ࡱ> %` <bjbjٕ .5ZZZZZZZn84&nhVƋƋ܋܋܋. UUUUUUU$XhpZ| VZMMM VZZ܋܋"VM4Z܋Z܋UMUN ZZT܋ vP<U8V0hVPZeZxTZZT &߳4z V VMXhVMMMMnn*1._$+nn1_nnnZZZZZZ DRAFT REPORT FOR COMMENTS PLEASE SEND YOUR COMMENTS BY MARCH 21, 2008 First Session of the IOC Working Group on the Future of IOC UNESCO Headquarters, Paris, France 19 20 February 2008 OPENING SESSION Dr. Savi Narayanan, Co-Chairman of the Working Group on the Future of IOC and Chairman of the meeting opened the meeting at 10:00. She noted the interest among Member States of IOC on the issues to be discussed by this group in view of the high attendance of representatives from different parts of the world. This is not the first time that Member States have discussed the future of IOC and will probably not be the last, however, given the increasing interest in the oceans and the many challenges we face, the present exercise is very timely. She wished the group a very productive discussion and offered the floor to the IOC Chairman, followed by the IOC Executive Secretary. 1.1 Welcome by the Chairman of IOC Mr. Javier Valladares, Chairman of IOC welcomed participants and hoped for a very active and productive two days of work on the matter of the IOC future. He then indicated that all IOC Officers and the Secretariat are available to help and work together to make this meeting a positive step towards the goal of strengthening the IOC. He thanked all participants for their interest in the Workshop and wished them a good stay in Paris. 1.2 Welcome by the Executive Secretary of the IOC Mr. Patricio Bernal, IOC Executive Secretary, welcomed the participants on behalf of UNESCO's Director General, Mr. Koichiro Matsuura. He reminded the meeting participants that the mandate of the Working Group is very well established and defined in Resolution XXIV.1. As Dr. Narayanan reminded the participants, this is not the first time that the IOC has convened similar Working Groups. He recalled the ad hoc Study Group on Measures to Ensure Adequate and Dependable Resources for the Commission's Programme of Work (FURES) established in 1987 that worked for 2 years and was followed by a FURES-II group that lasted for 6-7 years. In the following decade the IOC established the ad hoc Study Group on IOC Development, Operations, Structure, and Statutes (DOSS) that produced the "IOC: Quo Vadis" report. The second phase of this group, DOSS-II had the mandate of proposing modified Statutes for the IOC, which ended with the approval of the current IOC Statutes by the 29th UNESCO General Conference in 1999. In his view it is interesting to note that much of the discussion of this meeting refers to the mission of the IOC as defined in the Statutes approved in 1999. He recalled that the establishment of the present Working Group was triggered by the document "We Have a Problem" prepared by the current Chairman when he was in charge of financial aspects, as Vice-Chairman for the period 2005-2007. The establishment of this WG was a result of increased concerns of the IOC Member States with respect to financial shortages. However, during the discussions, the theme of the group evolved into a different set of fundamental questions about the challenges ahead of the IOC and the necessary adaptations to cope with them. The Executive Secretary then indicated two main problems he sees as opportunities to improve: 1) The strength of an intergovernmental body is based on a clear counterpart within each Member State. We have to recognize that the IOC has fallen short in this regard: the IOC is not fully an intergovernmental organization in practice due to the absence of clear, officially nominated, counterparts for the IOC in several of its Member States. 2) Another major difficulty is the way Member States organize themselves internally and within the United Nations, with very few communicating bridges among national agencies and among those and their corresponding UN counterparts. This is due to the compartmentalized fashion in which both national and UN agencies are forced to work. To cope with these problems, the IOC has long promoted the establishment of national oceanographic coordination committees, without complete success. Conversely, the most valuable IOC asset is the fact that it does have a very legitimate series of themes under its mandate, which do need intergovernmental coordination. The IOC is a legitimate focal point for developing countries in need of support for building their capabilities in producing, accessing and using relevant ocean data for societal issues. The most visible IOC program that relies on this clear mandate is a fully nationally sustained ocean observing system. However, only 50 countries, mostly developed, are implementing this system, with only 10 countries supporting about 90% of the costs. At the same time, under the oceanographic data exchange policy adopted by the IOC, all data collected under IOC programs is freely exchanged among countries. Both the observing system and the oceanography data exchange have been critical for acquiring a relevant portion of the knowledge we now possess on climate change. This same data is needed by several economic activities including maritime transport, offshore exploitations, meteorological forecasting and coastal hazard assessment, to name a few, both in developed and developing countries. This is a big asset for the IOC that provides a very healthy rationale for a balanced discussion concerning the allocation of resources, Member States' commitments and, in particular for this Workshop, methods for improving the performance of the organization, better organizing our work to deliver our established mandate and solidifying the future of the Commission. 2. ORGANIZATION OF THE SESSION 2.1 Adoption of Agenda The Chairman introduced this item informing the plenary that an initial version of the preliminary agenda was circulated in early January to the elected members of the Working Group and to the IOC Officers. Upon their feedback a revised version was circulated. She opened the floor for comments on the provisional agenda. Portugal suggested an amendment to item 3.3. to reflect that this item would deal with all background available to the group proceedings and not only to the questionnaire, for which Portugal has some reservations. The group adopted the proposal of Portugal to modify the title of item 3.3. Japan proposed interchanging items 4 and 5 of the draft provisional agenda to discuss first the future of oceanography and then exchange views about the current mandate and its adequacy. After some discussion the group agreed to put item 5 as item 4.0, not devoting too much time to it but addressing it before going into the core of item 4. The adopted agenda is in Annex I. 2.2 Designation of the Rapporteur The Chairman requested nominations for Rapporteur of the meeting. Australia proposed Arthur Paterson from USA and Portugal seconded this proposal. The Chairman thanked USA for providing the Rapporteur for this meeting and invited Mr. Patterson to take his place at the podium. 2.3 Conduct of the Session, Timetable and Documentation The Chairman indicated that in order to get the maximum interaction from delegates, the meeting would be held in plenary, with interpretation in four languages within working hours as defined in the timetable. The Secretariat read the list of documents distributed for the meeting, as follows: 1. IOC-WG Future of IOC/1 Prov: Provisional Agenda 2. Resolution XXIV-1: Working Group on the Future of IOC (2007) 3. IOC-XXIV/2 Annex 2: The Future of IOC: a proposal by the Officers to the Member States 4. IOC-XXIII/2 Annex 8: Financing and ownership of IOC's programmes: We Have a problem (2005) 5. IOC/DOSS-III/3: Ad-hoc Study Group on IOC Development, Operations, Structure and Functions; Bergen, Norway (1992) 6. IOC/FURES-III/3s: Third Session of the ad hoc Study Group on Measures to Ensure Adequate and Dependable Resources for the Commission's Programme of Work, Executive Summary 7. IOC/FURES-II/3s: Second Session of FURES, Paris, 11-13 January 1990. 8. QUESTIONNAIRE - THE FUTURE OF IOC, Final Analysis Report, February 2008 Upon Portugal's request, the meeting participants were also provided with copies of the Manual of IOC (Document INF/1187) and copies of the ICSPRO Agreement. The delegate of Portugal expressed that in his understanding the meeting is open to all Member States included the core group (elected Member States and Officers) and requested confirmation of this understanding. Japan requested clarification on the responsibilities of the core group. The Executive Secretary clarified by explaining that there was an election process to select a core membership to the group, for the purpose of ensuring adequate participation from all geographical voting groups. This does not deny that the group is open ended and open to participation by all Member States. The IOC Chairman confirmed that all Member States have equal status and that all IOC Member States may participate equally in all deliberations of the Working Group at this meeting and any subsequent intersessional work prior to the submission of the report to the Executive Council. Portugal asked about the status of the nomination of the two Co-Chairs of the Working Group, a decision welcomed by Portugal because this provides different sensibilities or visions with regard to the matters under scrutiny by this group. The IOC Chairman indicated that the IOC Officers nominated both Mr. Haiqing Li and Dr. Savi Narayanan as co-chairs of this group. Mr. Haiqing Li was unable to attend this meeting and the Chairman hoped he will be available for future activities of the Working Group. REPORT ON PREPARATORY ACTIVITIES 3.1 PREPARATION AND OBJECTIVES OF THE MEETING The Chairman introduced agenda items 3.1 and 3.2 together for expediency, requesting comments to be withheld until after the introduction. She expressed the view that the demand on the IOC for leadership on intergovernmental coordination for oceanography is increasing. At the same time Member States have concerns because resources supporting the IOC are diminishing. All Member States are committed to finding appropriate solutions, but in order to do so Member States need to discuss if some changes are needed within the IOC, if more Member State involvement is necessary, or if Member States should be more active in UNESCO to support the IOC. She then referred to the background documentation for this meeting including the one contained in documents IOC/FURES-III/3, IOC/DOSS-III/3, THE FUTURE OF IOC: A proposal by the officers to the member states, June 2007 and RESOLUTION XXIV-1: WG ON THE FUTURE OF IOC. Dr. Narayanan summarized the recommendations of FURES (1991) as follows: The IOC is entering into a new dimension, both in terms of scope and complexity of its programmes, operations, as well as planning & implementation; The IOC is moving rapidly from a basically research and science entity to one providing Member States, the world community and the UN system as a whole with operational ocean services & related supporting systems which call for advanced planning, continuity, stability and timeliness in the implementation of agreed actions; The IOC must develop programmes and activities which carefully balance the needs of its Member States with the resources they provide. To this end, FURES suggested that the IOC should: Establish a framework to guide the allocation of the Commission's financial and staff resources; Provide guidance to Member States on the specific needs of the IOC programmes and activities; Base this framework on: (a) a set of guidelines and procedures through which the IOC will be able to periodically review and establish priorities, which will guide the Commission's allocation of financial and human resources. (b) when unfunded programmes of highest importance are undertaken, the IOC will generate the substantial extrabudgetary resources required from Member States, through the UN system and/or from other sources. On the Status of IOC within UNESCO, FURES recommended: Further improvement of the working relationship between the IOC and UNESCO on the status of the IOC & its functional autonomy; Reporting directly to UNESCO DG on matters of importance; Signing an MOU with other international organizations. On the role of Member States, FURES recommended: Establishing proper liaison mechanisms and adequate national coordinating structures; Increasing awareness of the IOC; Increasing contributions to the IOC, in-kind and funds. The Chairman supported the FURES recommendations and recalled that the ad hoc DOSS group in 1992 recognized the need to examine critically the plethora of subsidiary bodies and the associated funding issue. . She then summarized the main aspects of the current status of the IOC within UNESCO. The IOC is included within the Natural Sciences Sector with its Executive Secretary having the status of an Assistant Director General of UNESCO, reporting directly to UNESCO's Director General. The IOC has a flagship status, but no specific tangible advantages are linked to this. It has functional autonomy within UNESCO, with its own Member States and Statutes and is allocated about 1% of UNESCO budget. Dr. Narayanan recalled that in the document IOC-XXIII/2 Annex 8 the current Chairman of IOC highlighted a serious mismatch between the demands on the IOC and its capacity to deliver, the increasing expectations of Member States and other organizations and the increasing cost of delivery of programmes, which are already heavily streamlined, making it very difficult to make further reductions. . To cope with the above identified problems, a set of options was proposed by the IOC Officers through document IOC-XXIV/2 Annex 2: Establish a new independent specialized organization inside the UN consolidating programmes on ocean affairs; Establish a new independent specialized organization inside the UN, with the current mandate as expressed in the statutes of the IOC; Define a funding regime with additional Member State contributions (Article 10); Make a closer functional arrangement with one or more of the existing UN organizations or programmes (i.e. FAO, IMO, UNEP, WMO); Reinforce IOC with its current mandate inside UNESCO by obtaining a more secure budgetary horizon guaranteed by a negotiated and binding agreement with UNESCO. She then referred to the Terms of Reference of the Working Group and reminded the participants that a written report for discussion by the IOC Executive Council at its 41st Session (2008) has to be presented to the Secretariat by March 24, 2008 as requested in Resolution XXIV.1. She summarized the sessional meeting of June 2007 and the steps that were agreed upon. One of these was the preparation, distribution and analysis of a questionnaire subsequently sent out to Member States Focal Points, Permanent Delegations to UNESCO and partner organizations in November with a deadline of January 11, 2008. 3.2 PROPOSED METHODOLOGIES AND WORKPLAN The Chairman introduced this item by indicating the objectives of the meeting as:- to discuss and recommend: How IOC will work with and coordinate with UN and UNESCO IOC Mandate and future needs Framework for funding options How to improve involvement of Member States How to enhance cooperation with other appropriate organizations Development of a work plan with deliverables and a timeline Use of the questionnaire results as a guide She proposed conducting all discussions in plenary, requested interventions to be short and to the point and proposed a list of questions prepared to help focus discussions on each topic under agenda item 4. She then opened the floor for comments both for item 3.1. and 3.2. Portugal started its intervention by noting with appreciation the clear and useful presentation provided by the Chairman, including a very objective identification of key previous messages that may shape the work of the group. He indicated that we do not need to influence other agencies but Member States should decide to act in a coherent form in different agencies with a view to ensuring interagency cooperation for the oceans. With respect to financial needs he expressed that the crucial aspect is to get stable and steady resources for the IOC. He stressed that Portugal is not prepared to use the questionnaire as a guide but only as a reference document, among others. Portugal suggested defining a timeline for the work of the group and exploring possibilities for an additional meeting before the 41st Executive Council. Peru seconded the Portugals comments. Germany recalled that according to Resolution XXIV.1 this group is requested to present a document for discussion three months prior to the 41st Executive Council. This means producing a document and finalizing the work of the group within one month. This timeline was confirmed by the IOC Executive Secretary. Peru wanted to have more information about eventual discussions among agencies to properly inform capitals and allow guidance to Member States interventions at assemblies or meetings of other agencies interested in the IOC. The Executive Secretary informed the Workshop that the Officers and Executive Secretary are inviting formal comments of UN agencies and programmes on the future role of IOC according to Resolution XXIV.1. Portugal suggested that a short summary note be circulated also to Member States for internal coordination and guidance for officers in charge of different UN agencies and programmes. Portugal also proposed recalling the ICSPRO agreement in this note. Madagascar suggested circulating the presentation delivered by the Chairman in French as well, and inquired if the IOC is participating in the Planet Earth Year. The Chairman requested the Secretariat to translate her presentation and circulate it to Member States after the meeting. The Executive Secretary reported that the IOC is participating in the Planet Earth Year in the framework of planning and execution of the Year of the Planet Earth that was launched in UNESCO. Venezuela congratulated the Chairman's presentation while regretting that the questionnaire is available only in English. He requested that all documents be made available in all four languages of the IOC. Venezuela seconded Portugal and Peru's suggestion of having more time for this Working Group to develop the work of the group and eventually deliver it to the Assembly in 2009. The Executive Secretary reported that the cost of translation and interpretation is expensive but this is inherent to intergovernmental process and a budget shall be available for this, however within the IOC there is no special budget available for this group, which underlines the fact that the IOC is not performing as a fully intergovernmental organization: However he indicated that the Secretariat will do its best to take the comment on languages for documents into account. The United States joined the previous speakers in thanking the Chairman for her presentation, particularly in summarizing previous efforts. He indicated that the USA had concerns in coming to this meeting as the IOC has been around these issues many times and there is still not a clear understanding of what the real problem is, at least not for the USA. In looking at the summary of the results and recommendations especially of the work of the group FURES, they cover many of the problems that have been discussed this morning, but they were written 15 years ago. Perhaps the right definition of the problem needs yet to be clarified. The USA thinks that it is very important to have a clear definition of the problem. In that sense they agreed with the request to have the Chairman's presentation circulated. The group needs to have a clear vision of the problem: Is this a problem with UNESCO, with our own governments or with the fundamental organizational structure of IOC? Canada made it clear that the mandate of the Working Group is to report to the Executive Council and then it will be up to the Executive Council to decide on the follow up action. Portugal suggested that the mandate of this group is not to deliver a final substantial document to the 41st Executive Council but to provide a clear proposal for defining the content of major points to be explored beyond the 41st Executive Council. Expecting to get a final substantial document within one month is unrealistic in view of the importance of the issues and subjects to be discussed. The Chairman suggested proceeding with the discussions as defined in the agenda, structured in topics, and after that decide how to proceed. In support of this, Cuba reaffirmed that the group needs to concentrate on delivering to the Executive Council as per its Terms of Reference and discuss substance according to the mandate given by the Assembly. The Working Group requested that when consulting with competent UN bodies and other competent international organizations and bodies dealing with ocean issues, the Officers of the Commission and the Secretariat should inform the IOC focal points and Permanent Delegations to UNESCO, in order that Member States can play an active role as appropriate in this consultation. 3.3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND ASSESSMENT The Chairman invited Mr. Jonathan McCue, Principal Coastal Consultant Water & Environment, representing Atkins Global International to deliver a 15 minutes presentation on the synthesis of the questionnaire report. Mr. Atkins started his presentation by summarizing the purpose of the study, its methodology, results per section and a set of common themes and outcomes. The aim of the survey was to seek views of main IOC stakeholders, including Member States, Partner Organizations and Permanent Delegations, on what role IOC should play to contribute to the effective coordination of ocean affairs. He informed the group that the questionnaire was distributed on November 21, 2007 to 304 users, including 138 Focal Points, 45 partner organizations and 125 Permanent Delegations. Atkins received, by January 17, 2008, 26 IOC Focal Point responses (19%) and 8 Partner Organization responses (18%). In terms of its current mandate the key message from the responses is that the IOC is delivering a service and definitely has a worthwhile role in the future. Some specific comments are: The IOC is fulfilling its mandate on international cooperation on oceanographic matters; The IOC is effective in applying existing knowledge; The IOC is effective in helping Member States improve decision-making; The IOC is doing good work with institution building in Africa, although the volume is too small; The IOC structure could be organized to be the ocean equivalent of WMO; Funding levels are not adequate for applying knowledge; The IOC should better coordinate international or regional programmes and not be involved in domestic programs. With respect to the scientific issues related to the oceans where the IOC is working, the key message found in the responses is that the IOC should continue and also improve its technical support role, namely: Improve coordination of climate change research for oceans (observation and monitoring); Expand, the already sound, work in delivering ICM toolkits (linking strategies for climate change and marine hazards, setting ICM indicators and developing decision support tools); Improve coordination on the state of the marine environment reporting; There is limited IOC collaboration with other programs or agencies (e.g. FAO/UNEP) that set MPAs and deliver fisheries management under an ecosystem approach. The questionnaire also collected views about management, institutional and financial issues. With respect to management issues the responses received where quite clear in that IOC's management framework should not be drastically altered: The IOC does NOT have a future outside of the UN; The IOC does NOT have a future outside of UNESCO; The IOC should NOT be established as an independent organization inside the UN with a new mandate; The IOC should NOT be established as an independent specialized oceanographic organization outside of the UN; The IOC SHOULD consider affiliating with other UN Partner Organizations to deliver its Mandate; Member States SHOULD consider adopting Protocols or Conventions that include agreements on assessed contributions; The current institutional structure of the IOC should not be changed though better communication of its relevance in todays society is required; There is need for reinforcing any programs that integrate the IOC with other UN bodies to deliver improved and sustainable outcomes on coastal/marine matters. Finally, and with respect to financial aspects, Mr. McCue reported that the key finding of the survey is that improved financial contributions are required (internal and external) with the following main ideas arising: New negotiated agreements with UNESCO combined with new commitments from Member States should be pursued; MoUs should be used to achieve better Partner contributions; International Development Agencies should be encouraged for improved contributions to IOC; More consultation is needed to assess the viability mean tested of additional Member State contributions; Voluntary contributions should be accepted and established as trust funds; Foundation sources should be interrogated further as a source of funding for IOC at global and/or regional levels; GOOS and IODE are priority programmes for future financial support. The Chairman thanked Atkins' representative for its presentation and reminded the meeting participants that the full report is available as a reference document for the meeting. She then opened the floor for comments. Portugal re-stated that the decision for this questionnaire was premature as it should be for the group to decide whether to use a questionnaire, define its content and seek the Secretariats support in this task. From their analysis this questionnaire is unbalanced, with a number of mistakes (i.e. naming JCOMM as a Programme). Now the report is available and been replied to by 26 Member States, Portugal does not consider this as a working document but as a reference document. France intervened to express that, due to unforeseen technical problems, it did not respond to the questionnaire. About the questionnaire itself, France expressed that it is interesting but limited in terms of responses. This is however useful information and it may be helpful to have a second questionnaire with amendments, for example on the relationships with some organizations, and taking into account the works of this group at this meeting. Madagascar seconded France's views, stating that, even if the rate of responses is not satisfactory, it is a useful document for the discussions of this Group. He clarified that Focal Points and Delegations are the same. Madagascar supports sending a second, modified, shorter questionnaire. Norway found the exercise useful and used it to improve coordination and communication internally. Norway suggested having a better management of the process to increase the number of respondents. The findings are useful for further analysis. Norway suggested taking this forward. Vice-Chairman from Group V (Tunisia) indicated that there is a low level of representation of Group V (Africa) in the responses and suggested a regionally focused analysis. Tunisia also suggested extending the deadline for receiving responses. Cuba valued the questionnaire report but agreed that the questions may be better phrased. If a second questionnaire is launched Capacity Building should be considered within other themes but kept as an independent item. Cuba suggested that there is value in extending the process and having a second version for this questionnaire. Brazil expressed reservations with respect to the communication process for this questionnaire and with respect to some of the questions. That being said Brazil joined other delegations in expressing that the results of the questionnaire are an interesting and useful reference for future discussions, among others. In agreement with Madagascar, she indicated that the IOC Focal Points and Permanent Delegations both represent the Member State.. The Chairman clarified that one of the reasons for dispatching the questionnaire to both Permanent Delegation and Focal Point was to secure getting a single coordinated response. Canada itself coordinated its response with the Focal Point and Permanent Delegation. Japan indicated that it followed the same process and integrated several organizations in the process of preparing a response. With respect to the questionnaire the part referring to fisheries management is probably not within the IOC's mandate. The Delegate of Japan informed the Workshop that it was a useful exercise despite the problems that had already been highlighted Germany expressed its reluctance to agree with a second round of the questionnaire. There are no surprises in the results so far. A new questionnaire will add no new results, in principle. The group should start to discuss possible necessary and realistic actions. The questionnaire itself should be kept as a reference document. Canada indicated that attendance in the IOC Assemblies usually consisted of only 50 participating countries, therefore the 26 responses to the questionnaire is not a bad percentage in terms of responses. Canada agreed to using the report as a reference document. Italy shared concerns about the questionnaire and highlighted that there should be a separate analysis for Member States and Partners responses. Italy wanted to know if the analysis has statistical significance in terms of Member States responses. India congratulated the Chairman for its guidance during the proceedings of the meeting. India appreciated the questionnaire process and communications with the Secretariat. For India, the questionnaire is useful as is. India supported Germany's proposal to not start a second round and to initiate discussions on actions to be taken. Croatia found the questionnaire a useful exercise at a very minimum for internal purposes. Croatia was surprised by the low rate of responses, but did not find the answers themselves surprising. Croatia supported Germany in not having a second questionnaire due to the tight timeline. Executive Secretary intervened to clarify that page 162 and 163 of the questionnaire report do contain details on which are the 26 countries and organizations that responded to the questionnaire. Answers were received from different groups as follows: Group 1 (total membership is 24) 10 countries, Group 2 (total membership is 11) 2 countries, Group 3 (total membership is 26), 7 countries; Group 4 (total membership is 24), 5 countries, Group V (total membership is 44), 2 countries. Half of the elected Working Group Member States responded. Summarizing the discussions under this agenda item the Chairman indicated that many countries found the questionnaire a very useful tool, while some found it difficult to respond fully. Some countries wanted to have an extended deadline and asked the Executive Secretary to provide for 2 more months to receive responses. The Working Group agreed that the analysis of the questionnaire responses provided a useful reference for discussion. The group also agreed that there will be no further refinement to the present questionnaire during this current process 4. RESPONDING TO CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES OVER THE COMING DECADE (2008-2017) The Afternoon session started at 2:00 PM and the Secretariat was requested to inform the participants about the new documents available as per decisions of the morning session. The new documents available were the ICSPRO agreement (1969) in French and English as well as the introductory presentations delivered by the Chairman and by Mr. McCue from Atkins during the morning session. All documents were added to the IOC website. 4.0 FUTURE OCEANOGRAPHY AND ROLE OF THE IOC, THE LONG TERM VISION This item was introduced by the IOC vice-chairman in charge of Programme and Budget, Mr. Neville Smith (Australia). His presentation addressed the existing Medium Term Strategy (MTS) of the IOC. He highlighted that a substantial debate on future strategic directions, for science, technology, systems and services, took place at the 39th Session of the IOC Executive Council and the results were confirmed at the 24th Assembly. In broad terms, the sense was captured in the Statement attached to the Resolution creating this Working Group which referred to the special challenges posed by climate change, sea-level rise, and the accelerating degradation of the marine environment simultaneously with attendant habitat and biodiversity losses, and the large loss of lives and livelihoods from marine-based natural hazards. That does, in his view, capture the over-arching future motivation and direction for what the IOC does. These thoughts are projected in more detail into the MTS, as adopted at the Assembly and grouped under three high level objectives 2.2 Safeguarding marine ecosystem health and integrated management 2.1 Addressing the impacts of climate change and variability, including sea level rise 3.1 Mitigating impacts from tsunamis and other marine hazards And also through two cross-cutting objectives of 2.3 Capacity-building, data and information services 2.4 General policy and coordination As the IOC vice-chairman in charge of Programme and Budget IOC, his view was that Member States have already agreed on IOC's future direction, confident that we matched the scientific and technical trends and requirements. If further confirmation was needed, it came through the UNESCO Conference and its strategic priorities which supported the IOC's emphasis on climate change adaptation and impacts and natural hazards and, ultimately through the fine work of many, including several in attendance, resulting in resource supplementation to undertake these tasks. As several members have noted, the survey strongly endorsed this strategic direction. Therefore, his introductory message is a) recognize the good works that have already been done, b) talk about the future but do not destroy the clarity and purpose that exists in the IOC's MTS; and c) recall that it is the Executive Council, not this Working Group that is truly responsible for setting scientific strategy and agreeing on the program. The group can add value here in the context of our overall mandate, but the energies might be best spent on other items. Japan was asked to intervene on this item as it was initially suggested by Japan. Dr. Yamagata, Head of Delegation, intervened to remind the group that, in order to foresee the future, it will also be important to examine the past. The late Prof. Hidaka of Tokyo University worked hard to introduce an international oceanographic body under ICSU in the 1950s with such world-leading oceanographers as Drs. Deacon, Sverdrup, Flemming and Bruun. The preliminary body was called International Advisory Committee of Marine Sciences (IACOMS). Due to lack of resources, they decided to ask UNESCO to take on this marine scientific advisory body. This was the forerunner of IOC, later established in 1960. The IOC was the result of a recommendation from the International Conference on Oceanic Research in Copenhagen, and endorsed at the 10th Assembly of UNESCO held in July 1960. Along these lines, this working group meeting is quite timely after the IOCs achievements over almost 50 years. As already mentioned by the early giants in oceanography, the IOC should strengthen its roles of leadership and coordination in ocean observations, ocean sciences and data management with capacity building activities for the world community. One specific concern raised here is that involvement of leading experts has now been decreasing. Under the global warming stresses and deteriorating marine environment, the roles of IOC are extremely important. Senegal indicated that substantial discussions are taking place at this meeting. Senegal is pleased to see that the IOC is reinforcing its capacity building activities in Africa sub Sahara. Senegal considers that in the long-term the possibility of having a more independent and strengthened IOC for dealing with ocean issues should not be discarded. In the mid-term, and keeping in mind the diversity of agencies dealing with ocean matters, there is a good opportunity for reinforcing partnerships with agencies working in fields where the IOC can provide technical assistance and help in capacity building. Canada's Delegate commented that in the long-term there are a number of emerging issues for which the IOC has not yet been recognized as having legal responsibility. Some are currently being handled by other agencies, whilst the IOC does have some work in progress on the extension of seabed resources and with drifting oceanographic instruments. However, there are also a number of issues dealt with under UNCLOS like Technology Transfer and transboundary effects of Marine Pollution that are largely ignored at the moment but that could devolve to the IOC or require assistance in the provision of coordinated scientific evidence. There are also arising issues that are not dealt with under UNCLOS like genetic resources in the international ocean and international MPAs. With regard to the mid-term, the priorities are well addressed by the MTS as stated by the IOC vice chairman in charge of Programme and Budget, but the group should also look a little beyond and connect with the work done by UNESCO on Capacity Building. Portugal intervened to express that the existing IOC mandate, if provided with adequate resources, provides a solution for dealing with current and future requirements. The IOC started with large expeditions because many ocean areas were unknown at that time, i.e. the Indian Ocean. Later on, living marine resources and programmes addressing coastal issues, including living marine resources, were established. The IOC needs to maintain effective regional subsidiary bodies to be able to keep this reactivity. As well, the IOC has been able to react to UNCLOS and also to the UNCED, modifying our Statutes as required. The IOC has been able to respond with its existing mechanisms. On specific issues, Climate Change and its effect on oceans is of concern for Portugal from specific issues on heat exchange in the oceans to coastal impacts. At the same time for Portugal and perhaps for many other countries, coastal zone management and water quality control in coastal areas are very relevant, particularly because of tourism interests. Deep sea issues also need to be addressed, especially the biodiversity aspects, and should be in the IOC's activities. In connection with fisheries there is finally a new trend regarding a management scheme for fisheries based on Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) and ecological regions where the IOC should have a role. In short, the IOC does not need to have a prospective study or invent what will emerge but to keep the mechanisms for good adaptive capacities, including effective regional subsidiary bodies. Joint specialized mechanisms for science, for observations and for capacity building should be also developed. The group should note previous decisions of governing bodies and decisions from UN fora and adapt as needed. For China, the IOC, as an organization for marine science and ocean services, should make full use of its advantages and do what others could not do and take the lead, in such fields as of ocean observation, ocean services, forecasting and marine hazards and disaster mitigation, (such as GOOS, ARGO and GRAME) and make them flagship programs or projects of the IOC.. Second, the IOC should make more effort in responding to the hot issues, especially, in the areas that UNCED, AGENDA 21 and WSSD called for.. For example, in the field of climate change, the protection of the marine biodiversity, and the ecosystem-based management, though they are all covered by IOC programs, should be more prominent, and not only follow others. Third, with regard to the relation with the UNCLOS, the IOC already has a few activities in this regard, but could go further. The UNCLOS covers almost all aspects of the ocean, especially providing guiding principles for the sustainable development of marine environment and its resources, emphasizing that the Integrated Marine Management is one of the important measures to reach the goal. These are in accordance with the goal set forth in the 2nd article of the Statute of the IOC. Whether the IOC could become one of the main functional organizations for implementing UNCLOS needs further discussion, but its possible that the IOC could at least take, as one of its important responsibilities, the implementation of relevant provisions of UNCLOS, and evolve gradually towards an organization which is science-based and has the function of ocean management, thus filling a gap within the UN system. France does not think there are really new issues with respect to what has already been addressed by the MTS. The question before the Working Group is how to respond to these issues already identified. In that sense, there are some views looking for the IOC to be the WMO for the oceans: this is a limited approach bearing in mind that WMO's mandates and tasks are very simple and all related to weather forecast and now climate, while IOC addresses a series of complex issues. There are two issues here: 1) the required Secretariat and 2) the implementation. Those two things are different. The IOC should not be a financial agency but the Secretariat should keep the IOC programmes alive while leaving the implementation to Member States, including raising funds for international cooperation. Madagascar noted that 50 years is a long time ahead and speculated it not highly probably to be able to predict the future position of GOOS. Madagascar stated it is necessary to look at global questions such as: Should the IOC be under the Natural Science Sector in 50 years or be independent. Brazil seconded comments from Australia, Canada, France, Portugal and Madagascar. The IOC has a set of priorities for the next 5 years. In the long run the identification of priorities is probably not possible. The task before the group is to identify how best to use the available resources. Portugal emphasized a new demand is in front of the IOC: the concept of sustainable development implies integrated management including ecosystem socio-economic and environmental aspects. This implies an intersectoral approach for the IOC to concentrate on its own priorities but keeping a capacity for reacting to new demands where scientific information is a key element for adapting and for facilitating intergovernmental decision-making processes. He recalled in his intervention the Purpose of the IOC (Article 2.1.) and supported Frances views on the clear differences in complexities of issues being addressed by WMO and the IOC. The Executive Secretary intervened to say resources have been shrinking due to a very diverse list of tasks and growing charges. He provided WMO/IOC comparative figures in terms of funding and staff to illustrate the problems faced by the IOC. The Chairman summarized discussions under this item. She noted that the future of oceanography calls for a series of relevant current challenges that would probably remain for at least a few years and possibly much longer. She reminded the participants that they were here to address some of the challenges for the near-term, bearing in mind the long-term vision, but looking for immediate solutions. 4.1 IOC MANDATE AND FUTURE NEEDS The Chairman indicated that we need ensure that this group discussion and suggestions add value to the existing MTS and the biennial working plans, which the IOC governing bodies have already been able to agree upon and decide. She then introduced this item by suggesting that, in view of comments already expressed by delegates in previous items the working group could agree that IOC Program priorities as they are now are right and any adjustment to that should be done at the Executive Council or Assembly and we may move on to implementation of these priorities. Australia indicated its agreement with the proposal from the Chairman and expressed that those priorities be taken as given and move to the next item to discuss more substantial issues. Portugal agreed with Australia but nevertheless commented that the group should reply to the question about the relevance of the mandate in view of the challenges ahead. For Portugal the present Statutes or any future instrument that eventually may be adopted, could build on the present purpose statement as contained in the Statutes. The existing mandate can respond to the current challenges and can be adapted in its present form to future challenges. The IOC has a clear mechanism to allow its governing bodies to adapt, provided that the means and the capacity to accept new requirements is maintained and ensured. With respect to future needs, Portugal believes that because of the new nature of scientific research on the oceans and because of societal requirements for development and management, the most relevant challenge is to be able to respond with interdisciplinarity to a variety of stakeholders. In connection with this Portugal suggests the negotiation of partnerships with other agencies (FAO, WMO, IMO, and UNEP and any other as required) with a view of eventually acting on behalf or in agreement with other agencies in order to increase efficiency. Finally, the delegate of Portugal suggested further clarifying the relation and liaison between the IOC Member States and UNESCO's main programmes. The Russian Federation agreed with Australia in that the present priorities are suitable. With respect to priorities, all 5 first priorities proposed in the Chairmans introduction need to be examined as a group, while Ocean Observation and Data Information and Management are tools. The Chairman clarified that the list of priorities suggested in her presentation was just an example, with a more comprehensive list available under the MTS. She further agreed with Portugal's comments on the need to respond with interdisciplinarity to a variety of stakeholders. Germany thanked the Chairman for the clarification and asked what it really means to have a list of priorities. It further questioned the placement of additional issues beyond these priorities and whether or not they should be placed under existing ones. Additionally, they questioned the clarity of the definition of the IOCs function and the resources available to discharge that definition of function. India suggested the question of the efficiency of the IOC could be answered by reviewing it ability to respond to the different aspects of its mandate and then defining how to improve. Senegal reacted to the list presented by the Chairman and suggested introducing management aspects, especially specific to African countries and related to Capacity Building. Africa can of course participate in the ocean observation programmes but need the capacity to use the oceanographic data and information for societal issues. He used the example of illegal fishing. Cuba stressed that changing the mandate of IOC would take a huge effort as per previous experiences, for example the discussions of DOSS-II. Assuming the mandate remains as in the Statutes, then the needs for the near future are: Find new mechanisms to lever financial resources for IOC; Suggest to Executive Council readjustment of programmes to fit the resources available; Look at human resources available and to improve management processes within the available human resources. Norway stated its agreement with the Chairman's statement and Australia's views that there is no need for this group to review the overall mandate of the IOC and suggested that the working group could agree that IOC Program priorities as they are now are right and any adjustment to that should be done at the Executive Council or Assembly. The group needs to explore how to increase visibility at a higher level, with proper recognition and associated resources. GOOS, IODE, Hazard monitoring and mitigation are issues where the IOC does well and should continue. IOC is not a relevant actor in fisheries and should not be a leader in that area. Some partnerships for concrete activities should be established (i.e. with ISDR for using a multi-hazard approach). Recognizing that the mandate is broad, defining priorities and providing focus is a requirement. In other words, focus and prioritization are necessary to increase visibility. Canada recalled the Terms of Reference of the group. Priorities and mandate are not in the remit of this Working Group. The focus should be on identifying difficulties. They suggested that delivery could be improved through use of external opportunities and better management of limited resources. The Executive Secretary recalled the 5 UNESCO functions: (a) a laboratory of ideas, (b) a clearing house, (c) a standard-setter, (d) a capacity-builder of Member States, and (e) a catalyst for international cooperation. The IOC has not been very prominent in functions (a) and (b). The Chairman summarized the consensus on the MTS being the main guidance and not new issues. The discussion highlighted the need to define how to implement these priorities. 4.2 STRUCTURAL, INSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS The Chairman introduced this item recalling the main issues that have been discussed in different meetings and documents, in terms of options for structure, institutional arrangements and legal requirements: The possible future of the IOC could be outside UN The possible future of the IOC could be outside UNESCO The possible future of the IOC could be as an independent organization inside the UN The possible future of the IOC could be as an independent specialized organization outside of the UN The possible future of the IOC would be to remain in UNESCO taking advantage of a renewed and improved partnership arrangement, whilst pursuing other avenues for support and resources. Canada indicated that there is no surprise that in the responses to the questionnaires a trend emerged in order to keep the current status of the IOC within UNESCO. Even if in a few decades the IOC may grow and has a different view on these aspects, it is not useful to open a discussion on other options at this stage. However, there might be ways and means of increasing the efficiency of the IOC by making better use of cross-sectorial avenues within UNESCO to raise funds or define partnerships to increase resources available to the IOC. Canada also believes that having weak links with national entities is a real problem and wonders why, 15 years after having urged Member States to establish Oceanographic Committees, this problem continues. The delegate questions whether or not it is feasibly to continue these efforts. Cuba considers that the IOC should stay within UNESCO. Cuba also agrees with Canada that a real national representation of Member States at the IOC is required. True national representation is required at the Commission. To that end a clear interaction of IOC Focal Points with UNESCO's National Commissions and national delegates to the UNESCO General Conference is necessary. A recent positive example is the effective intervention of UNESCO Member States at the General Conference that allowed for an increased assignation to the IOC. Cuba acknowledged the important role Dr. Narayanan played in this process. The Russian Federation indicated that the results of the analysis of the questionnaire coincide with Russian Federation views. Future proposals in terms of expansion of services for example, would be consistent with the Medium Term Strategy; if IOC's coordination of operational oceanography is successful then more resources and visibility for the IOC at the international level should be expected. Mechanisms for the transition could be explored, as for example an agreement between countries, for example those involved in GOOS, on a number of concrete items (i.e. observing systems, data exchange, products, financial contributions). Portugal pointed out that the question of remaining or not within UNESCO is too premature with respect to the work of the group, as this would be one of the final conclusions after discussing the different options. Portugal believes that the immediate framework is to try to improve the present arrangement with UNESCO and the cooperation with other agencies. On the structural issues, for Portugal the immediate problem to be solved is to define a minimum budget contribution of UNESCO to the IOC. All Directors General have been sympathetic to the IOC's role on ocean international cooperation but when coming to allocation of resources at the General Conference this does not translate into actual fresh resources. A senior staff member should be looking at these matters For Portugal the institutional and legal issues should be kept for a second round of discussion. The ICSPRO agreement could be revisited at that opportunity, to optimize ways and means of increasing delivering capacities of the IOC. A governmental conference in 2010 could be a good opportunity for this second round and this may coincide with the 50th Anniversary celebration. The commemoration of the IOC's anniversary in connection with a renewed commitment from its Member States may be indeed a very good signal and public relations supplementary activity. The United States pointed out that some of the comments refer to relationships with UNESCO and with other organizations and may fall within item 4.5 but are going to treat these as an unit. When it comes to the question of IOC remaining or not within UNESCO the USA would probably want to survey other independent organizations to find out if it would be easier to get contributions to support the work of the IOC simply as an independent organization and does not necessarily believe this will be the conclusion. The United States also recognizes, as previous speakers have, that since the IOC Assembly meeting in June there have been some changes, particularly at the UNESCO General Conference, thanks to the leadership provided by Brazil and other countries. If the IOC is important and vital for Member States then its role should be taken into the UNESCO forum as happened at the last General Conference. It seems however that there is still work to be done in that regard. For the United States institutional arrangements are a tool for delivering a mandate, and if people understand the importance of the IOC, success should be attainable in other fora too. In that sense institutional arrangements like memoranda of understanding with partner organizations should be beyond just UNESCO and UN agencies and programmes, but also with private organizations or other organizations like foundations that may help the IOC to deliver on capacity building on ocean matters. Brazil indicated that the IOC plays an important role within UNESCO and should keep that role. The actual framework seems to work well while in need of improvement. That said, the problem should be more clearly defined to determine appropriate improvements to be made. For example some interventions have addressed the need for partnerships but the mechanism for partnerships already exist in Article 11 of the Statutes, including partnership arrangements, begging the question why are these tools not being fully used? Venezuela also agrees that the IOC should stay within UNESCO. The delegate of Venezuela emphasized that the IOC is mandated for scientific and technical research on marine sciences and under this mandate Venezuela has been able to coordinate and develop activities in this field linked with IOC. He referred also to IOCARIBE that may develop better if resources are provided. In the view of Venezuela the IOC should refrain from initiating activities outside of its mandate,,for example on fisheries research or management that is a field of activity led by FAO. Madagascar expressed the view that the IOC is getting bigger and bigger with its programmes within the Natural Science Sector. Looking to the next 10 or 20 years, if the IOC continues to grow, at some point it will not be able to expand within the Natural Science Sector. It may be necessary to think of the present arrangement as one of a transition position within UNESCO. The delegate of Japan suggested an important way to get stronger support for the IOC within UNESCO. To achieve the needs for the climate change issue, one of the most important mandates of the IOC, integrated, intersectorial, and interdisciplinary approaches must be introduced. For example, coastal regions are most endangered by the climate change through marine hazards such as storm surges, sea level rise, and at the same time they are influenced by deterioration of forest and river conditions in addition to marine environment. Along these lines, one possible way forward is to develop intersectorial programmes under close cooperation with IHP, MAB and the International Geological Correlation Programme within UNESCO, which will assist in receiving stronger support from UNESCO and result in more visibility to IOC activities. Senegal recalled its morning intervention referring to the long-term and recognizing that ocean affairs develop and evolve in a broader framework that the one defined by UNESCO. In the short-term and mid-term Senegal would like the IOC to be the only operator for all activities directly related to oceans within UNESCO, including educational aspects. Therefore, the challenge is to find a mechanism to transfer funds from other areas that will be coordinated by IOC but will integrate with other sectors. Germany expressed the view that there seems to be consensus in that the IOC should stay within UNESCO. Germany fully shares the warning voice raised by the United States with respect to the improbable financial viability of the IOC outside of UNESCO. Therefore the option before the IOC is to strengthen its position within UNESCO. Germany suggested that instead of a new Conference at Ministerial Level, as suggested by Portugal, the best option is to organize an IOC Assembly at Ministerial level. A relevant issue here is how to intensify the commitment of Governments with the IOC, including how to better perform in terms of preparation of meetings, and not only how to interact better with National Commissions. Germany expressed its full support to the Russian Federation' suggestion of having specific agreement between some interested countries, for example those involved in GOOS, on a number of concrete items like observing systems, data exchange, and financial contributions. The Vice-Chairperson for Electoral Group III (Colombia) noted there is a growing consensus on the way forward, including developing different aspects of sustainable management of the marine environment, and improving internal decision making processes within Member States. There seems also to be an agreement that establishing the IOC outside of UNESCO would require more resources that are not automatically available. The consensus seems to be to seek a better implementation of IOC programmes, for example on Climate Change and marine related natural hazards, but within UNESCO, focusing in a limited set of priorities that will show clear results. Portugal answered Germany's consideration of an Intergovernmental Conference recalling that this was suggested by IOC Officers in document IOC-XXIV/2 Annex 2: that proposed "an Extraordinary Session of the Assembly [in 2008], where an initial agreement among the Member States of the IOC could take place leading to the organization of an Intergovernmental Oceanographic Conference for the year 2010". If more time is required to appropriately organize such a meeting then this decision should possibly be moved to the 25th Assembly in 2009. Portugal is open minded regarding the nature of an agreement to be discussed at that opportunity. India aligned itself with the majority views expressed regarding the questionnaire responses and at this meeting in that the IOC should remain within UNESCO. Regarding the time devoted by staff to organizing meetings he asked if this could be outsourced. As well, current developments within World Heritage Center are suggesting terms of new mechanisms for staffing, which could be also explored by the IOC. France reaffirmed that there is a consensus that the IOC should remain within UNESCO but the question would be where in UNESCO. If expansion is the goal of the IOC, then a specific place and role within UNESCO may be necessary. The question should at least be posed. Following suggestions by the Russian Federation and Germany for specific funding agreements, the critical path is to have committed financial agreements, which are very few and not easy to put in place, as the experience available within WMO shows. Mexico expressed support of the views that the IOC should remain within UNESCO. Addressing the recognition of the IOC within UNESCO, he had the view that it is UNESCO itself, including its IOC, that has visibility problems. As far as the issue of the IOC not being fully visible to Member States, perhaps establishing National Committees may help to overcome this problem and, in that sense, Mexico would welcome any effort to reinforce National Oceanographic Committees. The Executive Secretary expressed that it has been a very rich discussion and some ideas are very valuable and we shouldn't let them disappear. He clarified that the IOC is not a Program of the Science Sector (Major Programme II: Natural Sciences), is not a Division but instead an autonomous body with functional autonomy, with its own Statutes but not a Convention. He further expanded on the structure of the UNESCO Programme and Budget, its sectoral priorities, main lines of actions and activities. With respect to India's inquiry about alternative staff hiring procedures he signaled that the World Heritage Center (WHC) is using new mechanisms for hiring staff and fully using temporary hiring mechanisms, already available in UNESCO. The tools WHC is using are the same that the IOC is using i.e. Limited Duration Assignments (ALDs), that is used for almost all the Tsunami Coordination Unit staff. Responding to Brazil's comment about the use of the tools that are already available, the Executive Secretary expressed that the IOC has some tools that are not fully used, particularly Article 10 of the Statutes that provides ample possibilities for establishing arrangements with Member States or donors. Governing bodies of UNESCO and the IOC have a lot of power to establish new financial arrangements just by using Article 10 and this is not being used fully, probably because governance mechanisms do not make it easy to assign budget from other activities within UNESCO to IOC. To put it in other terms, repeating the extraordinary decision of the UNESCO 34th General Conference to assign resources at the level of $500,000 for the IOC by reducing the same amount in another activity or program in UNESCO would be extremely difficult. Conversely, the IOC does use actively the IOC Special Account with voluntary contributions that are addressed to main programmatic priorities as decided by IOC governing bodies. Portugal thanked the Executive Secretary for the explanation. He urged mobilizing IOC Member States through its UNESCO Permanent Delegations to UNESCO. A small group could be established to develop and to establish a strategy to strength the position of IOC within UNESCO. The Chairman summarized, indicating that some very good ideas had been put forward during the meeting and suggested a small sessional drafting group to develop a specific action document with short term actions, building on the good ideas suggested at this first day meeting. Volunteers for this group were Mr. Geoff Holland (Canada), Mr. Jack Dunnigan (USA), Mr. Guillermo Garcia (Cuba), Mr. Nicolai Mikhailov (Russian Federation), Dr. Yamagata (Japan), Prof. Mario Ruivo (Portugal) and Dr. Bakhayokho (Senegal). 4.3 FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS, OTHER RESOURCES AND MEASURES TO ENSURE AN EFFECTIVE AND STEADY PROGRAMME The Chairman introduced this item by reminding the group that some options have been identified for financial arrangements during IOC meetings and in Member States' responses to the questionnaire, including: Adopting a Protocol or Convention which would include an agreement on assessed contributions; Creation of a new negotiated agreement with UNESCO that sets a new long-term budget; Establishment of a regime of assessed additional MS contributions using Article 10 of the statutes (Financial and other resources). The Chairman indicated that a decision on financial arrangements will require a clear timetable and definition of the process required to achieve the goal of financial stability. Portugal proposed consideration of a pledging system, noting prior discussion at IOC/DOSS and IOC/FURES meetings and other arrangements within UNESCO such as the one of the World Heritage Center (WHC). Portugal encouraged new priority be given to supporting global IOC implementation through regional bodies, where those subsidiary bodies could play an effective role for programme implementation. China, considering the need for increased funding for the IOC, proposed expanded collaboration with funding agencies like GEF and the World Bank. The IOC could support and encourage subsidiary bodies to develop proposals for regional components of the IOC core programme to be submitted to these funding agencies to increase the financial capabilities of the IOC and benefits to Member States. Canada expressed the view that a convention or similar arrangement could increase the stability of regular funding. However this is probably not a viable solution in the short-term since it may take 10 years or more to negotiate and enter into force. Canada noted that while short-term, extrabudgetary funds might be raised through the Secretariat or Member State proposal development to donors, this option may over-burden a Secretariat already busy with core programme implementation. Canada queried whether the IOC could request funding agencies such as the World Bank or regional banks to consider the loan of staff to the IOC to facilitate development of fundraising proposals. Argentina expressed its willingness to review the merits of an arrangement, or convention to give sustainability to the IOC, consolidate the IOCs structure and address other pending issues such as data exchange and access. Argentina encouraged further review of the use of Article 10 of Statutes, in parallel with consideration of a Convention. It noted some successful financial arrangements in UNESCO, such as the World Heritage Fund. With respect to a "new negotiated agreement," Argentina requested clarification on whether this refers to a negotiated agreement between Member States or between Member States and UNESCO. The Chairman clarified that if there is a possibility of more direct allocations to the IOC from UNESCO, then this could be explored and formalized as a new negotiated agreement. Canada added there might be a misunderstanding about what a convention could add to the IOC. No other body within UNESCO has more autonomy within UNESCO than the IOC. Therefore a convention will not improve autonomy, unless the IOC is considering being an Institute, which provides full autonomy. However, the trend is that Member States in UNESCO do not want to commit to fix assessed contributions through conventions. The World Heritage Convention has a particular clause on contributions but no other convention has replicated this approach thus far. With respect to the methodology, Canada clarified that the process for negotiating a convention begins with the General Conference asking the Director General to proceed with a study that is tabled for consideration at the next General Conference. Conventions take several years to negotiate, even when supported by substantial political will. Canada recalled that the Underwater Cultural Heritage Convention, which was negotiated in a relatively short six year process, has not yet entered into force because ratifications are very slow. Brazil stated concerns about the added value of a convention and about the time this may take to negotiate.. Furthermore, inclusion of a pledging system would require even more time to negotiate. Brazil noted prior discussion of options for mobilizing financial support, e.g., an interim report of DOSS-2 (Study Group on IOC Development, Operations, Structure and statutes- DOSS-2, Southampton, United Kingdom, 13-1 7 January 1997, Interim Report, pg 29 and 33) One DOSS-2 option was to establish rules like those existing in WHC linking nomination in governing bodies with funding commitments, which was finally not adopted as an option by Member States. Member States rejected the introduction of two categories of membership, those that contribute and those that do not. For the short-term, Brazil requested more information from the Secretariat on how the IOC Special Account is working, and how it may be improved. Australia agreed with Brazil on the need to consider all implications of a pledging system mirroring the WHC approach and also recalled that this system was explored and Member States had decided not to follow that option. Australia stated that introducing specific product lines and services in UNESCO is productive and useful for financial stability. The recent General Conference proved that sound arguments can attract support and funding. Of course the acceptance of new money carries the responsibility of delivering the associated programs. Even if IOC is small, it is extremely well considered in UNESCO, an opinion confirmed at the Review of Sciences Programmes. Australia will not support any convention or similar instruments at the Executive Council. None of the problems mentioned during the meeting suggest that a structural change is needed now. The only clear challenge is funding. The problem is that many are trying to access the IOC and its capacity is overtaxed. Just testing and increasing the IOC efficiency should help. Reinforcing regional mechanisms has been mentioned several times. Australia noted program and institutional overlaps between global and regional IOC levels and encouraged a review to strengthen the IOC organizationally and eliminate overlaps United States thanked the many contributions given this morning, because the group is finally addressing essential issues. For some of our delegations we think that there is a need for changes of some sort therefore we can go back home and indicate a need for a greater commitment. Nobody has really denied that revitalizing commitments from countries is needed to strengthen some vital functions of the IOC. For some countries there is a need for some instrument to do that. The United States shares the views of Australia, Brazil, Canada and other countries that there are dangers and pitfalls in discussing a new convention. In practical terms this might not be an easy task. As well the need to recognize that for many countries present at the meeting the nature of the problem is slightly different and the discussions at this group enable understanding of those differences and specific concerns. With respect to the negotiation within UNESCO the IOC must be recognized as a creature of UNESCO. So in essence, IOC is the child who wants to negotiate with the parents over who gets to drive the car. It is necessary to cast around and look at priorities of UNESCO and try to understand how IOC can improve its delivery while serving the more general main thrusts of UNESCO. That can be done through governments. There are many other critical priorities in UNESCO namely on education and cultural heritage and it is necessary to be able to level up with the ones that relate to the IOC mandate. The Delegate of United States expressed that whatever is done in terms of new financial mechanisms it is necessary to look beyond governments, and also beyond World Bank and GEF. It is further necessary to think about the private donor community and the private sector. If there is to be new instruments then thinking in partnerships with private sector interests and foundations is a worthwhile thing to do. Germany shared fully the concerns expressed by many previous speakers about the non-feasible option of discussing new instruments. If the main objective is to mobilize more public money then this is unrealistic as a mechanism. Germany itself is not looking to increase contributions to UN organizations. Instead, very specific arrangements to fulfill oceanographic tasks, for example for GOOS, including financial agreements could be more productive. The Chairman commented on the initiative of Angus McEwan in getting more commitments for GOOS, noting this was not successful at that time and questioning the possibility of more willingness on the Member States part now to follow that approach. She concluded that it would be very useful if the meeting could agree that this is a possible option and she invited comments of Member States on this issue. Norway joined previous speakers that are hesitant to explore the option of a new Convention or similar tool. There are many unknowns on that option. As the United States delegate stated, it is necessary to be realistic, look for improving work and in this way show that the IOC is worthy of funding, while increasing access to GEF and similar funding sources. The IOC should be more focused and visible, and be cooperating with other agencies and GEF. Croatia indicated that the discussion was finally touching on the real problem, which is lack of resources. Croatia also joined previous speakers in agreeing that a new convention protocol or agreement will not resolve by itself the existing problems, but may postpone the solution to real problems. According to Croatia's views the Statutes give sufficient room for discussing and solving the funding problem, in particular through Article 10. The problem is not the legal text but perhaps the implementation of Article 10. Croatia agrees that we should look into private funding sources and also some regional cooperation in the fields of the IOC's expertise should be encouraged, to find additional funding. The Chairman asked the Executive Secretary to explain specific rules or guidelines for private partnerships under UNESCO. The Executive Secretary indicated that there are guidelines for Public-private partnerships. The UN and UNESCO have significantly improved the mechanisms for interacting with the private sector, setting rules that care for preservation of the intergovernmental mandate and governance mechanisms. Therefore, there are clear guidance and mechanisms for interacting with private sector in UN and UNESCO. The delegate of Portugal, commenting on Australia's statement about its position at the next Executive Council on possible institutional arrangements, intervened to maintain a logical sequence in the discussions and concentrate on the financial alternatives at this point. He suggested avoiding final statements about the work of the group but to proceed step by step. With regard to relationships with UNESCO with the specificity of finances and staffing, Portugal thinks that the IOC must to look to other agencies. He joined Brazil, Norway and Croatia supporting the need to look at other agencies when looking at resources for the IOC, because that refers not only to money but also for other kinds of support. France thanked the delegations for a very fruitful discussion as France also joins other countries with regard to the necessity of reinforcing the IOC within UNESCO. With respect to the possibility of a Convention, France shares the prudent approach expressed by many other delegations. France joins Croatia and Portugal and others in the need to look into synergies and partnerships as Australia also mentioned. On the financial mechanisms, France agreed with Germany's views in that agreements for specific activities should be explored, as well as new uses of Article 10 as Argentina proposed. Peru agreed with previous speakers and suggested that a consensus arises on the following points: that we should first of all look at UNESCO, following the example of Brazil at the last General Conferences; that increased financial commitment from Member States is very troublesome for many countries; that we have to look for imaginative solutions using existing mechanisms and including partnerships with other agencies, join projects, services, studies; and, finally that the partnership with regional bodies, i.e. the Permanent Commission for the South East Pacific (CPPS), are very important as this has been recently proved by IOC getting CPPS funds for technical activities in the region. Peru expressed concern about the severe stress that exploring a new formula both in administrative and financial terms would impose on smaller countries. Senegal joined previous speakers on the importance of regional approaches for mobilizing resources and the role of the IOC as a catalyst for establishing regional programs, built with Member States and helping to find funds to solve concrete problems of Member States. Cuba suggested that there is a missing theme in the discussion, which is the scarcity of resources. Indeed, the diminishing funding calls for prioritization of programmes. A number of previous reports analyze these issues. Obviously prioritizing is painful and difficult but having a full bag of activities without prioritization is not solving the problem. Refusing to face the need to prioritize and reduce IOC programmes contributes to the problem. Without adequate support of the IOC within UNESCO, regular resources shrink and prioritization and reduction activities and programmes becomes necessary. If resources do not increase then the programmes and activities of the IOC must be reduced. Cuba shared the views of Senegal about regional implementation but with the caution that we have to solve the extreme bureaucracy that UNESCO imposes for regional activities. The United Kingdom agreed with comments from various Member States in considering subsequent general items before deciding on financial mechanisms. Increased support from Member States through UNESCO is something that the United Kingdom has pursued and is showing to be a successful approach. The United Kingdom believes that the IOC is an example to other international science programmes within UNESCO and is using this message to try and improve efficiencies within the UNESCO system. It also believes that there are opportunities for synergies with some other international science programmes especially in relation to Climate Change and this could be used for increased partnerships and support within UNESCO and with other agencies and other UN Programmes. The United Kingdom contributions to UNESCO are routed through the International Development Department (DFID) whereas our Environment Department primarily supports UNEP. United Kingdom joined United States in stating that Member States should take advantage of the different mechanism within each country to maximize the money going into marine science programmes. About involving industry, and having in mind the priority many Member States expressed for GOOS in the questionnaire, we need to think about the appropriate mix between long-term structures and measurement networks and short-term financing of observational projects, typically supported by the industry. Venezuela supported the need for the IOC to remain in UNESCO which is its natural framework. With respect to financial needs, Venezuela is of the view also that delegates should lobby their respective governments and stimulate cooperation programmes which have regional impact. In that sense, reviewing national legislations to streamline marine science institutional frameworks could help. Canada recalled that the group has so far discussed the quantity of support but not the stability of support which is as important. Perhaps one simple solution would be to review Member States contributions to the IOC Special Account or Trust Funds and look for mid-term commitments (say up to 5-6 years). Japan indicated its agreement with most of the concerns previously expressed. For Japan, it is obvious that the IOC is facing financial problems and a shortage of budget. In that connection, Cuba's proposal to reduce programmes is also shared by Japan. For Japan, Climate Change and its relation with oceans is a priority as a global issue that relates directly with the IOC mandate. However in the regions, coastal issues are also important, in connection with Climate Change. At this point Japan proposes to have systematic review mechanisms for programme implementation that they feel is a currently weak. The Chairman summarized saying the idea of a Convention had little support at this stage. Private Partnerships are an option supported by several countries. Canada proposed to look for longer-term commitments from Member States contributing to the IOC Special Account and Trust Funds. As well, for this group, Member States have a major role to play in streamlining internal coordination and through this there is room for improving Member States commitments with the IOC, through UNESCO and through other international programmes and UN agencies. The Executive Secretary commented on Peru's intervention about regional bodies. The IOC indeed can develop synergies with those bodies. This is in contrast to the regional approach of UNESCO and the IOC. It is necessary to look very carefully into the effectiveness of regional deployment. If priorities must be set, the IOCs regional offices should be carefully and objectively assessed. Responding to Cuba's comments about the heavy UNESCO bureaucracy for regional implementation, he indicated that for having a field office with administrative capacities there are requirements in terms of staffing that are out of the reach of the IOC. The modality of implementation of the IOC's programmes in regions should be closely looked at. We should rely more on existing UNESCO regional structures, with administrative support, rather than developing our own field network. 4.4 IMPROVING INVOLVEMENT OF MEMBER STATES The Chairman introduced this item by referring to the main aspects to be discussed under this agenda item. The question is: what steps need to be undertaken to increase Member States involvement in the IOC and with what timeline? Member States were requested to inform the plenary on their own level of involvement at a national level with the IOC, how the internal coordination is effected and what commitments could Member States take to improve involvement. Canada introduced at this stage the comments provided by Member States in the sessional drafting group that was tasked to develop a specific action document with short-term actions, building on the ideas suggested at this meeting. The sessional group considered the responsibilities of Member States in relation to many of the issues facing the Commission, in particular, the problems related to the designation of national contact points and the support available to the many IOC programmes. These actions, including the possibility of renewing with Member States, their obligations and responsibilities as given in the revised Statutes, were discussed in detail and agreed upon as conclusions of the Working Group first meeting, under item 5.0 below. Tunisia stressed that the IOC is not as well known in Tunisia as UNEP or FAO. The delegate of Tunisia believes that this is due to the relatively small size of the marine research community working on oceanography and marine sciences in Tunisia. This in turn translates into few and weak links with policy-making and management bodies. In his view, and following France's comments about renewed commitments, Member States must assume their responsibilities and increase their commitment and at the same time IOC needs to improve its communication mechanisms towards Member States decision-makers. China has no problem with its internal coordination on IOC matters. An interministerial coordination with all ocean related ministries is in place and official nomination of delegates is routine. If improvements are needed it is when IOC communicates with the many academic institutions in China, t It is important to coordinate and notify the IOC national coordinating body to ensure proper internal arrangements and coordination. Venezuela has a national oceanographic commission established in 1985 but new committees and bodies have been established for coastal matters, for example the Instituto Nacional para Areas Costeras. Therefore, Venezuela is now discussing a new instrument (Decree) to coordinate across these bodies. As suggested by the sessional drafting group, Venezuela supports improving communications and appealing to Member States to get more committed. Venezuela also suggested better use of media and maintaining support to subsidiary regional bodies. Australia commented that while it is true that the recognition of IOC was low within Australia; however this has recently been enhanced as a consequence of arrangements subsequent to the Dec 26 2004 tsunami, and work associated with GOOS and IODE. IOC is not on the critical path for delivering Government policy except in a few specific areas. One conclusion Australia draws is that enhanced visibility within the Informal Consultative Process (ICP) for UNCLOS, and in partnerships with UNEP brings attention from parts of Government. With respect to National Commissions/focal points there seems to be a change as we shift from a predominant focus on science, to an organization associated with services and systems, including information systems and CB. It is slow, but re-alignment is taking place. Low level of coordination is not the only and definite factor that hampers our effectiveness working with the Commission, or in attracting investment in oceanography. There are many other factors that are higher on that list. Australia noted that similar conclusions with WMO might have been drawn there is no significant visibility of WMO in EMA, bushfire agencies, and other major clients of Meteological services. The Bureau of Meteorology is visible, as an agent of WMO, but not WMO itself. However, the level of visibility fits the purpose. Australia is looking with interest at the proposal described by Canada, as it emerged from the sessional drafting group. It fits very well with reforms of the Budget and Programme. It would grab the attention of Policy levels in Government, in a positive and constructive way. It would reinforce the idea that when programmes are undertaken the responsibility and accountability lies most of the Member States, not with the Secretariat. It should be possible to reflect the sustainability and endurability as it exists with our Governments in the work of the Commission. It would even be more effective if in parallel with renewing vows with the Commission to find ways of renewing vows with partners as UNEP, WMO and others, that would enhance co-investments in IOC activities. Japan reported that it has a long history of national coordination and commitment with the IOC. The delegate of Japan recalled that, based on the recommendation of FURES in 1992, Japan made every effort to vitalize its national coordination mechanisms for the IOC. Furthermore, taking the opportunity of the forthcoming 50th anniversary, and in order to further revitalize its national coordination mechanisms for the IOC, Japan has just reformulated an advisory mechanism for the National Committee for the IOC to cope with the need of having highly scientific expert level inputs, and intersectorial coordination from a broader range of experts. Japan suggested making IOC's programmes more active through regional integrated projects, promoting coastal area management programmes to give more visibility at the national level (i.e. protection from coastal hazards, prevention of pollution effects on the coastal environment). In order to activate regional programmes, global and regional programmes should be much more consistent than they are now. Closer cooperation with other bodies inside and outside UNESCO is required for coastal programmes. The Russian Federation delegate underlined the fact that Russian Federation has also revitalized its national coordination mechanism for IOC, with a National Commission headed by the Ministry of Science and Technology. The Russian Federation agreed with reinvigorating Member States commitment and sending a letter as suggested by the sessional drafting committee. Some improvement is required in the way the IOC communicates, for example under Resolution XXIV.2 (Strategy for 2008-2009) here are no clear instructions to Member States on how to achieve the expected results. The United Kingdom delegate reported that the IOC is not well known even in the marine community while, some IOC programmes like GOOS are better known. However, the United Kingdom has an interagency coordination body that does not make policy but does inform policy bodies. Also, the Secretary of this interagency coordination body participates at the UNESCO National Commission. Last year a parliamentary consultation took place concerning coordination of intergovernmental bodies. The IOC was mentioned in that document, which recommended pursuing commitments for the implementation of GOOS, sustained funding for the United Kingdom participation in ARGOS and renewed commitments for international organizations dealing with oceans, including the IOC. Therefore there are good reasons to believe that the profile of the IOC and its subsidiary programmes is increasing in the United Kingdom and there are mechanisms to improve that further. Norway reported that there is low awareness of the IOC in Norway, both for individual scientists and relevant authorities. Scientists and relevant institutions do contribute to and recognize several of the IOC's activities which are much better known than the IOC itself. In the past 2 years, the visibility of the IOC in Norway has increased in the National Commission for UNESCO and stepped up the intensity of cross-ministerial consultation in developing positions vis a vis the IOC's work. In order to enhance awareness of the IOC there is a need to move beyond traditional UNESCO circles and identify key stakeholders at a governmental level. However, this requires a clearer profile of the IOC's programme of work. In the case of Norway, to improve its involvement in the future, a national committee for the IOC is not essential. Rather, the main issue is to find one lead agency and home in Norway for using the IOC to achieve relevant policy aims. Germany stated that the visibility of the IOC in Germany is very poor. This is also true for oceanographic issues. Issues that are visible and raising awareness for the time being are Climate Change, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Biodiversity and the deep sea. No-one relates these issues to the IOC and that make it very clear that the IOC has to improve its partnership with the organizations working on these issues and to provide oceanographic inputs from the IOC. With respect to improved collaboration, Germany suggested focusing on specific issues. ARGO is an example where Germany has an integrated programme that is part of the national operational oceanography permanent tasks. Germany has an IOC National Section that comprises relevant ministerial and academic institutions but Germany expects the IOC to improve in terms of contributing to the solution of problems and to demonstrate that participation in the IOC really means added value. The United States informed the Workshop that while it has internal coordination for the IOC and has a visibility at government level it is only for the last year and a half that it is working as a subsidiary body to the US Commission for UNESCO, and this is starting to prove useful. What has been really helpful is the recent move of the IOC to plan its outcomes and results with clear links to budget allocations. To improve further, and in order to carry out a positive message back home from governing bodies' meetings, the IOC needs to clearly identify how it contributes to the solution of the world's societal issues linked with oceans. There is a perception in the United States that the IOC is an organization out there in UNESCO that does not really contribute to United States own needs. If the IOC succeeds in delivering a clear message that with its work it contributes to national needs, with an orientation to services, it would be also very helpful. Colombia described its national arrangements that led from the former Colombian Commission for Oceanography (1969) to the current Colombian Commission for the Oceans (CCO, 2000), under the Republic Vice-presidency. The IOC has a clear national coordination body in Colombia that is fully recognized by the governmental agencies. This is important for the IOC's awareness in the public perception, as the CCO plays an active role in disseminating information and increasing public awareness about the oceans and the IOC. Colombia recommended looking for IOC's support in order to have more presence of IOC experts in national fora so as to disseminate better the importance of the oceans and of the IOC for societal needs, and promote citizens ownership of their oceans. Portugal recalled that from the Lisbon Expo in 1998 devoted to the oceans, Portugal has been very active in establishing internal mechanisms and coordination for ocean matters. Recently the Council of Ministers approved the National Strategy for the Oceans, developed by several ministries and bodies through a 3 years process. It was formally established through this mechanism that the Council of Ministers meets every three months to deal specifically with ocean matters. A special team operates as a Secretariat to the Council. The Portuguese Committee for the IOC is the mechanism that prepares and follows up IOC programmes and activities in relation with the IOC, with high level representation from major governmental and non-governmental bodies and recognized institutions dealing with the oceans. As an example of this internal coordination, Portugal referred to the newly created national committee for tsunamis that hosted the ICG/NEAMTWS-IV meeting. With respect to ways of increasing Member States involvement, Portugal is of the view that services such as GOOS and Data Management are not the only programmes that could benefit from greater Member State commitment but science programmes should also be promoted among these. In order to improve communications, Portugal will formally request at the next Executive Council that the IOC Manual is updated, among other things to improve communication mechanisms. High level officers' visits to Member States are also helpful in raising IOC visibility at the national level, including for public awareness. He also thought a proposed ministerial conference in connection with the 50th anniversary would be a good opportunity to raise awareness. Portugal expressed its strong support to regional mechanisms as defined in Resolution XXIV.11 Argentina indicated there is a coordination problem at the level of UNESCO science programmes and between the UNESCO National Commissions and National Focal Points for the different science programmes at the national level. Argentina commented on the renewed commitment proposed by the sessional drafting group, that is an interesting proposal that deserves attention but it is questionable as to whether this would be linked to a modification of the Statutes. India informed the group that the IOC is well known at governmental levels in India, particularly in respect to the tsunami activities of the IOC. This is also applicable for programmes like ARGO. In the future the interaction will surely increase. The challenge for the IOC is then to define programmes that rely and connect with national programmes and activities. This is not an easy task because of each nation priorities and requirements but this is probably a worthwhile effort. 4.5 RELATIONSHIP WITH UNESCO AND COOPERATION WITHIN THE UN SYSTEM & 4.6 FOSTERING COOPERATING WITH OTHER APPROPRIATE ORGANIZATIONS These two item agendas where treated as a single unit. The Executive Secretary introduced these items referring to the Oceans and Coastal Areas Network (subsequently renamed UN-OCEANS) established in 2003 by the United Nations System Chief Executives Board (CEB/2003/7) to establish an effective, transparent and regular inter-agency coordination mechanism on ocean and coastal issues within the United Nations system. He referred then to the frequent coordination at high levels, within the Consultative Informal Process and, before the 2003 establishment of UN-Oceans, within the Sub-Committee on Oceans and Coastal Areas (SOCA). He commented that, nonetheless, and contrasting with these coordination mechanisms, only limited resources are available for effective coordination within UN and the coordination is taking place only for policy matters, not for implementation, with the exception of very specific projects. He called delegates to provide precise examples where the few resources available for cooperation can be better used. Canada suggested linking this item with the previous one that discussed national involvement as positive steps could be advanced to promote IOC within and outside UNESCO with further Member State involvement. Canada suggested that the next Ministerial Round Table at the 35th General Conference be devoted to the IOC and the Oceans. Member States and the Executive Secretary should work together to make this to happen. This is shared decision of the Executive Board and of the Director General. With respect to what steps need to be undertaken for the IOC to succeed under UNESCO, it is necessary to ensure that national internal mechanisms are established to coordinate Member State positions in different UN bodies. In that respect Canada suggested using document 34 C/INF/13 (An Overview of Scientific Programmes and Initiatives in the United Nations System) as a guide when referring to coordination within the UN. Also, with UNESCO becoming active on the One UN process perhaps Member States should promote the integration of marine science issues under the national cooperation frameworks. Australia supported Canada's proposal and comments. GRAME is a project that should be given priority as a signal that priority is assigned to relationships with UNEP on marine issues. Coastal projects as well should be given priority along the same lines, and that should happen as from the next Executive Council. Portugal shared and appreciated Canada's proposition of a Round Ministerial Table devoted to the IOC and the Oceans. Portugal also supported Australias suggestion of strengthening cooperation with UNEP in the framework of GRAME. Other ideas to explore are revisiting the ICSPRO Agreement, as mentioned earlier at this meeting, defining specific projects and mobilizing external funds to that end, exploring intergovernmental coordination for deep sea research possibilities where IOC could play a role, and revisiting the resolution XXIV.11 on Regional Bodies where there is a clear request for enhancing cooperation with regional bodies. Cuba suggested that Member States coordinate their positions at the IOC, the Executive Board and the General Conference to move forward from Canadas excellent proposal. It is imperative to speak with a single voice in these different fora. As previously expressed for the IOC, at the global level the resources are not moving at the same pace as the establishment of new programmes and priorities (ie GRAME and many others). It must be ensured that that the IOC national coordinating bodies reach delegates to UN and UNESCO governing bodies with a message of support to IOC. Norway thinks it is important to have continued evaluation and efficient distribution of work at the UN. Norway finds document 34 C/INF/13 (An Overview of Scientific Programmes and Initiatives in the United Nations System) useful to show how coordination takes place in science within the UN and UNESCO. Having the IOC in UNESCO suggests that capacity building and links to culture, education and information technologies should be emphasized. Beyond UNESCO, WMO, which is named many times at this meeting, cooperates with the IOC on GOOS. The IOC could, for example, build more on UNESCO five's functions associated with GOOS, while operations are more linked to WMO machinery. Brazil commented that the IOC could benefit a lot from the participation within UNESCO. Canada mentioned a very good one as the proposed Ministerial Round Table, Norway also mentioned synergies with other programmes. Brazil would like to hear more on the problems, and then quoted the Executive Board report of 1999 on administrative and financial measures related to the functional autonomy and suggested that next Executive Council may receive an updated report on these matters. On coordination issues Brazil thinks that the group should not be distracted from the main task of fulfilling its mandate as cooperation is a tool not a means in itself. Argentina reminded the group that the IOC has a very singular status within UNESCO but there are some unclear parts of this status. Argentina referred particularly to the budget percentage which is not defined in the existing mechanisms. Argentina also supported Canada's proposal of having a Ministerial Round Table. Perhaps it is necessary to also speak with a single voice at General Conference and Executive Board in order to improve the financial support the IOC receives from UNESCO. Japan commented that close cooperation with partner agencies, particularly with ICSPRO agencies, is essential towards strengthening the IOC's contributions to UN programmes. With respect to UNCLOS, one of the outstanding contributions is the Continental Shelf Limits and Marine Scientific Research. CCLS publication jointly produced with IHO. The joint working group with IHO that produced a relevant publication on Continental Shelf Limits is a good example of contributions IOC could further develop to reinforce IOC's pertinence. Madagascar expressed that to improve involvement of Member States in the IOC visibility of the IOC must be increased at the national level. For the case of Madagascar this can be done by creating a regional institute of Category II under UNESCO in the field of Oceanography. Madagascar would like to propose that its National Institute for Oceanography Research becomes a UNESCO Category II Institute and will appreciate if the IOC supports this proposal. For Madagascar, to succeed within UNESCO, the IOC needs to improve its position, giving IOC more room and more freedom to expand within UNESCO. Croatia commented on the Executive Secretary's intervention on total absence of coordination of UN agencies dealing with oceans, which in Croatia's views is unacceptable and should be stopped. With respect to coordination with UN, Croatia believes there is room for increasing cooperation with IMO. CONCLUSIONS, WORKPLAN AND RECOMMENDATIONS Mr. Geoff Holland (Canada) presented the action items produced by the sessional drafting group. As well, the Chairman and the Rapporteur presented a summary of the main consensual agreements reached at the meeting. The suggested actions arising from the discussions at the first meeting of the Working Group on the Future of IOC were discussed in detail and in plenary. The text below represents the agreement of the Working Group. On the IOC Mandate and future needs: The Working Group agreed that the current IOC mandate is appropriate and that the existing IOC mandate and Medium Term Strategy provides a positive starting point for assessing long-term trends that may affect the IOC. The group further agreed that the Statutes, as amended in 1999, provide a comprehensive IOC statement of purpose and flexible institutional mechanism to enable the IOC to adapt in a timely manner to emerging trends in oceanography and in Member State priorities. On institutional arrangements: The Working Group agreed to recommend that the future of IOC could be based on the premise that the IOC should be reinforced within UNESCO. The IOC should look for an enhanced role within UNESCO in intersectoral cooperation, based on its technical expertise. The group further agreed to recommend looking for improved delivery of programme and benefits in IOC regions through existing regional and technical bodies and programs. The Working Group also agreed to recommend that IOC should seek a clear identification of IOC's budget in the corresponding appropriation resolution of the General Conference and also explore the possibility of assigning the budget of the IOC as a financial allocation On financial an programme matters: The Working Group agreed to recommend: (a) exploring and making full use of Article 10 and to look for other innovative mechanisms for leveraging financial resources; (b) further Secretariat review on how the IOC Special Account is functioning and how it could be improved. The Working Group further agreed to suggest reinforced cooperation with UN agencies and to look for partnerships with the private sector in accordance with UNESCO Guidelines. On relations with other intergovernmental and international organizations: The Working Group agreed to recommend reinvigorated ocean partnerships within the UN system to increase efficiency and program delivery and identify IOCs niche and leadership role The group further agreed to suggest revisiting the ICSPRO Agreement (1969) for relevance The group also agreed to recommend that the IOC urge Member States to support a Ministerial Round Table at the next UNESCO General Conference, on Oceans and IOC The Working Group recommended that the Executive Council considers the merits of a ministerial-level meeting or a UN Conference in the medium term, perhaps as soon as 2010, as a mechanism to enhance visibility and political commitment to IOC among Member states On improving the involvement of Member States: The Working Group agreed that the IOC needs enhanced Member State political will and commitment to strengthen implementation of IOC programs as a national priority at regional and global levels. The group agreed to recommend to further build Member State' commitments to the IOC through appropriate organizations of the UN system and through the UNESCO strategic planning and budgetary process. A list of short-term actions is proposed as Conclusions of the meeting under item 5 below. In addition to these findings the Workshop produced a list of short-term actions to be considered by the Executive Council. The Working Group also agreed to recommend exploring specific agreements between Member States and IOC, to strengthen implementation of, and national benefit from, IOC programs with particular emphasis on priority setting The Working Group considered the responsibilities of the Member States in relation to many of the issues facing the Commission, in particular, the problems related to the designation of national contact points and the support available to the many IOC programs. It was noted that according to the Statutes, Article 4.5, the requirement for a Member State requesting membership of the Commission was to submit a statement indicating acceptance of the responsibility to specify a national coordination centre for liaison with the Commission and to support the Commission at an appropriate level using any or all of the financial mechanisms listed under Article 10. Considering that most of the Member States were present in the IOC before the new Statutes were adopted these statements are either non-existent or completely out-of-date. Therefore, an opportunity exists for the IOC to contact all its Member States with a request to renew the commitments to the Commission. Such a request could be accompanied by the information compiled recently by the IOC on the rationale for increasing the visibility of the oceans in the UN system, on the imbalance of resources between the demands and the capacity of the Secretariat to respond and some details of what contributions were needed to fulfill program requirements. It should be pointed out that the lack of such a statement by the Member States puts the membership of the Member States in contravention of the Statutes. This suggestion generated additional discussion on other matters that could be raised by such an important letter to governments. These included: The practice of a more formal process of validation of delegations at IOC governing body meetings. Raising the possibility of convening a discussion on a future convention for the IOC within UNESCO, or a similar legal framework, which will enable support for IOC programs to be more easily accessed within Member States. In the interim period before an arrangement can be finalized, to consider ways in which the IOC can be regarded as a unique functional autonomous body of UNESCO with special status in the program and budget exercise. To consider a new partnership arrangement with UNESCO that could relieve many of the administrative difficulties presently being experienced by the Commission, possibly using existing practices available to UNESCO, for example for Institutes The two latter interim arrangements could be submitted to the UNESCO General Conference in a resolution. The idea of a convention or similar legal framework and the two potential interim options would need to be discussed by the appropriate legal authorities during the next intersessional period. CLOSING SESSION The Chairman closed the meeting at 5:00 PM on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 by thanking the interpreters and the Secretariat. India indicated to put in the records their appreciation to the Chairman and Rapporteur, as well as ADG/IOC and its team. ANNEX I : Approved Agenda ANNEX II: List of Participants ANNEX III: IOC Financial Regulations ANNEX IV: Functional Autonomy basic documents     IOC-WG Future of IOC  PAGE 1  X Z [ _ 3L M ":"N#O#P#S#ôՠՠ~n\n\Ln\nAh_h_mH sH h_h_;OJQJmH sH "h_h_5;OJQJmH sH h_h_5OJQJmH sH h_h_5OJQJ*h_h_7CJOJQJ\aJmH sH 'h_h_CJOJQJ\aJmH sH h_h_OJQJmH sH "h_h_5OJQJ\mH sH *h_h_5CJOJQJ\aJmH sH 'h_h_5CJOJQJaJmH sH GJK~  Y Z [ *+$$ & F 7<G$a$gd_$a$gd_;de3 !"":"O#P#$$$ 7<G$^`a$gd_gd_$$$ & F 7<G$a$gd_$a$gd_P###$$'%%%V&'O''8(V)+,----$$$ 7<G$^`a$gd_$$ & F 7h<G$^ha$gd_gd_$$$ 7h<G$^h`a$gd_S##-----*9,9-909xB}BBByYYZZZZ[=Uɂ,}-0ORCFLLkkW[IJIJĢqh_h_6OJQJmH sH h_h_OJQJmH sH "h_h_5;OJQJmH sH h_h_;OJQJmH sH #h_h_>*OJQJaJmH sH  h_h_OJQJaJmH sH h_h_mH sH h_h_OJQJmH sH h_h_5OJQJmH sH ,-011j2374i44(567778488889;/== & F L^`Lgd_ & F L^`Lgd_ & F L^`Lgd_gd_= >>>x?@xByBBBBCJChCCCC/D[DoEHJKN & F gd_$$$ 7<G$a$gd_gd_ & FL^`Lgd_NPQUVXyYZZ[[[^[___0``` & F L^`Lgd_ & F L^`Lgd_$$$ 7<G$a$gd_$$$ 7<G$^`a$gd_gd_`aaWbbgccMd>eqeeftffKgg|hWiii & F L^`Lgd_ & F L^`Lgd_ & F L^`Lgd_gd_ & F L^`Lgd_iYjjkkklIpoqrstvwydzl{e|}=+,}$$ 7<G$a$gd_gd_ & F L^`Lgd_}-o3ډ1o֊au{,oM٨! & F <gd_  <gd_ 7<^`gd_  7<gd_!HưNOreԸƽ_us & F 7L<^`Lgd_  7<gd_  <gd_ 7<^`gd_  7<gd_s"OiQ!UGD,j1;r & F 7L<^`Lgd_  7<gd_ 7<^`gd_  <gd_  7<gd_40",?BCz3n 5  & F 7<gd_ 7<^`gd_  <gd_  7<gd_\B"P2#$&)(),.13?7L8;YABDzFHLL  <gd_  7<gd_L;L NPUSU(W|_dBfimvqAuGxY'΃6  <gd_  7<gd_ 7<^`gd_žŠǠƢȢˣu$-ڦŴuucQuuuucQuu#honh_>*OJQJaJmH sH #honhon>*OJQJaJmH sH h_h_5OJQJmH sH #h_h_>*OJQJaJmH sH hon>*OJQJaJmH sH honOJQJaJmH sH  h_h_OJQJaJmH sH h_honOJQJmH sH h_OJQJmH sH h_h_OJQJmH sH h_h_6OJQJmH sH 4":žÞǠȢˣu  7<gd_$$ & F 7dh<G$a$gd_gd_  <gd_  7<gd_ijjèdjk]^ޭy6 gdon  7gdon  7<gd_gd_gdon  7<gd_ڦijͧjèبdjk\]^{ĵq_OCOCh_OJQJmH sH h_h_5OJQJmH sH #honh_>*OJQJaJmH sH #honhon>*OJQJaJmH sH hon>*OJQJaJmH sH  h_honOJQJaJmH sH #h_hon5OJQJaJmH sH h_honOJQJmH sH h_hon5OJQJmH sH honhon>*OJQJmH sH hon>*OJQJmH sH h_h_OJQJmH sH *ݭޭy w    )*,-34ƺƯvhvh_0JCJOJQJaJ#jh_0JCJOJQJUaJh_h_CJOJQJaJmHsHhfjhfU h_hah_h_mH sH h]OJQJmH sH h_h_OJQJmH sH h_h_5OJQJmH sH honhonOJQJmH sH honOJQJmH sH !6wPBlm}~vw׹   $$ & F 70<G$`0a$gd_$$ 7<G$a$gd_gd_ & F L^`Lgd_)*9:;< 45689:;<¾ h_hahfh_h_CJOJQJaJmHsHh_mHsH#jh_0JCJOJQJUaJ%hon0JCJOJQJaJmHnHu,1h. A!"#$% @@@ _NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tHv@v _ Heading 1$$$$ 7@&G$a$%5CJKHOJQJ\hmH sH tH ~@~ _ Heading 2.$$ 7@7@&G$^7`$5;CJOJQJ\hmH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontRi@R  Table Normal4 l4a (k@(No ListXOX _Marge$ 7G$a$CJOJQJhmH sH tH 4@4 _Header  8!4 @4 _Footer  8!.)@!. _ Page NumberH2H _ Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJB'AB _Comment ReferenceCJaJ<@R< _ Comment TextCJaJ<GJK~YZ[* + de3:OP'VO8 V!#$%%%%())j*+7,i,,(-.///04000013/55 666x78x::::;J;h;;;;/<[<o=@BCFHIMNPyQRRSSSV[WWW0XXXYYWZZg[[M\>]q]]^t^^K__|`WaaaYbbcccdIhoijklnoqdrlsetuxy=z,{}{-}o}3~ځ1oւau{,oM٠!HƨNOre԰Ƶ_us"OiQ!UGD,j1;r40",?BCz3n5\  B"P2) !$&)+?/L03Y9:<z>@DD;D FHUKM(O|W\B^aeviAmGpYw'y{{{{64":–ÖǘȚ˛uijàdj^y6wPBlm}=@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0 @ 0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0A0A0A0@0@0A0A0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0 @ 0@0,@0,@0,@0,@0,@ 0,@ 0,@ 0,@0,@ 0,@ 0,@ 0,@0,@ 0,@ 0,@ 0,@0,@ 0,@ 0,@ 0,@0,@0,@0,@0,@ 0,@ 0,@ 0,@ 0,@ 0,@0,@0,@0MD@0MD@0MD 0MD@ 0MD@ 0MD@ 0MD@ 0MD@ 0MD@ 0MD@0MD@0MD@0MD@0MD@0MD@0MD@0MD@0MD@0MD@0MD@0MD@0,@0]@0,@0#_@0#_@0#_@0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@0#_@0#_@0#_@0#_@0#_@0#_@0#_@0#_@0#_@0#_@0#_@0#_@0#_@0#_@0#_@0#_@0#_ @0@0U@0U@0U@0U@ 0U@ 0U@ 0 U@0U@ 0 U@ 0 U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@ 0U@ 0U@ 0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@ 0U@ 0U@ 0U@ 0U 0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@ 0U@ 0U@ 0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U @ 0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@0@0  0 @ 0@0 00?GJK~YZ[* + de3:OP'VO8 V!#$%%%%())j*+7,i,,(-.///04000013/55 666x78x:y::::;J;h;;;;/<[<o=@BCFHIMNPyQRRSSSV[WWW0XXXYYWZZg[[M\>]q]]^t^^K__|`WaaaYbbcccdIhoijklnoqdrlsetuxy=z+{,{}{-}o}3~ځ1oւau{,oM٠!HƨNOre԰Ƶ_us"OiQ!UGD,j1;r40",?BCz3n5\  B"P2) !$&)+?/L03Y9:<z>@DD;D FHUKM(O|W\B^aeviAmGpYw'y{{{{64":–ÖǘȚ˛uijjàdjk]^ޥy6wPBlm}~vwױ   )*9:=0000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000:00P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P0P 00%0%0%0%0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0%0%0%0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0%0%0%0y:0y:0y: 0y: 0y: 0y: 0y: 0y: 0y: 0y:0y:0y:0y:0y:0y:0y:0y:0y:0y:0y:0y:0%0yQ0%0R0R0R0R 0R 0R 0R 0R 0R 0R 0R0R 0R 0R 0R 0R0R 0R 0R 0R 0R 0R 0R 0R 0R0R 0R 0R 0R 0R 0R 0R 0R0R0R0R0R0R0R0R0R0R0R0R0R0R0R0R0R0R0R00,{0,{0,{0,{ 0,{ 0,{ 0 ,{0,{ 0 ,{ 0 ,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{ 0,{ 0,{ 0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{ 0,{ 0,{ 0,{ 0,{ 0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{ 0,{ 0,{ 0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{0,{ 00Ö0Ö0Ö0Ö0Ö0Ö0Ö0Ö0Ö0Ö0Ö0Ö0Ö0Ö0Ö@0Ö@0Ö@0Ö@0Ö0Ö0Ö0Ö0Ö0Ö0Ö0Ö0Ö0Ö0Ö0Ö0Ö0Ö0Ö 0Ö 0Ö 0Ö 0Ö0Ö0Ö0 000000000H000H00@0H00@0H00@0H00@0@0@0@0H00`GJK~YZ[* + de3:OP'VO8 V!#$%%%%())j*+7,i,,(-.///04000013/55 666x78x:y::::;J;h;;;;/<[<o=@BCFHIMNPyQRRSSSV[WWW0XXXYYWZZg[[M\>]q]]^t^^K__|`WaaaYbbcccdIhoijklnoqdrlsetuxy=z,{}{-}o}3~ځ1oւau{,oM٠!HƨNOre԰Ƶ_us"OiQ!UGD,j1;r40",?BCz3n5\  B"P2) !$&)+?/L03Y9:<z>@DD;D FHUKM(O|W\B^aeviAmGpYw'y{{{{64":–ÖǘȚ˛uijàdj^y6wPBlm}ױ=@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0 @ 0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0A0A0A0@0@0A0A0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0 @ 0@0,@0,@0,@0,@0,@ 0,@ 0,@ 0,@0,@ 0,@ 0,@ 0,@0,@ 0,@ 0,@ 0,@0,@ 0,@ 0,@ 0,@0,@0,@0,@0,@ 0,@ 0,@ 0,@ 0,@ 0,@0,@0,@0,@0MD@0MD@0MD 0MD@ 0MD@ 0MD@ 0MD@ 0MD@ 0MD@ 0MD@0MD@0MD@0MD@0MD@0MD@0MD@0MD@0MD@0MD@0MD@0MD@0,@0]@0,@0#_@0#_@0#_@0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@ 0#_@0#_@0#_@0#_@0#_@0#_@0#_@0#_@0#_@0#_@0#_@0#_@0#_@0#_@0#_@0#_@0#_@0#_ @0@0U@0U@0U@0U@ 0U@ 0U@ 0 U@0U@ 0 U@ 0 U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@ 0U@ 0U@ 0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@ 0U@ 0U@ 0U@ 0U 0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@ 0U@ 0U@ 0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U@0U @ 0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@ 0@ 0@ 0@ 0@0@0  0 @ 0H0Y1Z,4H0Y1H0Y1@0 00? $$4447S#ڦ4<P#-=N`i}!sL6<;&-/7!8@0(  B S  ? OLE_LINK1 OLE_LINK2άά=pp=yyd~y~yT~y~yܿylyy|yyy|yyy<y|yyyyy4ytyyy4y yLyyÁy āyLŁyƁyǁy<ȁy|Ɂyʁyˁy<́y|́y"΁y"ρy#ЁyD#сy#ҁy#Ӂy$ԁylՁy mցyLmׁym؁ymفy nځyLnہy܁y݁yDށy߁yyyDy1"y2"yD2"y2"y2"y3"yD3"ylyy옦y,ylyy왦ydyy䃦y$ydyy䄦ywywy4xytxyxyxy4yyryrysy\sysysytyiyyL?y@ýAy ByLCyDyxEy4yFytyGyyHyyIy4zJytzKyCLyCMy DNyLDOyDPyDQy ERy:Sy:Ty,;Uyl;Vy;Wy;Xy,<Yy0Zy0[y<1\y|1]y1^y1_y<2`y%ay%by&cyT&dy&ey&fy'gy hy !iyL!jy!ky!ly "myL"ny,oylpyqyry,syltyuyvywy xyLyyzy{y |y}y~y<y|yyy<yyy,ylyyy,y$ydyyy$ydyy yLyyy yLyyyyDyyyyDy4ףytףyףyףy4أytأyأyyTyyԸyyTyyy<y|yyy<y|ydyy䝣y$ydyy䞣yy4ytyyy4yt‚yÂy4ĂytłyƂyǂy4Ȃytɂyuʂy4v˂ytv̂yv͂yv΂y4wςytwЂy]тy ^҂yL^ӂy^Ԃy^Ղy _ւyL_ׂydM؂yMقyMڂy$NۂydN܂yN݂yNނyy?y<@yAy䖢By$CydDyEy䗢Fy$Gy\HyIy܀JyKy\LyMy܁NyUOyUPyVQy\VRyVSyVTyWUyDMVyMWyMXyNYyDNZyN[yN\y?]y @^yL@_y@`y@ay AbyLAcy5dy5ey6fyD6gy6hy6iy7jykyly myLnyoypy qyry,syltyuyvy,wylxyyyzy\{y|y}y~y\yyy<y|yyy<yܶyy\yyܷyy\yyy4ytyyy4yDyyĭyyDyyĮy<y|yyy<y|yydyy䠡y$ydyy䡡yyy4ytyyy4yTyyԗyyTyyԘyyDyyďyyDyyTyyԆyƒyTÃyăyԇŃyxƃy,yǃylyȃyyɃyyʃy,z˃ylz̃yS̓y T΃yLTσyTЃyTуy U҃yLUӃyNԃyOՃy\OփyO׃yO؃yPكy\Pڃy|AۃyA܃yA݃yyLV?yV@yVAy WByLWCyLHDyHEyHFy IGyLIHyIIyIJy4Ky45Lyt5My5Ny5Oy46Pyt6Qy0Ry0Sy1TyT1Uy1Vy1Wy2Xy<+Yy|+Zy+[y+\y<,]y|,^y,_y,'`yl'ay'by'cy,(dyl(ey(fygyhyiy\jykyQQ   ww--oo|w@@H33 ! !#$$%((([3[3b3666g7r7:o=o=??@@@@@@@BBCCyDyDDDFFkG~GGGJJJ^K^KLLMMMNNPP STTThXZ0[bbbdd3f3fffggIh]h]h(i(ioioiiiejejjj9k9kkkll l]l]llljmjmnnnnBoBoBoooqqdrdrdr1s1s1slssssssetetttuuCuSuSuuuvv{vvvH{Z{E}}}addjdɍээuuuhhq{{zz٠٠+!?JJRZggHH``T`ezz^caaelddƵƵ__ȸs"""9"""DD{aa,,nnqqrJJJJ11;;yrrx4400@@""GGMVMM 9EEL,,88pnn88xqqq55\\\        BXX""PP2T_ggg) ) p!!!!["["(#(###&&&(((((()))j*j****++O+b+++..?/?/L0L0 3&3&333444466f7|7|7Y9Y999:::<<h<h<< = ===>>???@@ F F FH4I4I\IIIjJjJUKUKyLyLMMMMaNaNNN(O}O}OPP.S.SSS$T1TpTTTT7W|W|WW0X0X%Y%YZZ\9\9\\\F^F^^^```aaa-b-bdd|e|eeeegghhmhhhzizil~l~lAmAmKnKnKoKoGpppssMttttIuIuvvYwYw:x:x'yuyuy.{aah|||NNU   6VVVąąEEEddȋ;;H44$===""::ד  OO    }}ٖϢϢ֢QQX`=      !"#$%&(')+*,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWYXZ[\]_^`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxy{z|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJMKLNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[]\^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwyxz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXZY[\]^_`abcdefghikjlmnoqprtsuvwxyz{|}~VV   55wwzFNN88!!#$$$$%(((a3h3h3666j7u7:w=w=?? @ @@@@@@BBCCDDDDFFtGGGGJJJaKaKLLMMMNNPP STTTnXZ3[bbbdd;f;fffggShchch2i2iuiuiiikjkjjj@k@kkk lllalalllpmpm)nnnnHoHoHoooqqjrjrjr7s7s7sqssssttjtjtttuuHuZuZuuuvvvvvK{^{H}}}fittkύ؍؍{{{pyyߠߠ.'HPPXbqqPPffWcmafdkrrll͵͵ddŸŸθy(((<(((HHee##44 {{ttPPWW77DD||{;; 77HH''LU\\SS?KRR44"??svv@@{www>>$bbb        K^^++]]?]emmm/ / s!!!!b"b"/#/#$$&&&(((((()))p*p**** + +U+i+++..F/F/P0P03-3-333444466t777b9b999:::<<m<m<<==== > >???@@FFFI;I;IcIIIpJpJZKZK~L~LMMMMjNjNNN1OOOPP7S7SSS'T4TyTTTT:WWWW5X5X*Y*Y Z Z\K\K\\\T^T^^^```aaa3b3bddeeeeegghhthhhii&lllImImSnSnSoSoOpppssUttttQuQuwwbwbwCxCx,yzyzy1{gmmTZZ>\\\ͅͅKKKjjˋFNN==-CCC''DD""YY''ܖբۢۢW^^c=  !"#$%&(')+*,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWYXZ[\]_^`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxy{z|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJLMKNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[]\^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwyxz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXZY[\]^_`abcdefghikjlmnoqprtsuvwxyz{|}~=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName?*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags stocktickerB*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace>v*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PersonName 0O>vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv akT#b#$$$$%%%,*6*++ --.&.s..446 6Q7[7D9M9{CClDvDPYZY \\aacc 1>vzǔUY+0~!DZڱ ܺAOPZ[c,6 V_0011222295C5 66668'8I:S:<<=>F>@@TC^CYFbFFFGGKKMMMMMMMMGNPNSSTTUU]ViVYY$Z.ZZZ?[I[_[i[[[Q]Z]^^aaccccddh$hoorrttttwwx!xxxxyyOzYz~zzՂ߂.8IKs}đΑ5>oyUcIS    ):=( (..::f=i=\\nnppBsGsPckm+/MQ~Y[  LLrvvL{U{rzv~    (:=33333333333333333333333333333333%%:;J;;?W[WւÖȚ&6m~    (:=    :=oJpCy$@'ΔPtK]Qth2ⶖ:4D2 { _9.$x'\W*9X-BNP0Fֳ^5. `tnA?b@TwDȼw7>F8fQ8;WN71Wo$MZX-!jXi0iZR+ !hKDyjezPt4wepzj#`h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hH^`OJPJQJ^Jo(-hpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH hh^h`5hH.P^`P5o(hH..^`CJo(hH... x^`xhH....  ^`hH .....  X@ ^ `XhH ......  ^ `hH.......  8x^`8hH........  `H^``hH.........h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`o(. ^`hH. pL^p`LhH. @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PL^P`LhH.h^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH:4z*9X-^58;WoJ9.$wPtKQfQ!jXh2MZX@7>F2 x'iZ !h$wDzPtP0nA?1WDyj                                     (l0                                                                                                                                                                                                    BAZr k i2$_]JWm4UMM%7&x5]7~9 =_KDKEECE4OvzP$UuV,[=\N^1_8__na^i>nonJzf}U0'pW^~ =,taR^tuFvsIfzx!W'bU=LEKFYh@h<P@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial7&  Verdana5& zaTahoma?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"1h B.H@?q@?q!4))2qHX ?_2DRAFT REPORT FOR COMMENTSb_aliagab_aliagax                      Oh+'0 ( H T `lt|DRAFT REPORT FOR COMMENTS b_aliaga Normal.dot b_aliaga3Microsoft Office Word@0@@ߏv@?q՜.+,0 hp   UNESCO) DRAFT REPORT FOR COMMENTS Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F4vData 1Tabled[WordDocument.SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q