1. The Session was opened by the Chairman of GFCM, Mr F. Montanaro Mifsud, who thanked the Government of Spain for hosting the Extraordinary Session and the European Community for funding it. He then introduced the Agenda of the meeting and requested comments on it. The Session was attended by delegates from nine members of the Commission. The list of delegates is given in Appendix B to this report.

2. At the request of the EC, the Commission was informed of the status of acceptance of the amendments to the GFCM Agreement and of the actions being taken by Members in this regard. The Secretariat explained that since two-thirds of the Members of the Commission had not yet deposited the instruments of acceptance of the amendments to the Agreement of GFCM relevant to an autonomous budget, the present Session could not formally adopt either the scale of contributions or the budget. However, the meeting could agree on the substance of the scale of contributions and thereby pave the way for its adoption at a later stage once the amendments to the Agreement have been accepted by two-thirds of the Members. A consensus on the substance of the scale of contributions would also make it easier for Members to accept the amendments and bring them, and the provision for an autonomous budget, into force in the knowledge of what their obligations would be in practice.

3. The Agenda adopted by the meeting is attached as Appendix A. The documents before the Commission are listed in Appendix C.

4. The Secretariat presented its proposal contained in document GFCM:ES/99/2, stating that it was based on its view of the various points discussed during previous Sessions of the Commission and on consultations held with certain Members of the Commission during the intersessional period. The proposed scale of contributions for an autonomous budget (see Appendix D) had three components : (a) a basic share, which was to be equal for all members; (b) a component based on wealth of the member and (c) a component based on the catch and aquaculture production derived from the Mediterranean. This last component had been computed on the basis of a GFCM tonnage formula previously discussed.

5. In response to a suggestion to discuss simultaneously the budget and the scale of contribution the Chair indicated that it would be essential first to agree on the methodology for the calculation of the contributions and then to determine the amount required for the operation of the Commission on an annual basis. However, the indicative budget attached to document GFCM:ES/99/3 Rev.1 had been prepared to help Members assess their likely share of a future autonomous budget.

6. In previous discussions, a number of delegations had supported the proposal that the "basic share" should account for 10 percent of the autonomous budget. However, no agreement had been reached on how to divide the remaining 90 percent of the autonomous budget between the "wealth component" and the "catch component". In the document presented by the Secretariat to the Extraordinary Session, a distribution of 30 percent for the "wealth component" and 60 percent for the "catch component" was proposed. The meeting did not dwell on this issue. Certain delegations wished to see the "catch component" be the most important of the component.

7. The figures presented for each country�s share of the "catch component" were based on the compounded figures of capture fisheries and aquaculture production derived exclusively from Mediterranean waters. However, after some discussion, the meeting agreed that since the Black Sea continues to constitute an area of the GFCM region, it should consider a scale of contribution that incorporated catches from the Black Sea. Some delegations stated that the catch data used to calculate the GFCM tonnage should be reviewed. The Secretariat produced such an alternative, reproduced in Appendix E.

8. The criterion proposed in document GFCM:ES/99/2 for the determination of the "wealth component" was to use the scale of contribution of the member to the FAO budget rather than the GNP/caput index which had been proposed, but not agreed, at the Twenty-third Session of the Commission.

9. The Secretariat was asked to explain why the scale of contributions to FAO had been selected to replace the GNP index, and whether this represented an advantage over the previous proposal. The Secretariat pointed out that it had selected the FAO scale of contributions as a preferable index in the course of discussions held during the intersessional period between the Secretariat and someMembers. The meeting was informed that the FAO scale of contributions was derived from the UN scale of assessments which itself was based on GNP as modified by a number of factors. Documentation relevant to such assessment was provided by the Secretariat. One delegation considered the use of the FAO scale of contributions as inappropriate in this case.

10.The meeting was not convinced that the FAO scale of contributions was a good substitute for GNP and some delegations considered the use of a GNP measure as a yardstick for allocating the "wealth component" amongst members. Some members favoured GNP per capita, others GNP. The Secretariat produced a version of the scale of contributions that made use of both GNP and GNP per capita to allocate the "wealth component". It is attached as Appendix F. The delegations of Malta and Cyprus stated that it could not endorse the scale of contribution as proposed in Appendix F as it incorporated GNP per capita as a criterion of allocation, as this would place an unfair burden on the small member countries.

11.At the end of the meeting, the Japanese delegation tabled a proposal (See Appendix I) for the scale of contribution, which it had developed through discussions with other delegations. Due to shortage of time, the Japanese proposal could not be discussed.

12.The meeting agreed to transmit to the Twenty-fourth Session of GFCM the four proposals for a scale of contribution that it had considered, noting that any scale of contribution eventually adopted should take full account of members� capacity to pay. The participants agreed to continue the discussion of this item of the Agenda during the forthcoming GFCM Session allowing for new ideas to be presented.

13. In order to provide elements for the discussion on scale of contributions, the meeting decided to discuss the proposed programme of work and budget presented in document GFCM:ES/99/3 Rev.1 on the understanding that the programme of work and budget could not refer to the period July 1999 to July 2000 since the amendments providing for an autonomous budget had not yet entered into force. The Commission therefore discussed the programme of work and budget as an indicative example of how an autonomous budget could be structured.

14. The programme, as proposed by the Secretariat, included meetings of the statutory bodies: one session of the Commission, the Third Session of the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) and the Second Session of the Committee on Aquaculture, which takes place every two years. In addition, meetings of the subsidiary bodies in support of the third meeting of SAC were contemplated for two of the Sub-Committees (Fishery Statistics and Information and Economic and Social Sciences). Ad hoc meetings were also proposed such as a GFCM/ICCAT Joint Working Group on Large Pelagic Species in the Mediterranean Sea and an Expert Consultation on the Black Sea which had been requested by Turkey. The activities of the aquaculture networks were included in the proposed programme of work with the meetings of the national coordinators of the SIPAM network and improvements of the data bases, completion of TECAM and SELAM surveys and organization of workshops/seminars on Global Quality in Mediterranean Aquaculture, Aquaculture Health Legislation and Quarantine Aspects, Aquaculture and Environmental Impact Assessment, and a meeting to be specified at a later date to continue the work started by the Consultation on the Application of Article 9 of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in the Mediterranean.

15. The Secretary furthermore stated that the proposed budget included an important component of staff for strengthening the Secretariatand that the position of the Secretary would continue to be funded for the time being by FAO. The Organization would also continue to allocate as an in kind contribution, the time of technical staff in the various Divisions of the FAO Fisheries Department in support of the activities of the programme. It was indicated that, given the growing importance of aquaculture in Mediterranean countries, consideration should be given to provide adequate financing of the programme of activities for the networks.

16. In the discussion of the work programme, the delegation of the EC requested clarifications in respect of the effective contribution from FAO and its role in the new GFCM. The Secretariat provided a breakdown of the man months indicated in Section B of the budget table. In this context, certain delegations indicated as their preference that the FAO contribution be made available in the form of a full time position or as a net financial contribution.

17. The level of budget requested from the countries was also questioned and a figure of US$ 750 000 was suggested as being more appropriate, although this would imply reducing activities or deleting staff positions. In this respect, it was proposed by some delegates that the salary of the Secretary should be directly charged to the Members, and that FAO should bear the cost of a stock assessment specialist, who would be assigned full time to the GFCM Secretariat. The delegation of the EC also indicated that there was no priority need for an economist position and that the posts of administrative and finance clerks should be combined. The EC also queried whether the UN rates for staff costs should be used for the professional staff or whether economies could be made through the establishment of a specific scale of salaries for the GFCM newly recruited staff. The delegation of Malta, supported by the delegation of the EC, stated that a mechanism to monitor progress and to audit the operation of the Commission was necessary. The possibility of setting up a Finance Committee was discussed. It was also envisaged that the Commission itself could fulfil this role. The Secretariat explained that if the members wished to keep the Commission within the framework of FAO then the standard FAO rules for recruitment of staff would have to be applied.

18. The Commission reviewed these various proposals and agreed to the cancellation of the economist and to the combination of administrative and finance clerk posts proposed by the Secretariat. It considered the proposal by some delegations for the payment by FAO of a full-time biologist/stock assessment specialist who would be seconded to the new GFCM Secretariat, in replacement of the post of the Secretary who would then be paid out of the contribution of the members. The Secretariat informed that such an exchange of posts would require budgetary approval by FAO Headquarters.

19. Several delegations requested clarification concerning the scheduling of meetings proposed by the first two sessions of SAC and questioned the high cost which had been suggested for the first meetings of the two Sub-Committees of the SAC indicated above. The delegation of Spain referred to the SAC reports and suggested a pattern of organization of meetings of the working groups related to stock assessment and of the SAC Sub-Committees which would allow them to meet consecutively with savings for interpretation and documentation. The continuation of this work was endorsed by several countries and it was requested that the tables of programme of work and budget be amended to reflect the changes suggested. Regarding the meeting on the Black Sea, it was indicated that Turkey had offered to host the meeting and that therefore its cost should not be reflected in the budget, but the Secretariat indicated that Turkey might provide facilities to host the meeting but not cover its full cost. Regarding the joint meeting with ICCAT mentioned above, the Secretariat indicated that it also included the cost of non-staff travel which had not been specified in the table.

20. The Commission considered the list of activities proposed for the Aquaculture Networks and requested a further breakdown of the costs of these activities. The requested details are included in the proposal prepared by the Secretariat (Appendix G). The delegation of Tunisia, which hosts the regional center of the SIPAM Network, indicated that in view of the priority accorded to this emerging sector the proposed request for funds was judged to be insufficient.

21. In the light of the discussions on the Secretariat staffing issue, the Commission requested the Secretariat to prepare a proposal which would reflect the reduction in staff and the suggestion regarding the reduction of meeting costs.

22. The delegation of the EC also introduced a table along the same lines. On this subject, some delegations expressed the wish that a total budget (FAO contribution plus that of contracting parties) be about US$ 750 000. The table was presented by the delegate of the EC who stated that his proposal was open for discussion and possible amendment. He suggested that the proposals presented by the Secretariat and EC be used to develop a single proposal for consideration by the Twenty-fourth Session of GFCM.

23. Some delegations questioned the low level of funding allocated to some Working Groups of SAC, the feasibility for some countries to participate effectively in the work of those Groups, and the physical arrangements for providing interpretation for consecutive Sessions of the Sub-Committees. In addition, comments were made on the insufficient funding envisaged for activities of the networks under the Committee on Aquaculture. The delegate of Cyprus proposed that only the GFCM main Sessions should be held in four languages.

24. The Legal Counsel reacting to the EC proposal to have a single column total budget merging FAO and Members contributions, indicated that the allocation of FAO funds was subject to FAO Conference approval, and that in fact the autonomous budget should be restricted to that funded from Members� contributions not including the FAO regular programme financing provided in support of the Commission�s activities. However, some delegations considered that from a practical point of view, this could be a useful exercise. The proposal of the EC is attached to the present report (Appendix H) for further review by the Twenty-fourth Session of the Commission.

25. The meeting noted the following clarifications by the Legal Counsel with respect to the contributions of the EC and its Member States.

The contribution of the EC and its Member States has been allocated between the EC and its Member States at their own request. The contribution is subject to the principle of the alternative exercise of membership rights which implies that both membership rights and the membership obligations of the EC and its Member States should not exceed the total of the membership rights and obligations that would otherwise be exercisable by the Member States alone.

In the context of contributions to the budget, the contributions by the EC and its Member States do not and should not exceed the total contributions otherwise payable by the Member States if the EC were not a party to the GFCM Agreement. This is of course without prejudice to the payment by a Member Organization of a sum to cover administrative and other expenses of membership, which should not be considered a contribution to the budget. Neither does the allocation between the EC and its Member States, which may be changed at any time at their request, entitle either the EC or its Member States to any additional vote on the budget.

26. The delegation of Malta reminded the meeting of its offer to host the GFCM Secretariat in the event that this be moved outside FAO Headquarters and encouraged Members to participate more actively in GFCM activities.

27. The report was adopted on 9 July 1999.

APPENDIX A

1. Opening of the Session.

2. Adoption of the Agenda and Arrangements for the Session.

3. Scale of Contributions for an Autonomous Budget.

4. Programme of Work for the Intersessional Period (July 1999-July 2000) and Budget for the Same Period,

5. Any Other Matters.

6. Adoption of the Report.

APPENDIX B

Gabriel P. GABRIELIDES
Director, Fisheries Department
Ministry of Agriculture, Natural
Resources and the Environment
Eolu 13
1416 Nicosia

John SPENCER
Head of Delegation
Directorate General for Fisheries
DG XIV/B4
200 Rue de la Loi
1049 Brussels, Belgium
Tel: (+32-2) 2956858
Fax: (+32-2) 2955700

Veronica CODY (Ms)
Administrator
Directorate General for Fisheries
Council of the European Union
Justus Lipsius
Rue de la Loi
1049 Brussels, Belgium
Tel: (+32-2) 2858261
Fax: (+32-2) 2858543

Jarnmo VILHUNEN
Councellor of Fisheries
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 232
00171 Helsinki
Finland

Jukka SIHVO
Senior Planning Officer
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 232
00171 Helsinki
Finland

Roberto CESARI
Administrator
European Commission
Directorate General for Fisheries
DG XIV/B4
200 Rue de la Loi
1049 Brussels, Belgium
Tel: (+32-2) 2994276
Fax: (+32-2) 2955700

Julien TURENNE
Chargé de mission
Ministère de l�agriculture et de la pêche
3 Place de Fontenoy
75007 Paris
Tel: (+33-1) 49558236
Fax: (+33-1) 49558200
Email:[email protected]

Pasquale GIANNELLA
Chef de division
Ministero per le Politiche Agricole
Viale dell�Arte 16
00144 Roma

Junichiro OKAMOTO
Head of Delegation
Counsellor, Fisheries Agency
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fishery
1-2-1 Kasumigaseki
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo

Tsuyoshi IWATA
Fisheries Agency of Japan
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fishery
1-2-1 Kasumigaseki
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo

Masaharu SHIMIZU
Fishery Division
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
2-2-1 Kasumigaseki
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo

Francis MONTANARO MIFSUD
Ambassador to FAO
Permanent Representation of the
Republic of Malta to FAO
Lungotevere Marzio 12
00186 Rome, Italy
Tel: (+39 06) 6879990/6879947
Fax: (+39 06) 6892687

Edward GAUCI BORDA
Permanent Secretary
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
Barriera Wharf, Valletta
Tel: (+356) 240399
Fax: (+356) 248602

Matthew CAMILLERI
Fisheries Biologist
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
Barriera Wharf, Valletta
Tel: (+356) 650 934
Fax: (+356) 650 932
E-mail: [email protected]

Youssef OUATI
Chef de la division de la coopération
Direction de la Coopération et des
Affaires Juridiques
Ministère des Pêches Maritimes
Rabat
Tel: (+7) 688162
Fax: (+7) 688194
Email:[email protected]

Ignaciao YBANEZ
Subdirector General de Organismos
Multilaterales de Pesca
Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y
Alimentación
Ortega y Gasset 57
Madrid
Tel: (+34) 914027404
Fax: (+34) 913093967
Email: [email protected]

Maria Carmen CADENAS DE LLANO (Ms)
Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación
Ortega y Gasset 57
Madrid
Tel: (+34) 914025000
Fax: (+34) 913093967
Email:[email protected]

Ahmed CHOUAYAKH
Directeur
Ministère de l�Agriculture
Direction générale de la pêche
et de l'aquaculture
32 Rue Alain Savary
Tunis
Tel: 890784
Fax: 799401

Viale delle Terme di Caracalla
00100 Rome

G. MOORE
Legal Counsel/Conseiller juridique
Legal Office/Bureau juridique
Tel: (+39 06) 57053319
Email:[email protected]

H. BEN ALAYA
Secretary/Secrétaire
Senior Fishery Liaison Officer/Fonctionnaire
principal de liaison (pêches)
International Institutions and Liaison
Service/Service des institutions
internationales et de liaison
Tel: (+39 06) 57056435
Fax: (+39 06) 57056500
E-mail:[email protected]

U. WIJKSTRÖM
Chief/Chef
Fishery Policy and Planning Division/ Division des politiques et de la
planification de la pêche
Tel: (+39 06) 57053156
Fax: (+39 06) 57056500
E-mail: [email protected]

M. PEDINI
Technical Secretary/Secrétaire
technique (Aquaculture)
Fishery Resources Division/Division
des ressources halieutiques
Tel: (+39 06) 57056279
Fax: (+39 06) 57053020
E-mail:[email protected]

	Total Budget US$		750000
	Basic fee (10 %)		75000
	Numbers of Members		22
	Total budget less basic fee		675000
	GNP Component (fraction of total budget):		0.30
	US$		225000
	Catch Component (fraction of total budget):		0.60
	US$		450000

Notes: The index for the GNP component reflects the scale of contribution to FAO.

	Total Budget US$		750000
	Basic fee (10 %)		75000
	Numbers of Members		22
	Total budget less basic fee		675000
	GNP Component (fraction of total budget):		0.30
	US$		225000
	Catch Component (fraction of total budget):		0.60
	US$		450000

As in document GFCM ES/99/2, with addition of Black Sea catches
and GNP component for Black Sea countries.

* Sum to cover the administrative and other expenses of membership.

	Total Budget US$		750000
	Basic fee (10 %)		75000
	Numbers of Members		22
	Total budget less basic fee		675000
	GNP Component (fraction of total budget):		0.30
	US$		225000
	Catch Component (fraction of total budget):		0.60
	US$		450000

* Sum to cover the administrative and other expenses of membership

		Shares
Countries	GNP/caput	per country
Japan	30000-	30
4 EU Members	10000-29999	10
15 Others	1000-9999	1
Albania	0-999	0

To countries that have a GNP smaller than US$ 100 billion and a
GNP/caput smaller than US$ 10 000/year are applied a GNP
category one step below that which should be applied according to
the above table.

Black Sea Countries included.

APPENDIX G

APPENDIX H

(*) In case of country whose GNP per caput is over US$ 9 386 and whose GNP is less than US$ 100
billion, the GNP per caput index will be lowered by one step.