## ITEM 6 OF THE AGENDA: REPORT OF THE INFORMAL AD HOC WORKING GROUP OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY Document: ITH/18/7.GA/6 Resolution: 7.GA 6

- 59. The Chairperson then turned to agenda item 6, inviting Mr Byong-hyun Lee to present the report of the informal ad hoc working group of the Committee.
- 60. Mr Byong-hyun Lee would present the report as Chairperson of the twelfth session of the Committee and as Chairperson of the informal ad hoc working group. Mr Lee began by thanking the Committee members and other participating States for their cooperation and commitment in 2017. The informal ad hoc working group was established at the eleventh Committee session in Addis Ababa in 2016. After having witnessed a very high number of decisions on nominations, proposals and requests that reversed the recommendations of the Evaluation Body for the 2016 cycle, the Committee decided to inscribe seventeen of the twenty-four files that had received unfavourable recommendations from the Evaluation Body, representing 71 per cent of the files. In a number of cases, the Committee found that the negative recommendations were due to minor or technical information that was missing. Many delegates expressed concerns that no mechanism currently existed in the procedure that allowed submitting States to respond to the concerns raised by the Evaluation Body before the Committee examined the files. This unusual situation prompted the Committee to take two interrelated actions. The Committee asked the Secretariat to propose a procedure that would allow submitting States to respond to preliminary recommendations in the evaluation cycle prior to their presentation to the Committee, subsequently called a ' dialogue mechanism ' among the Committee m embers. At the same time, the Committee also decided to establish an informal ad hoc working group to discuss issues related to the content of the dialogue mechanism. The Committee thus established this informal ad hoc working group to examine three main points: i) issues related to consultation and dialogue between the Evaluation Body and the submitting States; ii) the decision-making process of the Committee on nominations, proposals and requests; and iii) any other issues to strengthen the implementation of the Convention. The informal ad hoc working group met on several occasions during the course of 2017, and this report was annexed to Document 6. The group's first meeting was held on 16 February 2017 to discuss the agenda and the composition of the working group. The group decided to hold two initial meetings open only to Committee members before holding an open-ended meeting. In this way, the restricted group could present concrete proposals to the wider group of States Parties. Accordingly, Committee members met on 27 February and 10 May 2017, while an open-ended meeting was held on 2 June 2017. As the discussion evolved, members of the working group felt the need to consult with the Evaluation Body. Therefore, in a first instance, two members of the Evaluation Body participated in the group's meeting via Skype on 10 May in their individual capacities . Subsequently, with the Evaluation Body's agreement and thanks to the help of the Secretariat, the Committee members in the group met on 27 September 2017. All twelve members of the Evaluation Body were physically present for the September meeting. The working group was convened for the last time on 23 October 2017 in an open-ended meeting with the aim of validating the group's report.
- 61. Mr Byong-hyun Lee recalled that a drafting group had been created and the six meetings were chaired by Mr Mounir Anastas, Ambassador of Palestine. Mr Lee thanked Mr Anastas and the drafting group for their efforts. The drafting group complemented the work of the working group by mediating different opinions and by drafting the report of the working group. The working group raised many questions such as: Should the dialogue be limited only for certain criteria? Howmany questions could the Evaluation Body ask submitting States? What type of questions could be asked - minor additional information and a clarification or just a clarification? Under which conditions could dialogue be initiated? When a submitting State answers questions posed by the Evaluation Body, should the answer be limited in terms of