2.5       The Group took note of the preliminary assessment presented by the Secretariat of the inspector qualifications contained in the applications in order to make possible adjustments to the length or content of the GTS training modules or sub-modules.  Furthermore, the attention of the Group was drawn to the fact that the Secretariat had conducted a review, based upon qualifications and professional experience as criteria, of approximately 73 % of the total number of 1,103 applications.  About 52 % of the applications thus far reviewed did not appear to meet the primary requirements set out in the Vacancy Notices.  In particular, this initial screening confirmed that the number of suitably qualified candidates is insufficient for most of the categories of inspector candidates, and demonstrates clearly that there are serious shortages in the number of qualified applicants for Chemical Production Technologist and Chemical Production Logistician categories.

2.6       The Group took note of the following preliminary observations by the Secretariat:

(a)        it is premature at this stage to make any final recommendations with regard to the possibility of changing the content of modules/sub-modules; and

(b)        any reduction in the length of the training programme would have a negative impact on the quality and the efficiency of the inspector/inspection assistants.

2.7       The Group agreed to further address the issue of adjustments to the length or content of modules/sub-modules at its next meeting, after the initial screening of applicants has been completed.

2.8       The Group agreed that no exemptions should be offered to trainees from any of the GTS modules or sub-modules because of the needs throughout the entire course of instruction, inter alia, to:

(a)        develop team spirit, cohesiveness and competence;

(b)        conduct detailed trainee performance evaluations to determine each trainee's suitability as an inspector/inspection assistant;

(c)        select potential team leaders; and

(d)        enhance the cross-fertilisation of trainees from various cultures, qualifications and areas of experience.

2.9       The Group took note of the paper prepared by the Secretariat on Accommodation and Meal Costs to Support Inspector Candidate Training, and agreed with the following suggestions made in that paper:

(a)        that those Member States that have made offers of training that do not include a reduced cost or a no cost provision for accommodations and meals, consider revising their offers to provide accommodations and meals at no cost, or alternatively to include advanced arrangements to provide a low cost accommodations and meals package for trainees; and

(b)        that those Member States that are planning to make a training offer provide accommodations and meals at no cost, or alternatively to include advanced arrangements to provide a low cost accommodations and meals package for trainees.

2.10     The Group considered two papers prepared by the Secretariat entitled Revised Training Cost Estimate and Costs for Module 1 and Module 2 Training.  The Group supported the general approach taken by the Secretariat to reduce specific training costs, in particular the cost of trainee travel.  However, since the revised cost estimates remain illustrative because the final cost of much of the M2 and M3 training is not known, and since the Secretariat must also continue to assess the potential cost of the provision of alternative and complementary training by the Secretariat, the Group agreed to forward the two papers previously referred to in this subparagraph to the Expert Group on Programme of Work and Budget for its consideration without specific recommendations.

2.11     The Group agreed to request the Secretariat to update the estimates of the cost of training for its next meeting in the light of any further information on training offers provided by Member States in the interim.

2.12     The Group considered a suggestion that the Secretariat study the possibility of reducing the cost of training in the M1 course by replacing selected introductory lectures with a self-study programme.  Some delegations expressed concern about the possible negative impact of this suggestion on the quality of M1 training, as well as about its overall cost-effectiveness.

3.         Recommendations

3.1       The Group recommended that:

(a)        the Secretariat continue to assess alternative and complementary training options to national offers of M2 and M3 training, and prepare a detailed analysis of the costs of these alternative options for presentation to the next scheduled meeting of the Group; and

(b)        the Secretariat conduct an assessment of various cost-effective measures, with a view to reporting to the Group at its next scheduled meeting on the practical and educational effects of such measures for further discussion.

3.2       The Group recommended that Working Group B:

(a)        request the Executive Secretary to urge Member States, particularly those possessing suitable facilities, to make additional formal training offers against shortages in M2 and M3 training offers.  The Executive Secretary should also request Member States to consider providing suitably qualified instructors to assist the Secretariat in such training as a contingency against the possibility that the Secretariat may be required to teach certain M2 sub-modules;

(b)        accept 1 February 1995 as the deadline for the submission of training offers, including complete certification information sets and cost to the Secretariat of M2 or M3 training;

(c)        note the assessment made by the Secretariat of inspector candidate qualifications, and endorse the Group's recommendation that no exemption be offered to trainees from attending GTS modules and sub modules;

(d)        authorise it to forward the revised training cost estimate directly to the Expert Group on Programme of Work and Budget for consideration; and

(e)        schedule the next meeting of this Group for February 1995.