DOCSLIB.ORG

Eveline Hertzberger

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

i Foreword The international community can no longer address the new challenges posed by non-state actors without adopting a unified, cooperative and supportive approach. One of the fundamental pillars in countering terrorism and governing security in the European Union (EU) involves information and intelligence sharing as this is the first step in enhancing such cooperation in the security area. The sharing of intelligence between EU Member States seems like a simple task at first glance, but under the surface working together is not always as easy as it seems. Decision makers and agencies face legal, technical, political, cultural, organizational and even personal obstacles when sharing information. The relevant governmental and inter-governmental organizations have to overcome such obstacles and hesitation because they delay effective counter-terrorism coordination in the long-term. To address such issues in information sharing, UNICRI has researched and published a report on ‘Counter-Terrorism Intelligence Cooperation in the European Union’. It aims to raise awareness regarding the relevant obstacles, trigger debate regarding the potential solutions and come up with innovative alternatives. The report argues for greater information flow from the national level to the international EU level. The research reveals that personal contacts and informal arrangements play a crucial role in the initiation and maintenance of intelligence cooperation relations. Counter-terrorism may therefore require a much greater investment in informal intelligence-sharing arrangements than has thus far been acknowledged. This report does not stand alone, the Institute also works towards security governance by identifying common goals, maximizing investments, establishing a common language and creating the organizational framework needed for a permanent and sustained dialogue and information sharing. UNICRI is fully aware of the role intelligence cooperation has to play and sees this Report as another cooperative step forward in advancing security, serving justice and building peace. Sandro Calvani Director of UNICRI ii Acknowledgement This research was made possible by the generous contribution of Compagnia di San Paolo (Italy), Riksbankens Jubileumsfond (Sweden) and VolkswagenStiftung (Germany). I gratefully acknowledge the support of: Francesco Marelli, Francesco Cappè and Doris Buddenberg of UNICRI; Pavel Maximov for layout and graphics; Mari Kalliala of Europol; Prosecutor Stefano Dambruoso; Nicolò Russo Perez of the Compagnia di San Paolo; Christopher Langton of the International Institute for Strategic Studies; prof.mr.dr. E.R. Muller; all interviewees; all contributors; my family and friends. Disclaimer The opinions expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of UNICRI. Eveline R. Hertzberger July 2007 Turin, Italy iii Abstract Counter-terrorism intelligence sharing in the European Union is needed to provide EU decision makers with better intelligence support. Such decision makers in the Second and Third Pillar are the Council, the Commission, the Counter-terrorism Coordinator and the High Representative. Together with several EU information agencies and national intelligence and security services, they comprise the European intelligence community. Information flow in the EU is bottom-up: information flows from national intelligence and security services, via EU information agencies, to EU decision makers in the Second and Third Pillar. However, intelligence support to EU decision makers has been insufficient. Therefore, this study aims to answer the question: what are the most important problems in counter-terrorism intelligence sharing within the European Union, and how can these problems be resolved? Better intelligence cooperation would lead to better intelligence support to EU decision makers and a substantial added value for Member States, motivating them to continue to submit intelligence to the European level. The European intelligence community hosts four EU information agencies: the European Police Organization (Europol), the Joint Situation Center (SitCen), the Intelligence Division of the European Union Military Staff (INTDIV EUMS), and the European Union Satellite Center (EUSC). SitCen and Europol both have an explicit counter-terrorism mandate. They collect intelligence from national intelligence and security services, and analyse and process this intelligence for EU and national decision makers. Several political, cultural, technical, and organizational problems are continuing to hamper counter- terrorism intelligence cooperation in the EU. A special focus of this study lies on the use of personal contacts and informal arrangements of information sharing to improve intelligence cooperation. It is argued that personal contacts are crucial in initiating and maintaining relationships of intelligence sharing. Investing in informal sharing arrangements and other ‘soft’ measures would be an important step for the EU to stimulate counter-terrorism intelligence cooperation. Key words counter-terrorism; intelligence; information sharing; Europol; SitCen; informal sharing iv Counter-Terrorism Intelligence Cooperation in the European Union 1 Introduction ....................................................................................1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Literature review ........................................................................................ 6 1.3 Methods ....................................................................................................... 9 1.4 Research framework ................................................................................ 10 1.5 Definitions .................................................................................................. 12 1.6 Reading guidelines ................................................................................... 15 2 The Changing Security Environment of the EU ................................19 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 19 2.2 The changing security environment ........................................................ 19 2.3 Developments in intelligence .................................................................. 24 2.4 The EU as a security actor ....................................................................... 29 2.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................. 32 3 The use of intelligence to combat terrorism ...................................37 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 37 3.2 Introduction to types of intelligence ........................................................ 37 3.3 Measures to combat terrorism ................................................................ 40 3.4 The use of intelligence to combat terrorism .......................................... 43 3.5 Conclusion ................................................................................................. 48 4 The European intelligence community ...........................................51 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................51 4.2 Description of the EU Intelligence Community ...................................... 52 4.3 The availability principle ........................................................................... 55 4.4 EU institutional framework for counter-terrorism .................................. 58 4.5 National – national sharing ..................................................................... 62 4.6 National – European sharing ................................................................... 65 4.7 The Joint Situation Center (SitCen) ......................................................... 66 4.8 Sharing with SitCen ...................................................................................71 4.9 European Police Organization (Europol) ................................................. 73 4.10 Sharing with Europol ................................................................................. 76 4.11 The European Union Satellite Center (EUSC) ......................................... 82 4.12 The Intelligence Division of the EU Military Staff (INTDIV) .................... 84 v 4.13 Other bilateral and multilateral initiatives .............................................. 85 4.14 European – European sharing ................................................................ 86 4.15 The Prüm Treaty ....................................................................................... 89 4.16 Conclusion ................................................................................................. 90 5 General Problems in Intelligence Cooperation ...............................95 5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 95 5.2 Improved intelligence cooperation in the EU ........................................ 95 5.3 Political problems .................................................................................... 101 5.4 Cultural problems.................................................................................... 105 5.5 Organizational problems .......................................................................
Recommended publications
  • The Nordic Countries and the European Security and Defence Policy

    The Nordic Countries and the European Security and Defence Policy

    bailes_hb.qxd 21/3/06 2:14 pm Page 1 Alyson J. K. Bailes (United Kingdom) is A special feature of Europe’s Nordic region the Director of SIPRI. She has served in the is that only one of its states has joined both British Diplomatic Service, most recently as the European Union and NATO. Nordic British Ambassador to Finland. She spent countries also share a certain distrust of several periods on detachment outside the B Recent and forthcoming SIPRI books from Oxford University Press A approaches to security that rely too much service, including two academic sabbaticals, A N on force or that may disrupt the logic and I a two-year period with the British Ministry of D SIPRI Yearbook 2005: L liberties of civil society. Impacting on this Defence, and assignments to the European E Armaments, Disarmament and International Security S environment, the EU’s decision in 1999 to S Union and the Western European Union. U THE NORDIC develop its own military capacities for crisis , She has published extensively in international N Budgeting for the Military Sector in Africa: H management—taken together with other journals on politico-military affairs, European D The Processes and Mechanisms of Control E integration and Central European affairs as E ongoing shifts in Western security agendas Edited by Wuyi Omitoogun and Eboe Hutchful R L and in USA–Europe relations—has created well as on Chinese foreign policy. Her most O I COUNTRIES AND U complex challenges for Nordic policy recent SIPRI publication is The European Europe and Iran: Perspectives on Non-proliferation L S Security Strategy: An Evolutionary History, Edited by Shannon N.
  • The New Eu Foreign Policy Architecture

    The New Eu Foreign Policy Architecture

    THE NEW EU FOREIGN POLICY ARCHITECTURE REVIEWING THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF THE EEAS NIKLAS HELWIG PAUL IVAN HRANT KOSTANYAN CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN POLICY STUDIES (CEPS) BRUSSELS The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) is an independent policy research institute in Brussels. Its mission is to produce sound policy research leading to constructive solutions to the challenges facing Europe. The views expressed in this book are entirely those of the authors and should not be attributed to CEPS or any other institution with which they are associated or to the European Union. Niklas Helwig is a Marie Curie Researcher of the EXACT network at the University of Edinburgh and Cologne and focuses on the institutional development of EU foreign policy. He worked for the Centre for European Policy Studies and the Finnish Institute of International Affairs. Paul Ivan is a Romanian diplomat. Previously, he worked as a researcher for the Centre for European Policy Studies, where he focused on EU political and institutional issues and the European External Action Service. Hrant Kostanyan is an associate research fellow at CEPS and a PhD candidate at the Centre for EU Studies at Ghent University. He worked as an external expert for International Alert, based in London, in the Eastern Europe and South Caucasus research project. He also worked as an expert on a European Commission-funded project on the EU’s relations with Russia and the Eastern Partnership at the EU Neighbourhood Info Centre. The authors thank Piotr Maciej Kaczyński for his comments on an earlier draft. ISBN 978-94-6138-262-7 © Copyright 2013, Centre for European Policy Studies and the authors.
  • Intelligence, Emergencies and Foreign Policy the EU's Role in Counter-Terrorism

    Intelligence, Emergencies and Foreign Policy the EU's Role in Counter-Terrorism

    essays Intelligence, emergencies and foreign policy: The EU’s role in counter-terrorism # Hugo Brady about the CER The Centre for European Reform is a think-tank devoted to improving the quality of the debate on the European Union. It is a forum for people with ideas from Britain and across the continent to discuss the many political, economic and social challenges facing Europe. It seeks to work with Intelligence, similar bodies in other European countries, North America and elsewhere in the world. The CER is pro-European but not uncritical. It regards European integration as largely beneficial but recognises that in many respects the Union does not work well. The CER therefore aims to emergencies promote new ideas for reforming the European Union. Director: CHARLES GRANT ADVISORY BOARD and foreign GIULIANO AMATO.............................................................................................. Former Italian Prime Minister ANTONIO BORGES..................................................................................................... Former Dean of INSEAD NICK BUTLER .................................................................. Senior Policy Adviser to Prime Minister Gordon Brown IAIN CONN ................................... Group Managing Director and Chief Executive, Refining & Marketing, BP p.l.c. LORD HANNAY.................................................................................... Former Ambassador to the UN & the EU policy LORD HASKINS .........................................................................................
  • Report on the Foreign Policy of the Czech Republic 2007

    Report on the Foreign Policy of the Czech Republic 2007

    CONTENTS INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................6 I. MULTILATERAL COOPERATION ................................................................................. 14 1. The Czech Republic and the European Union ........................................................ 14 The Czech Republic and the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy ............. 33 The Czech Republic and European Security and Defence Policy ........................ 42 2. The Czech Republic and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) ............ 48 3. The Czech Republic and Regional Cooperation ..................................................... 74 Visegrad cooperation ............................................................................................. 74 Central European Initiative (CEI) .......................................................................... 78 Regional Partnership .............................................................................................. 80 Stability Pact for South East Europe ..................................................................... 82 4. The Czech Republic and other European international organisations and forums .. 84 The Czech Republic and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)................................................................................................................... 84 Council of Europe .................................................................................................
  • Secrecy Reigns at the EU's Intelligence Analysis Centre

    Secrecy Reigns at the EU's Intelligence Analysis Centre

    Analysis Secrecy reigns at the EU’s Intelligence Analysis Centre Chris Jones The Centre's reports are widely distributed within the EU and have a direct bearing on political decision-making despite an alarming lack of operational transparency and democratic accountability. The EU Intelligence Analysis Centre (INTCEN) is the most recent name for an institution that has existed in a number of forms since 1999. It monitors events both inside and outside the EU in order to provide “intelligence analyses, early warning and situational awareness” to EU institutions and Member States in the fields of security, defence and counter-terrorism. While it remains relatively small and lacks a clear legal basis, the agency’s size and remit have expanded over the years. INTCEN’s work often influences political decision-making, raising questions over whether the secrecy surrounding the institution’s work is acceptable. History of INTCEN INTCEN became part of the European External Action Service (EEAS) in 2010, but has a far longer history. Its origins, as “a structure working exclusively on open source intelligence,” lie in the Western European Union (WEU), an intergovernmental military alliance that officially disbanded in June 2011 after its functions were gradually transferred over the last decade to the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy. [1] The exact date that INTCEN’s predecessor organisation began its work within the WEU is unknown. With the establishment of the European Security and Defence Policy in 1999 it was transferred to the EU along with the EU Military Staff (EUMS) (the EU’s “source of military expertise” [2] which is responsible for organising “concepts, doctrine, capability planning and capability development including crisis management exercises, training, analysis and lessons learned.”) [3] Some years later, the EUMS Intelligence Division began to work with INTCEN.
  • Downloaded from Manchesterhive.Com at 09/26/2021 02:07:14PM Via Free Access 2444Ch5 3/12/02 2:02 Pm Page 116

    Downloaded from Manchesterhive.Com at 09/26/2021 02:07:14PM Via Free Access 2444Ch5 3/12/02 2:02 Pm Page 116

    2444Ch5 3/12/02 2:02 pm Page 115 5 Andreas Maurer1 Germany: fragmented structures in a complex system Introduction: preferences of a tamed power2 Germany’s political class is marked by a positive and constructive attitude towards European integration. The main objective of European policy was and still is to achieve effective and democratic European co-operation and integration.3 All governments and the vast majority of political parties contrive their general European policy agenda around the funda- mental aim of far-reaching integration towards some kind of political union. Although the diplomatic class does not follow any kind of altruis- tic or ‘naive’ European policy geared to achieve a European federation, the majority of political actors are reluctant to explicitly play a leading role within the evolving European Union. That is not to say that they are immune from searching ways to influence the European agenda. But German initiatives regarding ‘great bargain’ decisions (IGCs, CAP reforms, decisions on the Union’s financial resources)4 are generally pre- arranged jointly with other Member State governments. Until 1989, this ‘leadership avoidance reflex’5 was a typical feature of Germany acting under the paradigm of a ‘semi-sovereign’ state.6 ‘Deutschlands Interessen liegen in Europa’ (Germany’s interests lie in Europe) – this paradigm reflects the political elites’ view of Germany’s potential leadership in Europe, the mediation of its power within the EC and its institutional arrangements.7 With its large industrial sector and dependence on foreign trade, Germany is largely linked to the Common Market. Establishing close economic links within the EC is therefore politically advantageous as it demonstrates the FRG’s commitment to economic and political integration.8 Time is another country: the impact of the Maastricht Treaty and German re-unification The end of the Cold War decisively changed the fundamental parameters for the European Union and its Member States.
  • Institutions, Policies and Enlargement of the European Union

    Institutions, Policies and Enlargement of the European Union

    This booklet is published in all the ofiicial EU languages of the European Union: Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, ltalian, Portuguese, Spanish and Swedish. European Commission Directorate-General for Education and Culture Publications Unit, rue de la LoiAffetstraat 200, B-1049 Brussels A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu.int). Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2000 lsBN 92-828-8282-9 O European Communities, 2000 Reproduction is authonsed provided the source is acknowledged. Printed in Belgium Pnrrurro oN wHtrE cHLoRtNE-FREE pApER Foreword This publication is an update of the previous edition of 'Glossary: The reform of the European Union in 150 definitions' that was produced in 1997. As indicated by its original title, this glossary was produced in order to help people to gain a better understanding of the challenges facing the European Union at the time of the Intergovemmental Conference that opened in 1996. It was subsequently expanded to cover the fundamentals ofEuropean integration, the operation of the institutions, the policies of the Community and the contributions of the Amsterdam Treaty. The inclusion of the essential aspects of the enlargement process and of Agenda2}O} and, in the future, the results of the Intergovemmental Conference of 2000, confirms the glossary's vocation of follow- ing European current affairs and explaining them to the public. An update of the definitions contained in this publication is available on the SCADPIus site, which can be accessed on the Europa server at the following address : http ://europa.eu.infl scadplus/.
  • Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament

    Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament

    Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament Annual Report 2016–2017 Chair: The Rt. Hon. Dominic Grieve QC MP Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament Annual Report 2016–2017 Chair: The Rt. Hon. Dominic Grieve QC MP Presented to Parliament pursuant to sections 2 and 3 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 20 December 2017 HC 655 © Crown copyright 2017 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open- government-licence/version/3 Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at isc.independent.gov.uk Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us via our webform at isc.independent.gov.uk/contact ISBN 978-1-5286-0168-9 CCS1217631642 12/17 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office THE INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMITTEE OF PARLIAMENT This Report reflects the work of the previous Committee,1 which sat from September 2015 to May 2017: The Rt. Hon. Dominic Grieve QC MP (Chair) The Rt. Hon. Richard Benyon MP The Most Hon. the Marquess of Lothian QC PC (from 21 October 2016) The Rt. Hon. Sir Alan Duncan KCMG MP The Rt. Hon. Fiona Mactaggart MP (until 17 July 2016) The Rt. Hon.
  • Global Multi-Level Governance

    Global Multi-Level Governance

    United Nations University Press is the publishing arm of the United Nations University. UNU Press publishes scholarly and policy-oriented books and periodicals on the issues facing the United Nations and its peoples and member states, with particular emphasis upon international, regional and transboundary policies. The United Nations University was established as a subsidiary organ of the United Nations by General Assembly resolution 2951 (XXVII) of 11 December 1972. It functions as an international community of scholars engaged in research, postgraduate training and the dissemination of knowledge to address the pressing global problems of human survival, development and welfare that are the concern of the United Nations and its agencies. Its activities are devoted to advancing knowledge for human security and development and are focused on issues of peace and governance and environment and sustainable development. The Univer- sity operates through a worldwide network of research and training centres and programmes, and its planning and coordinating centre in Tokyo. Global multi-level governance The United Nations University-Comparative Regional Integration Studies (UNU-CRIS) is a research and training programme of the UNU that focuses on the role of regions and regional integration in global gov- ernance. The aim of UNU-CRIS is to build policy-relevant knowledge about new forms of governance and cooperation, and to contribute to capacity-building on issues of integration and cooperation, particularly in developing countries. UNU-CRIS is based in Bruges and works in partnership with initiatives and centres throughout the world that are concerned with issues of integration and cooperation. The author worked at UNU-CRIS from September 2003 till March 2005 to compare the regionalisation of higher education in Europe and East Asia within a multi-level globalization context with funding from a post-doctoral grant from the Spanish Ministry of Education, co-funded by the European Social Fund.
  • Bilateral Disputes Between EU Member States and Russia

    Bilateral Disputes Between EU Member States and Russia

    Bilateral Disputes between EU Member States and Russia CEPS Working Document No. 319/August 2009 Mathias Roth Abstract Over the past years, a series of bilateral disputes between EU member states and Moscow have significantly affected EU–Russian relations and exposed sharp internal divisions over the EU’s approach towards Russia. Despite their potential for having a highly disruptive impact on EU foreign policy, the EU still lacks a consensus on how to handle bilateral disputes. This paper employs a case-study approach to provide an in-depth analysis of selected disputes and reviews several questions of importance for the coherence of EU policy towards Russia: What kinds of issues are at the centre of bilateral disputes? What strategies do member states adopt to resolve them? Under what circumstances are disputes raised to the EU level? The paper concludes that the scope of ‘EU solidarity’ in bilateral disputes remains deeply contested and draws on insights from the case studies to propose a set of guidelines for the EU’s approach to bilateral disputes. CEPS Working Documents are intended to give an indication of work being conducted within CEPS research programmes and to stimulate reactions from other experts in the field. Unless otherwise indicated, the views expressed are attributable only to the author in a personal capacity and not to any institution with which he is associated. ISBN 978-92-9079-916-0 Available for free downloading from the CEPS website (http://www.ceps.eu) © Centre for European Policy Studies, 2009 Contents 1. Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1 2. Community competence and EU solidarity in bilateral disputes...........................................
  • First Draft - Work in Progress - Please Do Not Quote

    First Draft - Work in Progress - Please Do Not Quote

    Artur Gruszczak Associate Professor Institute of Political Science and International Relations Jagiellonian University Krakow, Poland e-mail: [email protected] Intelligence Support for Diplomacy: Information Sharing and the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union Paper to be presented at the International Studies Association (ISA) Annual Convention, 26-29 March 2014, Toronto, Canada FIRST DRAFT - WORK IN PROGRESS - PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE Introduction The birth of the European Union coincided with dramatic, violent and destructive processes taking place in the Balkans, the Horn of Africa and the region of Great Lakes. The European Union, having been developing its international actorness and identity, decided to start building and enhancing its capacities to prevent and respond to external crises and violent conflicts in the most effective and coherent way. This meant at that time, the mid- 1990s, the widening of the external dimension of its policies and entering the area of diplomacy and security. The complex and demanding system of international relations and interactions in the era of post-Cold War strategic conundrum became increasingly dependent on information, communication and data management. Governance, management and policy-making processes in the digitalised world, based on complex information networks and communication channels, were saturated with mass information flowing from sources dispersed all over the world. Diplomacy has always been connected to information and knowledge: about other states, their political systems, economic resources, demographic features, cultural traits, etc. As the foreign relations went global, more 1 complex and interrelated, involving more actors belonging in different categories, state diplomacy was in a growing need of learning and understanding different components of the world system for they permeated state sovereignty and interfered in national interests and objectives.
  • 009741/EU XXVII.GP Eingelangt Am 30/01/20

    009741/EU XXVII.GP Eingelangt Am 30/01/20

    009741/EU XXVII.GP Eingelangt am 30/01/20 Council of the European Union Brussels, 30 January 2020 (OR. en) 14250/99 DCL 1 PVD 89 ASIE 61 PESC 488 DECLASSIFICATION of document: ST 14250/99 RESTREINT dated: 20 December 1999 new status: Public Subject: Meeting of the Asia/Oceania Working Group, Brussels, 16 December 1999 - Report Delegations will find attached the declassified version of the above document. The text of this document is identical to the previous version. 14250/99 DCL 1 KAL SMART 2.C.S1 EN www.parlament.gv.at EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 20 December 1999 THE COUNCIL 14250/99 RESTREINT PVD 89 ASIE 61 PESC 488 OUTCOME OF PROCEEDINGSROCEEDINGS from : the Asia OceaniaOceania WorkingWorking GroupGroup dated: 16 Decembermber 11999999 Subject: Meeting ofof the Asia/OceaniaAsia/Oceania WorkingWorking GrouGrouup,p, BBrussels,ruusss ele s,s 16 December 1999.199 Report I. OPERATIONALTIONAL CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONNS 1. CHINA The Presidencyy will circulate,circulate,, byby coreu,cooreu,, possipossibleble terms of reference for a TroikaTroika demarche in Beijing, to be mademade as soonsooon asa possible,posssisibblle, which would raise EU concern at respectrespe for basic individual humanman rightrights,s,s iincludingnccluuddingn bbutut not restrictedrestricted to the cases of thosethose wwhoho aarer followers of the Falun Gong. 2. SRI LANKA/AFGHANISTAN:/AFGHHANNISI TTAN: EUEU ACTIONACTION PLANSPLANS AAGAINSTGAINST ILLEILLEGALGA IMMIGRATIONION Partners are invited to offer, by Coreu, their views on how to implement the recommended foreign policy measures included in the Asylum and Migration HLWG Action Plans adopted by GAC and the European Council (Council Docs 11424/99 and 11428/99). The Group will revert to this issue at one of its next meetings.