1



Board -2018 -Mtg -2-Doc 10c

Section A: Introduction
? This report informs the Board of the Governance Committee?s
recommendations for membership of the Independent Review Committee
(IRC).
? The Governance Committee recommends that the Gavi Board appoint as
new IRC members the individuals listed in Annex A for terms effective
immediately through 31 March 2021.
Section B: Independent Review Committee Nominations
Introduction
1.1 Under the Gavi By -Laws, the IRC is an independent, impartial group of
experts that serves to guarantee the integrity and consistency of funding
decisions related to Gavi grants to countries.
1.2 The IRC consists of a group of diverse public health experts who review
funding proposals and recommend their approval to the Gavi CEO, based
on an assessment of whether countries? plans will likely achieve the
proposed results and contribute to Gavi achieving its mission and strategy.
1.3 In response to the new typhoid w indow approved by the Board in November
2017 and to deepen the measles expertise in the pool, as well as to increase
and augment the available skill set for reviewing health system and
immunisation strengthening (HSIS) support, the Secretariat set out in
January 2018 to identify additional members to be added to th e pool of
potential reviewers. The Secretariat retained the services of Russell
Reynolds Associates, an executive search firm, to undertake this search.
1.4 Upon the recommendation of the Governance C ommittee, the Gavi Alliance
Board at its June 2018 meeting approved the addition of 32 additional
candidates (from an initial group of about 350 individuals originally identified
by Russell Reynolds) to the pool of IRC members. Following the June 2018
Boar d meeting, the search continued for individuals in some specific
additional areas such as: supplementary immunisation activities, health
systems strengthening project management, finance and budgeting, and
cold chain and logistics, in particular combined w ith French language skills .
SUBJECT: CONSENT AGENDA: INDEPENDENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
APPOINTMENTS
Agenda item: 10c
Category: For Decision
Report to the Board
28 -29 November 201 8

1



Board -2018 -Mtg -2-Doc 10b

Section A: Introduction
? At its meeting on 26 November 2018 , the Governance Committee
considered nominations to the Board and Board Committees which are now
being submitted to the Board for approval.
Section B: Board/Committee Member Appointments
Constituency process for Board and Committee nominations
1.1 The Secretary to the Board initiated a process for Board and Committee
nominations in August 2018 by inviting Board constituencies to submit
nominations to enable consideration by the Governance Committee at its
meeting on 10 October 2018.
1.2 A number of constituencies submitted nominations and appointments which
have in the meantime been approved by the Board through the no -objection
consent provision in the Gavi By -laws.
1.3 Some constituencies requested an extension of the deadline to November,
and further nominations submitted were considered by the Governance
Committee at its meeting on 26 November 2018.
1.4 This report therefore outlines the Governance Committee recommendation
to the Board for further appointments to the Board and Board Committees.
Gender Implications
2.1 Board -approved guidelines on the Gavi Board gender balance state that a
ratio of 60/40 male/female Board Members and Alternate Board members
should be established and maintained. This is extended to include Board
Commi ttees as required by Article 4.2 of the By -laws.
2.2 For the purposes of this calculation, the Board Members and Alternate
Board Members are assessed as separate groups. The Board currently has
14 men (5 4%) and 12 women (4 6%). 10 alternates are men (5 6%) a nd 8
are women ( 44 %).
2.3 The gender balance is deemed to be within the acceptable range if there is
no more than 60% of any one gender. These same principles are also
applied to the Board Committees. In order to arrive at an aggregate position
SUBJECT : CONSENT AGENDA: BOARD/ COMMITTEE MEMBER
APPOINTMENTS
Agenda item: 10b
Category: For Decision
Report to the Board
28 -29 November 201 8

1



Board -2018 -Mtg -2-Doc 10a

Section A: Summary
? Dr Richard Sezibera, Programme and Policy Committee (PPC) Chair,
comes to the end of his second three -year term as an Unaffiliated Board
member on the Gavi Alliance Board on 31 December 2018. His term as
PPC Chair will therefore also come to an end.
? Professor Rob Moodie, Evaluation Advisory Committee (EAC) Chair, comes
to the end of his second term as EAC Chair, also on 31 December 2018.
Professor Moodie was appointed to serve on the EAC as a member of the
Committee in July 2011 and was appointed EAC Chair from 1 J anuary 2015
for a two -year term, which was subsequently renewed.
? This report outlines the Governance Committee recommendation to the
Board to approve the appointment of Dr Helen Rees to succeed Dr Sezibera
as PPC Chair, and to approve the exceptional exten sion of Professor Rob
Moodie as EAC Chair to 30 June 2019 .
Section B: PPC and EAC Chair
PPC Chair
1.1 Dr Richard Sezibera comes to the end of his tenure as a Gavi Board
member, and concurrently as PPC Chair, on 31 December 2018.
1.2 The PPC Chair plays an importan t role in managing the affairs of the PPC
to ensure that it is organised properly, functions effectively, and meets its
obligations and responsibilities to the Board.
1.3 At the time of her appointment to the Board in 2016, Dr Helen Rees, who is
also a PPC mem ber, had indicated her interest in potentially taking on the
role of PPC Chair, should the opportunity arise.
1.4 At its meeting on 10 October 2018, Governance Committee members noted
the interest expressed by Dr Helen Rees and agreed that Dr Rees is well
qual ified for the role.
1.5 They felt that in the interests of ensuring a transparent process, it would be
appropriate to seek expressions of interest in the role from other Board
SUBJECT : CONSENT AGENDA: COMMITTEE CHAIR APPOINTMENTS
Agenda item: 10a
Category: For Decision
Report to the Board
28 -29 November 2018

1



Board -2018 -Mtg -2-Doc 10

Section A: Introduction
? Concerns relating to developing country participation and engagement in
the governance structures of the Gavi Alliance and the level of support
provided to the developing country constituency have been raised
consistently in Board and Committee self -evaluations since 2012.
? In the context of the 2016 Board and Committee self -evaluation, concerns
were again expressed in relation to the voice of the constituency not being
sufficiently heard in critical strategic and programmatic and policy
discussions which could impact Gavi -eligi ble countries.
? Since 2017, the Governance Committee has been considering the various
aspects of these challenges.
? At its meeting on 10 October 2108, the Governance Committee considered
options relating to (i) the Terms of Reference (ToRs) for developing co untry
representation on the Board and Board Committees and the process of
nominations to Gavi?s governance structures; (ii) proposed changes to
Board Committee Charters to strengthen the voice of the constituency by
providing flexibilities in relation to t he nomination of Committee Delegates;
and (iii) proposed options to strengthen the Special Adviser model and
associated arrangements.
? This paper present s the recommendation of the Governance Committee in
relation to (ii) above, namely proposed changes to B oard Committee
Charters to strengthen the voice of the constituency by providing flexibilities
in relation to the nomination of Committee Delegates .
Section B: Strengthening Developing Country constituency
Background
1.1 In the context of the 2016 Board and Committee self -evaluation, concerns
were raised in relation to the representation of the developing country
constituency on the Board and Board Committees.
1.2 The self -evaluation did not fully elaborate with any precision on the specific
concerns that were identified in the course of the review, but it was identified
as one of the actions that the Governance Committee would further review.
SUBJECT : CONSENT AGENDA: COMMITTEE CHARTERS
Agenda item: 10
Category: For Decision
Report to the Board
28 -29 November 201 8

1



Board -2018 -Mtg -2-Doc 09

Section A: Introduction
? In order to enable better monitoring of the Alliance?s performance against
its strategic goals, c hanges to specific strategic indicators and related
targets were approved at the June 2018 Board . At that time, targets for three
indicators were still to be confirmed : S2.1 effective vaccine management,
S2.5 civil society engagement and S3.4 institutional capacity.
? The proposed targets for these three strategic indicators were presented to
the PPC in October 2018. The PPC was supportive of the targ ets for the
effective vaccine management and institutional capacity indicators, and
recommended these for approval by the Board.
? At the PPC meeting, t he CSO constituency raised concerns in relation to
the civil society engagement indicator, and it was agr eed that the
methodology for the civil society engagement indicator would be updated to
include all 68 Gavi -supported countries in the denominator (rather than just
those countries for which a programme capacity assessment (PCA) has
been completed) . This m eans that for countries where no PCA will be
conducted the value to be included would be zero and, therefore, the
revised methodology would make it unlikely that a 2020 target of 63% would
be achieved. At its meeting, the PPC did not have the opportunity t o discuss
these implications in detail and for this reason the Secretariat, in
consultation with the CSO constituency, considered it important for the
Board to have an alternative option for this indicator?s 2020 target.
? This paper presents an overview of the proposed target s for the se three
strategy indicators (including two options for the CSO indicator) . Annex A to
this document provides a more detailed description of the methodology that
informed the target -setting as well as the full indicator definitions . Annex B
provides the same description of the methodology with an alternative option
for the CSO indicator?s 2020 target as described in this paper.
Section B: Proposed targets for three 2016 -2020 Strategy Indicators
1.1 S2.1 ? Effective vaccine ma nagement (EVM) : The proposed 2020 target
for th is indicator is 72%. The target represents an increase from the 2015
baseline (67% ), and has been developed based on country -level projections
informed by historical EVM assessment values . The proposed target,
SUBJECT : APPROVAL OF SELECTED TARGETS FOR 2016 -2020
STRATEGIC INDICATORS
Agenda item: 09
Category: For Decision
Report to the Board
28 -29 November 201 8

Re port to the Report to the Board


Doc 09 ? Annex B : Proposed updates to targets for 2016 -2020 Strategic Indicators as recommended
by the PPC

Annex B: Proposed updates to targets for 2016 -2020 Strateg ic Indicators with
alternative CSO indicator target
Update on proposed targets for 2016 -2020 Strateg ic Indicators: S2.1 ( effective
vaccine management), S2.5 ( civil society engagement) and S3.4 ( institutional
capacity)
? In June 2018, the Gavi Alliance Board:
a) Approved the changes to the definitions and targets of the Strategy
Indicators as set out in Annex A to Doc 02h; and
b) Requested the Secretariat to also continue tracking the original definition s
and targets of these Strategic Indicators for monitoring purposes. 1
? In June 2018, targets for strateg ic indicators S2.1 ( effective vaccine
management) and S3.4 ( institutional capacity) were still under development by
the respective technical working gro ups.
? In addition, in June 2018 the Board recommended that the Secretariat establish
a target for strateg ic indicator S2.5 ( civil society engagement).
The proposed targets for these three strategic indicators have been reviewed by the
PPC in October 2018, and are being presented to the Board for approval at their
meeting in November 2018.
This annex presents a summary of considerations that informed tar get -setting for the
three indicators (Section 1), as well as the full indicator definitions , with the proposed
2020 targets (Section 2).
Section 1: Summary of considerations that informed target -setting
S2.1 ? Effective vaccine management : The proposed 2020 target for the average of
the country composite score o f the last completed Effective Vaccine Management
(EVM) assessment is 72%. The target represents an increase from the 2015
baseline ? 67%. The 2020 target was computed by creating cou ntry -level projections
to 2020 based on their historical EVM values and then averaging them, as follows:
? For countries in which the composite score increased between the last two
EVM assessments: the projected 2020 value was calculated based on the
observed annualised rate of increase.
? For countries that have had only one previous EVM assessment: the
composit e score from that assessment was held constant and carried
forward to 2020.
? For countries in which the composite score decreased between the last two
EVM assessments: the composite score on the most recent assessment is
held constant and carried forward t o 2020.
Note that countries will only undergo one EVM assessment in the 2016 -2020 strategy
period. This is due to the change in frequency of EVM assessments from once every
3 years to once every 3 to 5 years. This target assumes that Gavi and the Alliance ?s
1 Decision 8 of the Gavi Alliance Consent Agenda, June 2018.

Re port to the Report to the Board


Doc 09 ? Annex A: Proposed updates to targets for 2016 -2020 Strategic Indicators as recommended
by the PPC

Annex A: Proposed updates to targets for 2016 -2020 Strateg ic Indicators as
recommended by the PPC
Update on proposed targets for 2016 -2020 Strateg ic Indicators: S2.1 ( effective
vaccine management), S2.5 ( civil society engagement) and S3.4 ( institutional
capacity)
? In June 2018, the Gavi Alliance Board:
a) Approved the changes to the definitions and targets of the Strategy
Indicators as set out in Annex A to Doc 02h; and
b) Requested the Secretariat to also continue tracking the original definitions
and targets of these Strategic Indicators for monitoring purposes. 1
? In June 2018, targets for strateg ic indicators S2.1 ( effective vaccine
management) and S3.4 ( institutional capacity) were still under development by
the respective technical working groups.
? In addi tion, in June 2018 , the Board recommended that the Secretariat
establish a target for strateg ic indicator S2.5 ( civil society engagement).
The proposed targets for these three strategic indicators have been reviewed by the
PPC in October 2018, and are being presented to the Board for approval at their
meeting in November 2018.
This annex presents a summary of considerations that informed tar get -setting for the
three indicators (Section 1), as well as the full indicator definitions , with the proposed
2020 targets (Section 2).


1 Decision 8 of the Gavi Alliance Consent Agenda, June 2018.

1



Board -2018 -Mtg -2-Doc 08

Section A: Introduction
? The purpose of this report is to present the final investment cases for the six
shortlisted vaccines for endemic disease prevention in the Vaccine
Investment Strategy (VIS) 2018. These six vaccines are : diphtheria,
pertussis & tetanus -containing (D,T& P cont aining) boosters ; hepatitis B
birth dose ; A, C, W -containing multivalent meningococcal conjugate
vaccines ; oral cholera vaccine (OCV) ; rabies post -exposure prophylaxis
(PEP) ; and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) immunisation products.
? This report covers the vaccines for endemic disease prevention only;
inactivated polio vaccine (IPV )1 and pandemic influenza are addressed in
Docs 1 2 and 13, respectively.
? The Board is asked to :
o Approve an extension of Gavi support for use of the global cholera
stockpile in endemic settings for 2020; and a learning agenda for oral
cholera vaccine in 2019 -2020. The financial implications are
approximately US$ 43.5 million for 2019 -2020 .
o Approve investment in the six VIS vaccines with programmes
beginning in the next strategic period (i.e. 2021), contingent upon
sufficient funding being available for the 2021 -2025 period and subject
to the final parameter setting for Gavi 5.0 at the June 2019 Board
meeting . Learning agenda activities for the five vaccines beyond
cholera would b egin subsequent to this 5.0 alignment in the second
half of 2019. The financial implications are approximately
US$ 6.5 million for 2019 -2020 and US$ 373 million for 2021 -2025 .
Section B: Facts and Data
VIS m ethodology
Occurring every five years, the VIS i s Gavi?s prioritisation approach for new
immunisation investments to inform Gavi?s next strategic and funding cycle.
The VIS 2018 took a differentiated approach to the candidates: a) vaccines

1 The report on IPV includes consideration of support for whole -cell -pertussis -containing
hexavalent vaccine
SUBJECT : VACCINE INVESTMENT STRATEGY
Agenda item: 08
Category: For Decision
Report to the Board
28 -29 November 2018

Report to the Board

Doc 08 ? Annex B: VIS 2018 candidates: cost, impact and case for investment
1
Annex B: VIS 2018 candidates: c ost, impact and case for investment

Cost and impact projections
The following tables provide a summary of the projected costs to Gavi and health
impact for each VIS candidate in Gavi?s 5.0 and 6.0 strategic periods. These
projections assume all six VIS vaccines are supported and account for projected
introductions of t he current portfolio of supported vaccines.
Table 1: Total cost to Gavi, 2021 -2025 and 2026 -2030 1, in US$ millions

Table 2: Total deaths averted, 2021 -2025 and 2026 -2030 2, in thousands

Table 3: Total cases averted, 2021 -2025 and 2026 -2030 , in thousands


1 The projected costs for D, T & P-containing boosters assume that all Gavi -supported countries would
elect to use the pentavalent vaccine for the 1 st booster dose due to programmatic benefits. The use of
the pentavalent vaccine for the 1 st booster dose would result in increased cost to Gavi due to vaccine
co -financing. 2The low and high values represent the lower and upper range of potential health impact outcomes of
each VIS candidate. The range of potential health impact reflects both uncertainty in key parameters
as advised by diseas e experts (e.g. vaccine efficacy, burden of disease) and the use of multiple disease
impact models. Deaths averted will be in future years based on vaccination in this time period. Procurement costs Operational costs Procurement costs Operational costs
Cholera 124 37 159 49
D, T, P - containing boosters 19 22 77 18
Hepatitis B birth dose 0 5 0 9
Multivalent meningococcal 82 38 81 0
Rabies PEP 10 2 26 12
RSV maternal vaccine 12 4 159 13
Total cost by cost type 248 111 504 103
TOTAL COST
VIS candidate 2021-2025 2026-2030
360 608 Low High Low High Low High
Cholera 8.1 91.0 10.8 119.8 19.0 210.8
D, T, P - containing boosters 6.9 6.9 30.6 30.6 37.6 37.6
Hepatitis B birth dose 11.3 56.0 75.1 337.9 86.5 394.0
Multivalent meningococcal 6.0 20.5 8.7 28.3 14.8 48.8
Rabies PEP 1.4 5.8 19.7 58.9 21.1 64.7
RSV maternal vaccine 0.5 5.2 7.0 56.6 7.5 61.8
Total 35 180 150 630 180 810
VIS candidate 2021-2025 2026-2030 2021-2030 Low High Low High Low High
Cholera 870 9,150 800 8,320 1,670 17,470
D, T, P - containing boosters 1,500 1,500 3,950 3,950 5,460 5,460
Hepatitis B birth dose 130 180 510 630 640 820
Multivalent meningococcal 170 560 130 440 310 1,000
Rabies PEP - - - - - -
RSV maternal vaccine 100 430 1,220 2,670 1,330 3,100
Total 2,800 11,840 6,630 16,040 9,430 27,880
VIS candidate 2021-2025 2026-2030 2021-2030

Report to the Board
Doc 08 ? Annex A : Implications/Anticipated impact
Annex A: Implications/Anticipated impact

Risk implication and mitigation

? Should the Board choose not to support the VIS vaccines, it would be a missed
opportunity to potentially avert ~0.2 -0.8 million deaths over the 2021 -2030
timeframe, to close crucial equity gaps and protect marginalised populations
and to shape markets for improved supply and price. For cholera and
meningoc oc cal vaccines, lack of support for preventive programmes would also
result in continued reliance on stockpiles for outbreak response, which carries
significant cost (in terms of mortality and disruption d ue to outbreaks, as well
as the cost of response). For rabies and cholera vaccines, there would also be
a missed opportunity to leverage vaccine to potentially incentivise development
of comprehensive disease control strategies. For RSV, lack of support fo r
demand and evidence generation activities would result in continued lack of
understanding of the true burden of RSV in contributing to paediatric morbidity
and reduced likelihood that manufacturers would account for Gavi -eligible
countries in their suppl y plans . Finally, for hepatitis B and D, T, & P-containing
boosters, Gavi could miss an opportunity to achieve the additional impact of
strengthening and establishing new immunisation platforms, in addition to
preventing morbidity and mortality.

? Given the different nature of some of these vaccines, there is a risk that Gavi?s
current policies might not be fit for purpose. This could be mitigated through a
future review of Gavi?s support model (for both the current portfolio and VIS
vaccines). Ther e is also a risk that replenishment efforts might not result in the
financing required to establish successful programmes and Gavi might need to
deprioritise some of the approved vaccines. On a vaccine specific basis, some
additional risks associated with investment include :
o For RSV and meningococcal vaccines, there is a risk that timelines are
delayed and new products come to market later than expected; there is
also a risk that they do not meet the financial parameters indicated in the
investment cases . A n ?in principle? decision for support would allow Gavi
to re -evaluate these vaccines when the products are made available and
the other conditions are met .
o For cholera and rabies vaccines, there is a risk that requiring commitment
to broader disease contr ol strategies could delay the use of the vaccine.
However, this commitment would itself mitigate the risk that programmes
are poorly planned and do not achieve impact. It would be important to
ensure that partners engaged in these broader efforts can suppo rt
countries to meet the conditions for support.
o For D, T, & P -containing boosters and hepatitis B birth dose, there is a risk
that the proposed support might not be sufficient to catalyse development
of the immunisation delivery platform. This risk can be mitigated by
ensuring that platform strengthening activities are appropriately identified

1



Board -2018 -Mtg -2-Doc 07

Section A: Introduction
? Following a request from the Kingdom of Norway (Norway) to the Gavi
Programme and Policy Committee in May 2018, the Secretariat has
explored Norway?s proposal that Gavi support the Coalition for Epidemic
Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) subject to funds being made available by
Norway and disbursed via IFFIm (the CEPI Arrangement). The CEPI
Arrangement is to be fully funded by Norway and will therefore be cost -
neutral to Gavi. The CEPI Arrangement will enable Norway?s contribution to
be frontloaded to CEPI.
? Having reviewed the proposed CEPI Arrangement, the Gavi Audit and
Finance Committee (AFC) noted, at its meeting held on 12 October 2018,
that the CEPI Arrangement would not have any material adverse impact on
Gavi?s finances or operations and provided guidance on implementing and
executing the CEPI Arrangement as outlined in Section B.
? The IFFIm Board of Directors also reviewed the financial and risk
implications of the CEPI Arrangement for IFFIm , at its meeting held on 16
October 2018. The IFFIm Board expressed support for the CEPI
Arrangement and p rovided guidance for executing the related transaction(s)
as outlined in Section B.
? The Gavi Programme and Policy Committee (PPC) was given an
informational update on the proposed CEPI Arrangement at its meeting held
on 18 -19 October 2018.
? This report req uests that the Gavi Board approv e Gavi support to CEPI
through the CEPI Arrangement , and requests the Secretariat to put in place
the necessary measures to implement the CEPI Arrangement with IFFIm,
CEPI and Norway, taking into account the guidance provide d by the AFC.
Section B: Facts and Data
Introduction
1.1 CEPI is a new international non -profit association, established under
Norwegian Law, to provide financing for late stage research and
development (R&D) into new vaccines for vaccine preventable diseases of
epidemic proportions for which no vaccines are currently available.
SUBJECT : IFFIm AND CEPI
Agenda item: 07
Category: For Decision
Report to the Board
28 -29 November 201 8

1


Re port to the Board
?
Doc 07 ? Annex B: Overview of arrangement for Gavi support for CEPI
Annex B: Overview of arrangement for Gavi support for CEPI
Subject to approval by the Gavi Board of providing support to CEPI as a Non -
Country Specific Programme and the establishment of an ad hoc review and
evaluation group, Gavi could fund the CEPI Arrangement by way of the following
steps. The responsible party or parties are highlighted in bold below:
a) Gavi and Norway: Gavi enters into a new legally binding grant agreement with
Norway in the form agreed with IFFIm (the CEPI Pledge). The CEPI Pledge
would total NOK 600 million (ca. US$ 77 million), payable from 2022 to 2025 in
equal yearly instalments of NOK 150 million (ca. US$ 19 million);
b) Gavi: Gavi assigns the CEPI Pledge to IFFIm, as usual, thus making the CEPI
Pledge part of IFFIm?s assets pool, i.e. fungible with, and comingled with, all
other IFFIm funds;
c) CEPI: CEPI will make Non -Country Specific Application(s) to Gavi for
disbursement to CEPI in line with IFFIm?s Procedures Memorandum, which sets
out the process by which Gavi can apply for disbursements from IFFIm;
d) Gavi: An ad hoc review and evaluation gr oup is constituted in accordance with
IFFIm?s Procedures Memorandum and the Programme Funding Policy to
assess the Non -Country Specific Application for disbursement to CEPI in line
with the criteria described in IFFIm?s Procedures Memorandum, which in brie f
look at whether the proposed programme is in line with Gavi?s Strategic Goals,
the extent to which the proposed programme meets Gavi?s immunisation
objectives and needs which cannot be met through existing support or
programmes, and the extent of availab le funding contributions from other
sources;
e) Gavi: On the basis of the report of the ad hoc review and evaluation group,
Gavi?s CEO approves the application. Gavi decides to request funding from
IFFIm by submitting a funding request to the IFFIm Board sub ject to the IFFIm
treasury manager?s assessment that such proposed funding is in accordance
with IFFIm?s Gearing Ratio Limit and IFFIm?s Strategies (consistent with the
current process of Gavi requesting funding from IFFIm);
f) IFFIm and IBRD: Subject to the funding approval by the IFFIm Board, IFFIm
would seek to issue a bond to frontload the receivables from the CEPI pledge
(the CEPI Bond). The transaction will be financially neutral to IFFIm and Gavi;
g) IFFIm via Gavi: IFFIm would pay the proceeds of the CEPI Bond to Gavi for
disbursement to CEPI as a Non -Country Specific Programme under a grant
agreement between CEPI and Gavi (the CEPI Grant Agreement);
h) CEPI: CEPI uses the funds provided from Gavi in accordance with the Non -
Country Specific Application and t he CEPI Grant Agreement, and provides
agreed upon reporting on the use of Gavi/IFFIm funding to the Gavi and IFFIm
Boards for monitoring and evaluation;
i) Norway and IFFIm : Norway will make grant payments to IFFIm according to
the terms of the CEPI pledge. T hese payments will be used to repay principal