At the March Board meeting, the staff presented the Board with a preliminary comment letter analysis on the proposed amendments to IAS 39 on what risks can be hedged and what can be designated as a hedged item. No decisions were made at that meeting. The purpose of this meeting's session was to present possible ways forward along with a staff recommendation.

The staff presented three possible ways forward with one approach having further possible alternatives:

• Approach A: Wait for the responses to the Discussion Paper on reducing complexity in reporting financial instruments before deciding what, if anything, to do on hedge accounting
• Approach B: Move forward with a short-term amendment using the rules-based approach of the ED
• Approach B1: Move forward with a limited amendment to IAS 39 that addresses only issues where there is diversity in practice
• Approach B2: Move forward with an amendment based on scope of the ED (hedged financial items)
• Approach B3: Move forward with an amendment based on the ED but extend the scope to include non-financial hedged items.
• Approach C: Move forward with a short-term amendment but develop a principle-based approach to address financial (and possibly non-financial) hedged items

The staff recommended Approach B1, that is, to continue with the ED to address the issues that created diversity in practice.

The Chairman questioned whether it would be sensible to defer the ED to await the outcome of the FASB's project on simplifying hedge accounting. One Board member noted that waiting for completion of FASB's project would be tantamount to accepting approaches the Board does not consider appropriate. The staff noted that approach B1 could lead to further submissions to IFRIC on similar issues.

The Board agreed to continue with approach B1.