Fifty-first Regional Committee for Europe: Madrid, 10–13 September 2001: report of the fifth session of the Standing Committee of the Regional Committee

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION REGIONAL OFFICE FOR EUROPE COPENHAGEN REGIONAL COMMITTEE FOR EUROPE Fifty-first session, Madrid, 10 – 13 September 2001 Provisional agenda item 5 EUR/RC51/3 Add.1 9 Septemb er 2001 10601M ORIGINAL: ENGLISH EIGHTH STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONAL COMMITTEE – REPORT OF THE FIFTH SESSION This document contains the report of the session of the eighth Standing Committee of the Regional Committee, held in Madrid, Spain on Sunday 9 September 2001. It should be read in conjunction with the consolidated report of the SCRC (document EUR/RC51/3). EUR/RC51/3 Add.1 page 1 INTRODUCTION 1. The fifth session of the eighth Standing Committee of the Regional Committee (SCRC) was held at the Palacio Municipal de Congresos in Madrid on 9 September 2001. In his introductory remarks, the Regional Director outlined the structure of the address that he would deliver at the start of the fifty-first session of the WHO Regional Committee for Europe (RC51) the following day. ADOPTION OF THE PROVISIONAL AGENDA AND THE PROVISIONAL PROGRAMME 2. The provisional agenda and programme were adopted, with the addition of three topics under the item entitled “Other matters”: – Report on the review of WHO/EURO Centres; – Composition of the SCRC subgroup on bioethics; – Draft resolutions submitted by Member States. ADOPTION OF THE DRAFT REPORT OF THE FOURTH SESSION, THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH COMMITTEE, AND THE REPORT OF THE SCRC TO RC51 3. The draft report of the SCRC’s fourth session was adopted with two amendments, to bring it into line with the SCRC’s consolidated report to RC51: – At the start of paragraph 18, the phrase “One member of the SCRC …” should be replaced by “The Executive President of the fiftieth session of the Regional Committee …”; – At the end of paragraph 19, the following sentence should be added: “It agreed to use the period up to RC52 to have consultations with European Member States and explore possibilities for consensus.” 4. The SCRC took note of the report of the European Environment and Health Committee that would be submitted to RC51 (document EUR/RC51/Inf.Doc./1). 5. The SCRC endorsed without amendment its consolidated report to RC51 (document EUR/RC51/3). As in previous years, it was agreed that the Chairperson would introduce those parts of the report that would not be dealt with under other RC51 agenda items, drawing the Regional Committee’s attention to the fact that two draft resolutions were to be considered in that context. Individual members of the SCRC would then present its views on other subjects under the corresponding agenda items. MEMBERSHIP OF VARIOUS COMMITTEES 6. The SCRC reached consensus on the candidates that it would recommend for membership of the Executive Board, the SCRC and the Joint Coordinating Board of the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases. It advised that a confidential letter with its recommendations should be sent to heads of delegations the following day. EUR/RC51/3 Add.1 page 2 SELECTION OF EVALUATO RS FOR EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF THE HEALTH CARE REFORM PROGRAMME 7. In view of the extent of the task involved in making an external evaluation of the Regional Office’s programme, the SCRC decided to select the following four experts: – Dr June Crown – Dr Dana Farcasanu – Dr José-Manuel Freire – Dr Özen Asut. 8. The SCRC further suggested that the evaluators should choose one of their number to act as coordinator of the team. OTHER MATTERS Draft SCRC plan of work for 2001–2002 9. In view of the global conferences that had recently taken place or would be held during the year, the SCRC recommended that it should consider the following topics prior to their inclusion on the agenda of RC52: – Health and sustainable development – Aging – Follow-up to the Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly on HIV/AIDS. 10. The SCRC agreed that it would be preferable to review the second report of its subgroup on bioethics later in the year, and not (as proposed) at its second session. 11. The question of criteria for membership of the Executive Board needed to be clearly identified on the agenda of the April 2002 session, if not earlier. 12. An evaluation would need to be made of the experiment of having a European member of the Executive Board attend sessions of the SCRC as an observer, and the findings should be reported at the April 2002 session. That issue could be further discussed at the SCRC session to be held immediately after the close of RC51. 13. Other outstanding questions to be considered by the ninth SCRC at its first session concerned the duration and location of the November 2001 session. It might need to be longer than two days and could usefully be held outside Copenhagen or Geneva. Report on the review of WHO/EURO Centres 14. The SCRC endorsed the view that internal management and audit documents (many of which were concerned with individual cases) should properly remain confidential, and that responsibility for managing the Regional Office was one of the Regional Director’s “reserved functions”. On the other hand, the SCRC itself had a statutory oversight function with regard to policy and strategy. 15. It was accordingly agreed that a paper on the policy and strategy with regard to WHO/EURO Centres would be submitted to the SCRC for comments during the year, prior to its general release. EUR/RC51/3 Add.1 page 3 Composition of the SCRC subgroup on bioe thics 16. As provided for by Rule 13 of its Rules of Procedure, the SCRC agreed to ask Dr Jeremy Metters to continue his membership of its subgroup on bioethics. Draft resolutions submitted by Member States 17. The SCRC noted that there was no provision in its Rules of Procedure governing the submission of draft resolutions by Member States. It accordingly advised that the appropriate Rule of Procedure of the World Health Assembly should apply, whereby a period of 48 hours was required between the presentation of a draft resolution and its adoption. 18. Given that the Standing Committee could play no role while the Regional Committee was in session, and in view of the fact that the draft resolutions in questions were to be submitted by Member States, the SCRC did not wish to take any further action in that regard.