a lower limit of US$2 million per year per proposal on all CCM applications, and a lower limit of US 1 million per year per proposal on all non-CCM applications. The PMPC recommends that the Board endorse an upper limit on all proposals of US$50 million per year and of 50% of total public health sector expenditure per year (whichever figure is the lower).</li> </ul>

<ul> <li>The PMPC unanimously agreed the appeal mechanism should be impartial, objective, independent, simple, speedy and well accepted by all stakeholders. However, strict criteria must be applied to minimize the number of appeal proposals.</li> </ul> <ul> <li>The PMPC decided that proposals rejected through the Secretariat screening, due to clear cut ineligibility criteria, are not eligible for appeal. Only those proposals in category three and four in both the current and the last Round (repeated failure cases) can appeal. The PMPC also agreed that CCMs only submit a new proposal on a different disease component than the one going through the appeal process (non-CCM proposals could only be submitted for a different disease component than the one going through the Appeal Process.)</li> </ul> <ul> <li>The PMPC member unanimously agreed on the following criteria:<br /><br /> <ul> <li>Appeals must have CCM endorsement, except in the event in which a non-CCM proposal was initially deemed eligible for TRP review by the Secretariat, in which non-CCM endorsement is required.</li> <li>Applicant shall provide the specific grounds upon which it claims the TRP was in error regarding information contained in the proposal. It is not permitted to provide additional information or justification additional to that contained in its proposal.</li> <li>The appeal panel should assess appeals using the same assessment criteria as used by the TRP.</li> <li>To prevent unfair treatment to other failed applicants who do not appeal, and to safeguard appeal panel independence from unnecessary pressure, a face-to-face discussion, negotiation between appeal panel and applicants is not allowed.</li> <li>The GF Board should endorse/reject the recommendation of the appeal panel via email.</li> <li>GF Board decision on the appeal is final.</li> <li>Appeal can be made only once.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <ul> <li>The PMPC also endorsed a timeline for appeals, which allows CCMs to appeal within four weeks of notification, appeal process to be finalised within four weeks and Board endorsement within two weeks after the receipt of Panel recommendations.</li> </ul> <ul> <li>The PMPC endorsed a fourth option (see below): Appeal Panel to be composed by three high level experts to be proposed by WHO, UNAIDS and the World Bank and two TRP members, one disease expert and one cross-cutting expert, who were not either the primary or secondary reviewer of that specific proposal.<br /><br /> <ul> <li>Option 4: Appeal Panel <ul> <li>To be comprised by three high level experts to be proposed by WHO, UNAIDS and the World Bank. These would be joined by two TRP members, one disease expert and one cross cutting expert who were not either the primary or secondary reviewer of that specific proposal. The TRP members will change based on the proposal to be reviewed.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> </li> </ul> <ul> <li>(Deferred)  The PMPC asks the Board to acknowledge the need for increased contextual information to support the Technical Review process. Recognizing the need for more robust information and TRP deliberation, the PMPC will recommend to the Fifth Board meeting mechanisms to address this need.</li> </ul> <ul> <li>(Deferred)  The PMPC asks the Board to acknowledge the need for clarification of what the Global Fund means by "additionality". The PMPC will come up with suggested definitions for the Fifth Board meeting.</li> </ul> <ul> <li>Request the Board to allow the PMPC to revise the Guidelines for Proposals for the Third Round without further endorsement from the Board.</li> </ul>

<ul> <li>Recommend approval of the 2003 Secretariat Work Plan and Budget as present in Board Document GF/B4/11.</li> </ul> <ul> <li>(Deferred to GF/B4/11 report decisions) Direct the MEFA Committee to review the performance of the Secretariat on the 2003 Work Plan and Budget and report their findings at the June and October meetings of the Board in 2003.</li> </ul> <ul> <li>Direct the MEFA Committee to review the trustee agreement and performance and direct the Secretariat to negotiate new terms and fees for the trustee basedon emerging Global Fund needs.</li> </ul>

<ul><li>Current numbers of Board delegates from recipient countries,NGO's and Communities Living With the Diseases offered funding by the Secretariat for travel should be maintained.</li></ul><ul><li>Class of air travel guided by the current Secretariat travel policy and consistent with the WHO policy on class of air travel should be continued with emphasis placed on using the most economical available fares within those policies.</li></ul>

<ul><li><b>(Deferred) </b> The Secretariat Procurement Policy was deferred until the next Board Meeting. The Secretariat was requested to discuss the policy with WHO in an attempt to reconcile the difficulties identified by WHO. The policy should be reviewed by the Committee before it is resubmitted to the Board.</li></ul><ul><li>Request the Secretariat to urgently put in place contracting guidelines; contracting review and documentation processes; and comprehensive conflict of interest policies.</li></ul><ul><li>Decide that until the Board agrees to its own policies and procedures on procurement of goods and servicesfor the Secretariat, the Fund Secretariat should abide by the spirit and letter of the policies and procedures of WHO in these matters.</li></ul><ul><li>Decide that the rights of Board Members to ask questions on any contracting issue on which they desire information and clarification should be affirmed within the Board Operating Procedures. The process for addressing inquiries of Board Members on contracting matters should be elaborated within the Board Operating Procedures.</li></ul><ul><li>Direct the Secretariat to provide the MEFA Committee with an independent consultant remuneration scale at their next meeting.</li></ul>

<ul><li>Acknowledge the evaluation of the Global Fund fiduciary arrangements undertaken by the Committee and direct the MEFA Committee to continue to improve the Fund's fiduciary arrangements that should include reviewing LFA performance and fees, developing a LFA conflicting of interest policy, together with the Governance and Partnership Committee, and report on the results of the Round 2 LFA selection. These actions should be reported to the Board in June 2003.</li></ul>

<ul><li>Direct the Secretariat to draft a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, which will be reviewed by the MEFA Committee and presented to the Board for approval by the June Board meeting.</li></ul><ul><li>Direct MEFA torecommend to the Board for approvala qualified external auditor to audit the Global Fund's financial statements in time to report the audit findings at the June 2003 Board meeting.</li></ul><ul><li>Direct MEFA to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of an independent Monitoring and Evaluation unit versus the use of external auditors to assure objective evaluation and recommend to the Board the preferred method for independent review.</li></ul>

<p>1. The Board is asked to approve for funding proposals recommended by the Technical Review Panel and according to the categories listed below, with the clear understanding that budgets requested are upper ceilings rather than final budgets and the Secretariat will report to the Board the results of the negotiations with the Principal Recipient on the final budget for acknowledgement.</p> <ul> <li>Category 1: Recommended proposals with no or minor modifications, which should easily be answered within 6 weeks and given the final approval by the TRP Chair and Co-Chair.</li> <li>Category 2: Recommended proposals provided clarifications are met within a limited timeframe (6 weeks for the applicant to respond, at most 6 months to obtain the final TRP approval should further clarifications be requested). The primary reviewer, secondary reviewer as well as TRP Chair and /or Co-Chair need to give final approval.</li> <li>Category 3: Not recommended in its present form but strongly encourage to re-submit.</li> <li>Category 4: Not recommended for funding.</li> </ul> <p>2. The Board is asked to acknowledge the lessons learnt of the Secretariat and the TRP during this process and allow adequate measures to be taken to improve Round 3. </p>

<ol start="1" type="1"> <li>Requests the Board to endorse the approaches to Communications outlined in the Communications Report GF/B4/10.</li> </ol> <ol start="2" type="1"> <li>Requests the Board to work with the Secretariat and to assist them in their need for additional spokespeople and partners in Communications.</li> </ol> <ol start="3" type="1"> <li>(Deferred) Requests the Board to endorse the logo and the Logo Policy and to instruct the Secretariat to continue the process of legal registrations of the logo.</li> </ol> <ol start="4" type="1"> <li>Recommends that the Resource Mobilization Committee Terms of Reference be revised to include communications, as recorded in the document below.</li> </ol>

<p>1. Approve the Global Fund work plan and budget for 2003 with the proposed changes as presented in Part 2 of this report, with the understanding that some degree of flexibility is required in the specific allocation of resources during the year.</p> <p>2. Request the MEFA Committee to continuously work with the Secretariat to monitor budget implementation in relation to priority and end product accomplishment and report to the Board on budget performance semi-annually.</p> <p>3. Request the Secretariat, with MEFA Committee approval, to adjust this approved 2003 budget to reflect decisions made at the January 2003 Board meeting if those decisions impact the 2003 budget.</p>

<p>1. Request the Secretariat to pursue a legal status with the Swiss authorities that provides for the Global Fund with those privileges and immunities that are necessary for it to effectively fulfil its mandate. This status and its associated practical arrangements should ensure that the Global Fund's administration is efficient and no more costly than the current arrangements.</p><p>2. The Secretariat is asked to present to the Fifth Meeting of the Board, precise recommendations for change of status with all associated information.</p>

<p>1. The Board endorses the following Committee Calendar:</p><ul><li>Chairs and Vice Chairs meet together on 3 April 2003</li><li>Committees meet on:<ul><li>Resource Mobilization and Communications - 1, 2 April 2003</li><li>Governance and Partnership - 2, 3 April 2003</li><li>Monitoring, Evaluation, Finance and Audit - 3, 4 April 2003</li><li>Portfolio Management and Procurement Committee - 3, 4 April 2003</li></ul></li></ul><p>2. Decide that the Calendar regarding Board meeting dates and Round 3 as proposed for 2003 is appropriate and instruct the Secretariat to plan accordingly.</p><p>3. <b>(Deferred)</b> Decide that the generic Calendar is a good model for future planning and instruct the Secretariat to use this generic Calendar as a basis for planning.</p>

1.<b> </b> Chair and Vice Chair of the Board will discuss with the Executive Director on issues related to committee leadership and composition and revert to the Board as soon as possible.

The Board approves the outstanding Category 2 of Indonesia Round 1 Proposals for HIV/AIDS and Malaria.

The Board approves the outstanding Category 2 of Kenyan NGO Round 1 Proposals for HIV/AIDS as endorsed by the CCM.