FIFTH COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT ASSEMBLY NOTE SECRETARY-GENERAL’S REPORT ON PROPOSED 2002-2003 BUDGET OUTLINE FOR ITC/UNCTAD/WTO

Resumed Fifty-fifth General Assembly

Fifth Committee

64^th Meeting (AM)

FIFTH COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT ASSEMBLY NOTE SECRETARY-GENERAL’S REPORT

ON PROPOSED 2002-2003 BUDGET OUTLINE FOR ITC/UNCTAD/WTO

This morning, as it continued its consideration of the United Nations programme budget for the biennium 2000 and 2001, the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) took up a number of issues, including the proposed budget 2002-2003 outline for the International Trade Centre (ITC)/United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), the scale of assessments for peacekeeping operations, and proposed regulations for senior officials.

The Committee decided that the Secretariat should prepare a draft decision recommending that the Assembly take note of the Secretary-General’s outline of the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2002-2003 for the International Trade Centre (ITC)/United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the World Trade Organizations (WTO).  The preliminary estimate to accommodate the activities of the ITC during 2002-2003 -– SwF 60.54 million -- represented an increase of 3.7 per cent.  That increase would, in part, fund an annual meeting of the Executive Forum, an event designed to strengthen the capacity of developing countries and countries with economies in transition.  It would further strengthen the in-house expertise of the ITC in electronic trade.

The proposed draft decision would further recommend that the Assembly concur with the observations and recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) on that budget outline.

Much of this morning’s discussion focused on the Secretary-General’s report on proposed regulations for senior officials.  Following expressions of concern by several delegations -– particularly on the report’s late issuance -- the Committee decided to return to the issue for a more comprehensive review on Thursday.  Another major concern of some delegations was the fact that comments from the special rapporteurs of the Commission on Human Rights had not been included in the present report.

Also this morning, the Committee took note of the introduction of the Secretary-General’s report on the implementation of Assembly resolutions on the new scale of assessments for peacekeeping operations.  It further decided to postpone consideration of section F of Assembly resolution 55/5 on the scale of assessments.

Participating in this morning's discussions were the representatives of the United States, Syria, India, Bahamas, Sweden, Iran (speaking on behalf of the "Group of 77" developing countries and China), Cuba, Russian Federation, Canada and Libya.

Introducing reports were Warren Sach, Director of the Budget Division, Conrad S.M. Mselle, Chairman of the ACABQ, Mark Gilpin, Chief of the Contributions Service, Harriet Schmidt, Chief of the Office of the Under-Secretary-General for Management, and Bruce Rashkow, Director of the General Legal Division.

The Committee will continue its work tomorrow at 10 a.m.

Background

When the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met this morning, it was expected to take up a number of issues, including the outline of the 2002-2003 proposed programme budget for the International Trade Centre United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)/World Trade Organization (WTO), the scale of assessments for peacekeeping operations and proposed regulations for senior officials. 

To facilitate its deliberations, the Committee had before it the Secretary-General’s outline of the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2002-2003 for the International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO.  According to the report, in 1998, the Assembly endorsed the revised administrative arrangements for the International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO as set out in the report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (A/53/7/Add.3).  In conformity with these administrative arrangements, the present report contains the International Trade Centre (ITC) budget outline for the first year of activities, expressed in Swiss francs, for the coming biennium and a projection of requirements for the second year.  The outline will be submitted simultaneously to the Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration of the WTO for its approval.

According to the report, the preliminary estimate to accommodate the ITC programme of activities during the biennium 2002-2003 represents an increase of 3.7 per cent in real terms.  A substantial part of the increase would fund an annual meeting of the Executive Forum, an event designed to strengthen the capacity of developing countries and countries with economies in transition to formulate and manage national export strategies.  Another substantial part of the increase would strengthen the in-house expertise of the ITC in electronic trade, which is becoming an increasingly critical factor in any national export development strategy.

The report states that the requirements of the ITC expressed at 2002-2003 rates are estimated at SwF 30,221,800 for 2002, and the preliminary estimate for 2003 is SwF 30,322,800.  It is projected that an amount of SwF 500,000, representing income from various sources, would be available to the ITC annually.  On that basis, the annual contribution of each organization is estimated at

SwF 14,860,900 and SwF 14,911,400 for 2002 and 2003 respectively.  The detailed proposed programme budget of the ITC for the biennium 2002-2003 will be submitted to the Assembly and to the General Council of the WTO in the autumn of 2001, on the basis of the decisions the Assembly will have taken on the outline as well as the reaction received from the WTO Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration.

In a related report of the ACABQ (document A/55/7/Add.10), that body recommends the approval of the budget outline for the ITC, noting that the requirements of the ITC are estimated at SwF 30,221,800 for 2002, and the preliminary estimate for 2003 is SwF 30,322,800.  This represents an increase of 3.7 per cent in real terms, mostly resulting from the decision to fund an annual meeting of the Executive Forum and to strengthen the in-house expertise of the ITC electronic trade, which as indicated therein "is becoming an increasingly critical factor in any export development strategy".  The Committee further notes that two meetings have taken place to date, funded by the Government of Switzerland, and a third one, also to be funded by Switzerland, is to take place in September 2001. In view of its success, the current view of the ITC is that the Executive Forum should not be sustained without regular budget resources, despite indications that multi-year extrabudgetary resources will be available.

      On the scale of assessments, the Committee had before it a report of the Secretary-General (document A/C.5/55/38), which explains that since the introduction of resolution 55/235, on the new scale of assessment for United Nations peacekeeping operations and resolution 55/236, on voluntary movements between categories, the Secretariat had received numerous queries from Member States.  The report was prepared to provide Members with information on the effect of the resolutions on the financing of peacekeeping operations in 2001 and beyond.

[In December 2000, the General Assembly adopted new scales of assessment for both the regular and the peacekeeping budgets.  The Assembly decided that the assessment rates for peacekeeping would be based on the scale of assessments for the United Nations regular budget, but using a different procedure to determine the actual level of assessment.

By adopting a new peacekeeping scale, the Assembly revised the 1973 ad hoc arrangement for financing peacekeeping activities.  It established 10 levels of assessment based on countries' per capita income.  On one end of the scale, the least developed countries receive significant discounts on their contributions, while on the other, the permanent members of the Security Council pay a premium over their regular assessment obligations, sufficient to make up for the discounts.  The resolution specifies transition periods between the different categories. 

In the new scale, least developed countries are placed in Category J for peacekeeping and receive a 90 per cent discount on what the regular assessment formula would otherwise determine should be their level of assessment.  States in Categories D through I receive discounts ranging from 20 to 80 per cent.  Countries assessed as Category C States receive a discount of 7.5 per cent.  All other States with per capita incomes above the upper limit of $9,594 fall into Category B, whereby no discount applies.  Permanent members of the Security Council are assessed as Category A and pay a premium over their regular assessment obligations sufficient to make up for the discounts.]

According to the report, assessments for peacekeeping operations for the first six months of 2001 will be based on the regular budget scale for 2001.   For peacekeeping operations with mandate periods from 1 July 2001, the new system of 10 levels will be used to determine rates of assessment.  For Member States moving to levels B and E, a standard transitional phasing of two or three years is provided for in the resolutions.  Hungary and the Republic of Korea, which are moving to category B -- from levels I and D, respectively -- are given a five-year transition period.  Estonia, which is also voluntarily moving from level I to level B, is foregoing its transition time.  Israel is also voluntarily foregoing its transition time to level B.  Turkey is moving from level I to level H with an assessment rate of 30 per cent of its regular budget rate from the effective date of the new scale (1 July 2001) until 2002.  It will move from level H to level F for the remainder of the scale period -- from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2003.

In the two-year transitional period for Member States moving up to level E, equal annual payments of 50 per cent of the change in the percentage of the respective regular budget rates payable for each Member State will be made from

1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002, and a second 50 per cent from 1 July 2002.  For countries moving up to levels B and D, a three-year standard transitional phase involves equal annual instalments of one third of the change in the respective regular budget rates payable from 1 July 2001 to 30 June 2002, an additional one third from 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003, and a final one third from 1 July 2003.

On the implementation of the resolutions after 2003, the report says the structure of contribution levels from 1 July 2001 would be reviewed in nine years.  The structure of the 10 categories outlined in the resolution would be reviewed by the Assembly at the main part of its sixty-fourth session in 2009.  In the meantime, the Assembly requested the Secretary-General to update the composition of the 10 levels on a triennial basis, in conjunction with the reviews of the regular budget scale of assessments.

Also according to the report, in resolution 55/235, the Assembly decided that movement between categories would be based on Member States' per capita gross national product (GNP) and that the statistical data used for this purpose should be the same as that used in preparing the regular budget scale of assessments.  In its resolution 55/5 B, the Assembly decided that the regular budget scale of assessments would be based on average statistical base periods of six and three years.  It also decided that the elements of the scale would be fixed until 2006.  The regular budget scale for 2004-2006 will also be based on the average of the results of machine scales using base periods of six (1996-2001) and three (1999-2001) years.  Since the basis of the regular budget scale is an average of two machine scales, there are two average per capita GNP figures for each Member State and for the membership of the Organization as a whole.  For 2001-2003, the Assembly decided that the average used for determining the composition of the

10 levels outlined in its resolution 55/235 should be that for the six-year (1993-1998) base period.  In updating the composition of the levels used for peacekeeping assessments, average per capita GNP figures for the six year (1996-2001) base period for the regular budget scale for 2004-2006 should also be used.

The Committee also had before it an addendum to the Secretary-General's report (document A/C.5/55/38/Add.1).  In it, he explains that in its resolution 55/253 of 12 April 2001, the Assembly endorsed the recommendation of the Economic and Social Council that Senegal be added to the list of least developed countries.  The Assembly also endorsed the recommendation to defer consideration of the recommendation to graduate Maldives from the list of least developed countries to its next substantive session.  It is the understanding of the Secretariat that changes in the list of least developed countries approved subsequent to the adoption of resolution 55/235 will be reflected in the updated composition of levels for 2004-2006.  At that time, Senegal would move to level J, together with any other Member States that may be added to the list of least developed countries between now and the fifty-eighth session of the Assembly in 2003.  Member States graduating from the list between now and then would move up from level J accordingly. 

The report goes on to say that had Senegal been on the list of least developed countries prior to the adoption of the resolution, its effective rate of assessment for peacekeeping for 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2003 would have been 0.0005 per cent, rather than the 0.0010 per cent in document A/C.5/55/38.  The share of Member States in level A would have been higher as a result by 0.0005 per cent.

Also before the Committee was the report of the Secretary-General on proposed regulations for senior officials (document A/55/928).  In December 2000, the Assembly requested that the Secretary-General consult with officials on the proposed regulations and report to it on several elements, including the compatibility of the proposed regulations with the statutes governing senior officials, the possible impact on the independence of expert bodies and accountability mechanisms to enforce proposed regulations. 

The Secretary-General consulted with five officials other than Secretariat officials, including the Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ); the Chairman of the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC); the Chairman of the International Law Commission; the Chairman of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), and the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC).  The Secretary-General also consulted with the chairperson of the group of special rapporteurs of the Commission on Human Rights. 

Based on a review of the comments received from the officials and from experts on mission, the Secretary-General recommends that the Assembly consider several adjustments to the regulations.

Introduction of Report and Statements

WARREN SACH, Director of the Budget Division, introduced the report of the Secretary-General on the outline of the programme budget for the biennium

2002-2003 for the International Trade Centre (ITC), United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)/World Trade Organization (WTO).  Taking into account the decision of the United Nations and the WTO, a detailed fascicle would be prepared for the General Assembly and the WTO General Council in the fall.  The requirements for 2002-2003 represented an increase of 3.7 per cent in real terms.  Following the submission of the outline, as well as approval by the General Assembly, the full detailed programme proposals would be prepared and presented to the General Assembly in the fall of 2001.

CONRAD S.M. MSELLE, Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), introducing the report of that body, said the ACABQ recommended that the General Assembly approve the outline for the ITC.  The activities funded from the increase were previously financed through extrabudgetary resources.  Requirements were of a continuing nature and should be funded from the regular budget.  The Committee had been informed that regular budget resources would be used in the preparation of the substantive elements related to the ITC Executive Forum, while extrabudgetary funds would continue to be used to fund the travel of participants from least developed countries and to ensure dissemination of the experience at the national level.

THOMAS REPASCH (United States) was pleased to read that the Advisory Committee reviewed the budget outline with the ICT officials via video conferencing.  He hoped that this meeting would spark more such video conferences, within the United Nations budgetary bodies and throughout the Organization.  He wondered if the Committee was approving a budget outline for a budget that had already been officially submitted.  He noted that the report stated that the increase of 3.7 per cent was mainly to fund an annual meeting of the Executive Forum, and strengthen in-house expertise of the ITC in electronic trade.  He asked the Secretariat to elaborate on just what was envisioned by that increase for strengthening the ITC; did it involve hiring more staff or purchasing more equipment?

Mr. SACH said the detailed budget fascicle for the ITC had not yet been prepared.  What existed was a preliminary estimate based on the proposals.  The comprehensive budget would only be presented following the approval of the Assembly and the WTO.  What had been presented thus far did not include any detailed proposals, which would be available at the fifty-sixth session of the Assembly.  As for the 3.7 per cent growth and the strengthening of the expertise of the ITC, he said the increase would possibly comprise two new staff positions at perhaps P-5 level, and one General Service staff.

Mr. MSELLE said the ACABQ had held several video conferences and expected to continue such meetings.  As to procedure, there was no difference in what was being followed now and what had occurred at the fifty-fourth session.

ABDOU AL-MOULA NAKKARI (Syria) noted with satisfaction the two meetings held in order to reinforce the economies of developing countries and countries in transition, which had been implemented by the Government of Switzerland.  He supported the ACABQ recommendation to approve the outline of the budget, but would have wished that the recommendation had been in bold letters to better indicate its location in the body of the report.

RAMESH CHANDRA (India) supported the comments of Syria’s representative on the recommendation of the ACABQ not appearing in bold print.  He said it was important that such information appeared in bold print as it was often the first thing Members looked for when they received reports.  He wanted to be assured that the omission would not continue.  He added that India had always emphasized the need for all the programmes being sustained through the regular budget, and welcomed the Advisory Committee’s recommendations.

GERT ROSENTHAL (Guatemala), Committee Chairman, then proposed that the Secretariat prepare a draft decision for the consideration of the General Assembly that it take note of the report of the Secretary-General and concur with the observations and recommendations of the ACABQ thereon.

Mr. NAKKARI (Syria) said the Committee was well aware of his delegation’s traditional position with regard to the issue, and he would therefore not obstruct his proposal.  He hoped, however, that the draft could state that the Assembly would “endorse” the recommendation and observations of the ACABQ, still reflecting its agreement.

The Committee CHAIRMAN said the document would be prepared in the normal fashion.

Scale of Assessments for Apportionment of United Nations Expenses

Mr. CHANDRA (India) said the scales had been finalized only in the last quarter of 2000.  They were frozen for two scale periods.  The issue had been discussed within the "Group of 77" developing countries and China exhaustively.  A position was yet to emerge.  Given the limited time in the current session, could the Committee decide to adopt a draft decision to carry the item forward into the next session, without informal consultations?  There was still much ground to cover. 

MARILYN T. ZONICLE (Bahamas) said the proposal in operative paragraph 2 of section F of General Assembly resolution 55/5 was of great concern to the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) countries.  She had been asked to reiterate that concern to the Committee.  The CARICOM delegations wanted to see a fair scale in terms of methodology.  It would also be more cost effective to have an independent review of the elements of the methodology before the Committee on Contributions presented its proposals to the Committee after the current agreement ran out.  She saw the merit of the proposal by the representative of India that, in the context of other matters on the agenda, the Committee chose to have more in-depth discussion on the item in the fall.

The Committee CHAIRMAN said that regarding the proposal to postpone action to the next General Assembly session, could the Secretariat prepare a decision that could be examined in an upcoming meeting?  That would mean that the item would not require discussions in informal consultations.

CARL-MAGNUS NESSER (Sweden) said he was prepared to take note of the paper at this session.  However, what would be the impact of postponing consideration of the paper? 

The CHAIRMAN asked if he was referring to agenda item 122 or 169.

Mr. NESSER (Sweden) said he was indeed referring to agenda item 169.  He would have no problem with going forward with the proposal of India.

The CHAIRMAN said he would ask the Secretariat to prepare a draft decision.

Implementation of General Assembly Resolutions 55/235 and 55/236

MARK GILPIN, Chief of the Contributions Service, introducing the Secretary-General’s report, said that in resolutions 55/235 and 55/236 the General Assembly had decided to base-rate assessments for peacekeeping on a new set of 10 levels.  The parameters for those levels were set out in resolution 55/235.  The list was subject to voluntary movements detailed in both resolutions.  Paragraph 10 of resolution 55/235 also set out transition periods for Member States whose contributions were moving up.  General Assembly resolution 55/235 provided that the Secretary-General should update the composition of levels on a triennial basis.  On that basis, the list outlined in the annex to 55/235 would be the basis for the 10 levels until the first triennial review in 2003.  When the Secretary-General updated the composition of the 10 levels in 2003, he would take into account other relevant factors, including the list of the least developed countries.

SEYED MORTEZA MIRMOHAMMAD (Iran), speaking on behalf of the "Group of 77" developing countries and China, said there was no need for the Assembly to take a decision on the reports on the implementation of resolutions related to the scale of assessments as they had not been requested.  He proposed that the Committee not take note of the report.

The CHAIRMAN asked the representative of Sweden if he would object to the proposal not to take a decision on the report at this stage.

Mr. NESSER (Sweden) said the Committee could certainly consider the report at a later session.

The CHAIRMAN then said the Committee would take note that the report had been introduced, but reiterated that there had been no recommendation from the Committee thereon.

The Committee next considered the report of the Secretary-General on proposed regulations for senior officials (document A/55/928), which was introduced by HARRIET SCHMIDT, Chief of the Office of the Under-Secretary-General for Management.  She said in December 2000 the Assembly requested that the Secretary-General consult with officials on the proposed regulations and report to it on several elements, including the compatibility of the proposed regulations with the statutes governing senior officials, the possible impact on the independence of expert bodies, and accountability mechanisms to enforce proposed regulations. 

The Secretary-General, she continued, consulted with five officials other than Secretariat officials, including the Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ); the Chairman of the International Civil Service Commission (ICSC); the Chairman of the International Law Commission;  the Chairman of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU); and the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC).  The Secretary-General also consulted with the chairperson of the group of special rapporteurs of the Commission on Human Rights. 

Based on a review of the comments received from the officials and from experts on mission, the Secretary-General recommends that the Assembly consider several adjustments to the regulations.

BRUCE RASHKOW, Director of the General Legal Division, representing the Under-Secretary-General of the Office of Legal Affairs, said that the report was an attempt to respond to the needs of the Committee.  He noted that the report did not include any additional comments from the special rapporteurs of the Commission on Human Rights, since their next meeting would not be held until 18 June.  If those discussions yielded different considerations, they would be presented to the Committee in an addendum to the report.

Mr. NAKKARI (Syria) asked if a meeting could be scheduled so the Committee could discuss the report further.  His delegation would not consider the discussions on this issue closed since it had only received the report this morning.  Syria could not consider or discuss the report in a comprehensive manner with such a short amount of time to review its particulars.

The CHAIRMAN said the Committee had planned to return to this matter on Thursday morning in informal consultations.

EVA SILOT BRAVO (Cuba) concurring with Syria, regretted that such a complicated document had not been received in time to give it due consideration.  The information included therein was of importance not only for delegations present, but for their capitals.  She asked, however, that the Secretariat provide clarifications on paragraph 20 of the report, on comments from experts on mission and the special rapporteurs of the Commission on Human Rights.  The request made by the Assembly previously had included the question of how proposed regulations would ensure the impartiality and objectivity of special rapporteurs.  But she did not see any comments which specifically reflected that request.  She asked for further clarification on whether experts on mission would be excluded from the proposed regulations so as not to jeopardize their independence.  What was the path to be followed?  Would there be any amendment to the regulations that would exclude special rapporteurs?

VASILY GRUZDEV (Russian Federation) concurred with Cuba and Syria on the late issuance of the report, and reserved the right to come back to the issue and put questions to the Secretariat during informals.

JOHN ORR (Canada) also said that the report was very complicated and that he would seek instructions from his capital before making any detailed comments.  He also noted that Canada would be reluctant to further consider the document at the session as the consultations with the special rapporteurs had not yet been held.  He suggested that the Committee take no action on the report at this time and consider it in depth at its next session.

HUGH DUGAN (United States) said he supported the course of action suggested by Canada.

The CHAIRMAN asked if there were objections to the proposal not to take action on the document.

Ms. SILOT BRAVO (Cuba) said that before considering Canada’s proposal, she wanted clarification on paragraph 20 -– comments from experts on mission –- of the report from the Secretariat. 

Responding to the delegate of Cuba, Mr. RASHCOW said that it was the intention to include experts on mission.  The inclusion of UNMOVIC also raised the question of experts.  The intention in drafting paragraph 20 was to say that while they had received some comments from UNMOVIC, they were still awaiting comments from the other body.  The Secretary-General did consult with them in the past, and attempted to address their comments.  They expected to include experts on mission when they were in that class of entities, as was the case of UNMOVIC and Human Rights rapporteurs.

Mr. NAKKARI (Syria) noted that the document had been received only this morning.  He would prefer that delegations have the opportunity to consult and comment on the document.  The Committee needed to determine whether it should look at the issue now or in the next session.  He asked for informal consultations so that comments could be made on the report. 

Ms. SILOT BRAVO (Cuba) wanted to know if the possibility was being presented that, as a result of consultations with special rapporteurs, a future proposal would be made to exempt experts on mission from the special regulations.  The issue needed clarification.

Mr. RASHCOW said the experts on mission for the Human Rights Commission were included in previous draft regulations.  He foresaw no change in including them in the present draft.  Those experts might have additional comments -- but they had not yet been received.  They needed to fit somewhere, and they did fit in that category.  There was no intention to change what had been proposed in the original regulations or in the draft regulations.

The CHAIRMAN said that two courses of action were open.  One was to defer consideration of an item to the General Assembly’s fifty-sixth session or to consider it in an informal meeting.  The Bureau had foreseen the possibility that the matter should be discussed in informal consultations, perhaps on Thursday morning.  Were there objections to holding informal consultations, in which case there might be a decision to defer the matter?

Mr. ORR (Canada) said the Committee had just received the document. Delegations did not have time to receive instructions.  If they proceeded to an informal meeting, there would be no opportunity for substantive comments.  Given that the report seemed to be incomplete, he did not see the value of taking action other than rolling it over to another session. 

The CHAIRMAN said that another possibility was to take up the issue at a formal meeting on Thursday morning.  That would give the Committee time to study the document. 

Mr. DUGAN (United States) said even a meeting on Thursday morning would be a constraint.  It would leave little time for informal consultations on the issue.  He saw the wisdom of pushing the item to the next session.

The CHAIRMAN repeated that there were two proposals before the Committee.  One was to postpone the item to the next session, the other was to find time this week either in an informal or formal setting.

ABDALLA KHALID (Libya) supported the proposal of Syria, namely to hold informal consultations on the item with the administration so that delegations could inform their capitals.  It was a question of time.  He was ready to accept the Chairman’s proposal to hold informal consultations or a formal meeting.

The CHAIRMAN said that as a number of delegations were not ready to take a decision, the only wise course of action was to return to the issue on Thursday morning.

Mr. DUGAN (United States) said if the Chairman thought it necessary to meet, he would not object.

The CHAIRMAN said it was probable that on Thursday morning the Committee might arrive at the conclusion to defer the item.  He did not wish to prejudge the outcome, however.

On the programme of work, he said agenda item 169 would be taken up by the Committee in a formal meeting on Thursday morning.  If more time was needed, the Committee might have to resort to an evening meeting on Thursday. 

Mr. NAKKARI (Syria) asked about Friday’s organization of work.  According to the programme of work, the two meetings had been scheduled to take decisions on draft proposals.  How were items being organized on Friday? 

The CHAIRMAN said that the Bureau felt it would be wise to leave the whole of Friday for taking action on decisions.  The Committee might meet in the morning or in the afternoon.  The Committee needed to programme in flexibility on its last week of work, and had therefore set aside the whole day on Friday.  It was a preventive measure more than anything else.

* *** *