| GB.267/WP/STM/2
267th Session November 1996 |
| Committee on Sectoral and Technical Meetings and Related Issues | STM |
SECOND ITEM ON THE AGENDA
Evaluation of practical experience with the
new sectoral meetings' format
Introduction
1. The purpose of this paper is to inform the Committee of experience with the first four sectoral Meetings held under the new Standing Orders resulting from the evaluation of the Sectoral Activities Programme in 1994-95.
2. The paper does not address follow-up activities arising from these Meetings. As agreed during the evaluation, the Office will report to the Committee each biennium on the follow-up activities it has undertaken in each sector: the first such report concerning follow-up on meetings in the 1996-97 biennium will be presented in March 1998. In the meantime, an indication of proposed follow-up activities can be found in the Programme and Budget documents for 1996-97 and the draft proposals being prepared for 1998-99.
3. As at September 1996, four Meetings had been held under the new arrangements:
- Tripartite Meeting on Social and Labour Issues concerning Migrant Workers in the Construction Industry;
- Joint Meeting on the Impact of Structural Adjustment on Educational Personnel;
- Tripartite Meeting on Social and Labour Problems caused by Structural Adjustment in the Port Industry;
- Tripartite Meeting on Improving the Conditions of Employment and Work of Agricultural Wage Workers in the Context of Economic Restructuring.
4. The first three Meetings were postponed from the 1994-95 biennium and were therefore conceived, and the reports for them prepared, on the basis of the previous system of ad hoc and regular meetings. The Meeting on educational personnel had two reports, one of which served as a general background document, particularly for the panel discussions. The fourth Meeting was the first to have been planned and prepared for the new system.
Participation
5. Invitations to the three tripartite Meetings varied from 15 to 30 delegates from each group (the lower and upper limits envisaged for all meetings). Sixteen Government, four Employers' and 20 Workers' representatives were invited to the Joint Meeting. In each case the Employers' and Workers' delegates were selected by the respective groups of the Governing Body. Total participation in the four Meetings (including advisers and observers) ranged from 67 to 135. The number of delegates ranged from 36 to 78. The proportion of advisers and observers ranged from 35 to 55 per cent of total participation.
6. Participation by governments was incomplete in each of the Meetings, despite the invitation of governments from the reserve list. Between three and six Government delegates did not attend (equivalent to 20-25 per cent of the Government participants). In some cases this reduced participation from a region to a single delegate. A significant proportion of the countries that declined an invitation to participate, or were absent despite having accepted an invitation, were developing countries, particularly from Africa. Government delegates from missions in Geneva accounted for some 30 to 60 per cent of Government delegates. Some of the delegates from missions were however accompanied by one or more advisers from their country.
7. A full complement of delegates from the Employers' and Workers' sides participated in the first three Meetings, with invitations to substitute delegates being made in some cases at the last minute. One Employers' delegate and six Workers' delegates were absent from the fourth Meeting.
8. In order to streamline the invitation of substitute Employer and Worker delegates, the Governing Body has agreed that the secretariats of the Employers' and Workers' groups should advise the Office of changes concerning nominations of Employers' and Workers' delegates to meetings. This simplified procedure avoids the delays caused by the obligation to obtain the approval of the Officers of the Governing Body to the appointment of substitutes not already included in the initial list of titular and substitute delegates submitted to the Governing Body for approval.
9. Each meeting was presided over by a representative of the Governing Body, appointed from each of the groups in turn, in accordance with the revised Standing Orders.
Output from the Meetings
10. The purpose of each Meeting included the adoption of conclusions; a report of the discussion; and resolutions -- and each Meeting fulfilled this purpose. So far, the consideration of receivable draft resolutions has been completed within the time-limit agreed by the Officers, whereas the consideration of draft conclusions has tended to last longer than was foreseen, in some cases resulting in a shortage of time as the Meeting drew to a close. In some cases, the delay in agreeing to draft conclusions centred on definitions and terminology.
11. In most cases the Meetings finished before 2 p.m. on Friday and participants were able to take with them corrected copies of the outputs. A summary of the panel discussions was included in the Note on the proceedings of each Meeting, which the Office prepared.
12. In accordance with the aims of the evaluation, the resolutions adopted on topics other than that leading to conclusions have focused on follow-up action at the national level and by the ILO. The number of draft resolutions submitted (ranging from three to six) has been rather less than was customary in former meetings, and the texts have been relatively short. The number of resolutions adopted ranged between one and four.
Role of the Officers
13. In accordance with the Standing Orders, the Chairperson of the meeting presides over the opening and closing sittings and the discussion of resolutions. The other duties are divided between the four Officers. Following informal consultations with the secretaries of the Employers' and Workers' groups, it was agreed from the outset that the discussion of the report and the development of conclusions would be presided over by the Government Vice-Chairperson of the meeting. At the Joint Meeting, however, the Employer and Worker Vice-Chairpersons presided over part of the discussion of the report. The Employer and Worker Vice-Chairpersons each presided over one of the panel discussions. This arrangement worked well, with each Government Vice-Chairperson accepting the responsibilities that last for the duration of the Meeting.
14. Each Chairperson participated in his or her group's meetings and was present in the discussions and the panels. At some meetings the Chairperson was able to mediate between the groups when discussion of the draft conclusions encountered deadlock.
15. A recurrent clash of responsibilities has been resolved on an informal basis: according to the Standing Orders, one of the Officers of the meeting should preside over each of the panel discussions. However, the Officers are also ex officio members of the working party dealing with resolutions. As the Wednesday afternoon panel discussion normally takes place in parallel with the consideration of draft resolutions, no Officer is available to preside over it. One of these discussions was a presentation of ILO activities, and was held at the same time as the consideration of draft resolutions but this time with an ILO official in the chair. On other occasions, an Officer of the Government group (Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson) has presided. This arrangement has not caused any problems. At one Meeting, when the Wednesday panel discussion was exceptionally held before consideration of the draft resolutions, the Chairperson presided over the panel.
Standing Orders
16. The new Standing Orders have proved to be robust and flexible. Questions concerning the receivability of draft resolutions have been resolved quickly. As noted above, all receivable draft resolutions were discussed and final versions agreed within the deadline fixed by the Officers.
17. There are two areas not fully covered by the Standing Orders: the duties of the Officers regarding panel discussions (article 7), as mentioned above; and the possibility for member States not invited to the meeting to participate as observers. There is no provision in the Standing Orders for member States, other than those invited, to be represented. In the discussion in the Committee on Legal Issues and International Labour Standards on the new Standing Orders,(1) Employer and Worker members felt that participation by governments as observers would change the nature of a meeting and that participation should be strictly restricted to the participants invited.
18. Some member States, particularly those with missions in Geneva, have sought to be included as observers in meetings -- as they did in the past. Some member States wishing to send observers to a meeting of particular interest to them have been discouraged from doing so by the Standing Orders. Since the meetings are public they can of course attend the discussions, but their attendance is not registered. So far, there have been two or three "observers" from member States at each meeting. In view of the wishes of persons attending a meeting to have their presence officially recorded, the Office has registered them in the list of participants under the heading "Others: representatives of member States present at the sittings".
Panel discussions
19. Experience with the panel discussions has been generally positive. Each Meeting has held three sittings devoted to panel discussions, each with a different topic. One characteristic of smaller meetings, however, is that the number of people available to participate in panel discussions is limited in view of the needs of the working parties on resolutions or conclusions.
20. Topics for panel discussions have been agreed beforehand with the secretariats of the Employers' and Workers' groups, and outlines of the topics distributed at the outset of the meeting in order to stimulate delegates' consideration of the issues. For some meetings the Employers' and Workers' groups nominated in advance from among their delegates "presenters" for each of the topics. In others, speakers who were not participants were invited by the Office and, where appropriate, ILO officials have made presentations. It has not proved feasible to approach Government participants in advance of a meeting to solicit a contribution to a panel discussion, largely because the names of many Government participants are not known until just before the meeting. Moreover, Government delegates have proved understandably reluctant to make presentations at short notice. They have, however, contributed to panel discussions from the floor. Panel discussions were publicized within the Office, and it is intended to continue to do so since they provide an opportunity for officials and others to acquire more in-depth knowledge of a specific sectoral topic that might be relevant to their work.
21. Respecting the times fixed for different sittings, including panels, is particularly important in short meetings if objectives are to be achieved. In some cases, excessively lengthy presentations left little time for discussion, and some delegates have commented adversely on this.
22. The positive experience of panels in one Meeting led some participants to suggest that meetings should begin with a panel discussion in order to establish a constructive atmosphere for discussion at the outset. Notwithstanding the merits of this proposal, the difficulties it would create for the timely development of the Meeting's outputs seem insurmountable.
The groups
23. The first official meeting for each group takes place on the Monday morning before the opening sitting to deal, inter alia, with the selection of the Officers of the groups and of the meeting. All participants are informed of these group meetings in the letter of invitation sent by the Office. The Employers' and Workers' groups have sometimes held preliminary meetings before the opening day.
24. The Government group, in addition to nominating its Officers and the Government Vice-Chairperson of the meeting, is briefed by a member of the secretariat about the meeting, the output, the tasks and the timetable. Relatively few Government representatives attend this first group meeting, which makes it difficult, especially in smaller meetings, to fill the key position of government vice-chairperson who presides over the discussion of the report and conclusions, and to seek members of the working party on draft resolutions.
25. In the early Tripartite Meetings the Government group cancelled or shortened its meetings, often without prior warning. If the Office were notified in advance, as was the case in the fourth Meeting, it might be possible to reserve the unused interpretation resources for use at a later stage in the proceedings. Consideration might be given to scheduling shorter Government group meetings after the first one or to scheduling subsequent meetings on demand, up to the maximum provided for in the draft timetable. These comments do not apply to joint meetings, which should continue to have equal interpretation resources for both groups, regardless of whether the Government group includes private sector employers' representatives.
26. The secretary of the Government group, elected from among the Government participants, has been present at the sittings of the working parties in the same capacity as the secretaries of the Employers' and Workers' groups.
Participants' comments
27. An evaluation questionnaire was distributed to all participants before the end of each Meeting; 25 to 40 per cent of all participants completed the questionnaire and some provided additional comments. Questions were asked on the Meeting, the report, the time for discussion and the administrative arrangements. As far as the subject of the Meeting, the discussion, the conclusions and resolutions were concerned, each Meeting received scores of 3.5-4.8 out of 5. The panel discussions obtained between 3.2 and 4.8, this lower rating resulting from the shortening of a sitting because of the time-limit on interpretation. The quality of the reports was rated on several criteria, scoring between 3.4 and 4.6.
28. A large majority of participants at each Meeting considered that the time available for the various discussions, including in the groups, was sufficient. A small number of respondents at each Meeting considered that too much time was spent on one or more of the discussions, whereas about 10 per cent at three Meetings, and 30 per cent at one Meeting, thought there was too little. The practical and administrative arrangements scored between 4.5 and 4.7 out of 5. These ratings are similar to those for meetings held under the previous system.
29. Additional comments made by participants included remarks on the differences between developing and industrialized countries and the benefits of having regional meetings or even separate discussions for relevant groups of countries during the Meeting. It should be noted that the conclusions or resolutions of each Meeting called for regional meetings for the sector. Differences between countries also made it difficult to reach a consensus in a group, according to one participant. Several participants felt that they should have been better informed and prepared before the Meeting started. The Office now includes a briefing note on the Meeting with the letters of invitation.
Some lessons learned
30. The early ending of the meetings held to date should not give rise to the idea that they are, in effect, four-and-a-half day meetings. Provision is made for the meetings to continue until 6 p.m. on the Friday, and participants should be prepared to stay until then.
31. Consideration should be given to the minimum size of meetings that adopt conclusions and/or resolutions to ensure that there are sufficient people available to participate in the panel discussions. This would also make the meetings more representative. In meetings that do not have resolutions as an output, all participants are available for the panel discussion on Wednesday afternoon. The working party on conclusions (up to five from the Employers' and Workers' groups and up to six from the Government group, including the Government Vice-Chairperson and the secretary of the group) sits all day on the Thursday and significantly reduces the pool of people available for panel discussions in smaller meetings. Alternatively, consideration could be given to having a smaller working party at smaller meetings, of three from each group, for example.
32. Presentations at panel discussions should be short in order to maximize the time available for exchanging ideas, particularly when they start late due to overruns in group meetings. The "moderator" has a key role to play in this respect.
33. Government delegates in particular, including those from missions in Geneva, should be encouraged to attend the first group meeting on the Monday morning so that the group's Officers can be selected from the widest possible pool of delegates and the group's work organized efficiently. Having experienced officials from the missions in these meetings is invaluable in selecting a good mix of participants for the different tasks.
34. The Government group should coordinate closely with the Office concerning its requirements for group meetings and their length.
35. The current practice of having the Government Vice-Chairperson preside over the discussion of the report and the conclusions, as well as the arrangements to deal with the timetable conflict on Wednesday afternoon when an Officer of the meeting is not available to preside over the panel discussion, seems to work well.
36. Consideration could be given to limiting the duties of the Government Vice-Chairperson to presiding over the discussion of the conclusions, or at least giving the Government Vice-Chairperson the option of not participating in the discussion of the resolutions (as set out in the Standing Orders). Such an arrangement could perhaps be undertaken informally on a case-by-case basis without changing the Standing Orders.
37. Provision could be made for the names of representatives of member States not invited to the meeting who attend a meeting to be included in the list of participants, possibly under the heading "Observers from member States of the ILO".
38. The absence of up to one-quarter of the Government participants from each of the Meetings so far can only detract from the breadth of discussion, particularly since a high proportion of the absentees have been from developing countries.
39. Some governments have expressed surprise that employers' and workers' representatives from their country were not present at a meeting. They had thought that a tripartite meeting was one with three delegates from each country. The Office will continue to indicate clearly, in the invitations sent to governments, how the representatives of the two other groups will be selected.
40. When the Committee on Sectoral and Technical Meetings and Related Issues decides on the composition of each meeting and the participants to be invited, the importance of participation by all governments who accept the invitation should be stressed.
41. The five-day format for sectoral meetings has worked. The planned outputs have so far been achieved due to the willingness of the parties to negotiate and keep to the tight timetable. The Meetings and the panel discussions have provided good opportunities for exchanges of views and networking among participants -- an important consideration during the evaluation. None the less, the preparation and conduct of three panel discussions have made heavy time demands on the Office.
42. The Committee on Sectoral and Technical Meetings and Related Issues is invited to take note of this paper and comment on any of the issues raised therein.
Geneva, 16 October 1996.