Introduction

The work programme of SC4 Sub-Committee IHB, was defined by a recommendation from the 1992 Conference: “Updating of the IHB”. With regard to this updating, following recommendations were adopted:

• The Executive Board tasks the Executive Vice Presidents for the Regions with the distribution and collection of the IHB-questionnaires within their region. They will inform Sub-Committee IHB on their problems with regard to the collection of the IHB-questionnaire and/or meeting the target dates of Recommendation 88.C.1 (Rio 1988, amended Bournemouth 1992).
• The updating of the IHB should remain an agenda item at each Regional Meeting (Rio 88).
• At each Regional Meeting the agenda item “Updating the IHB” should include the collection of the IHB updates (Bournemouth 92).
• SC4, Sub-Committee IHB, shall update the IHB by means of a questionnaire, which will be distributed to the Executive Vice-Presidents (Region) every two years (starting in 1988) and this not later than July 1st, with the request that they return the answers to Sub-Committee IHB as soon as possible after their Regional Meeting or before December 1st, in case no Regional Meeting is held before this date (Rio 88).
• SC4, Sub-Committee IHB shall compile amendment lists to the information Handbook as and when additional information becomes available and justifies the expenses.

Discussion

In accordance with the above mentioned recommendations, the IHB questionnaires were mailed to the Executive-Vice- Presidents Region at the beginning of June 1992, with the request to return these asap after their respective Regional Meetings.

At the end of 1992, Sub-Committee was able to collect 57 out of 79 questionnaires from the following Member Associations listed per Region:

AFM: Algeria, Burkina Faso, Chad, Djibouti, Morocco, Reunion Island, Senegal, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

AMA: Aruba, Barbados, Bolivia, El Salvador, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, St. Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay.

ASP: Australia, Fiji, Hong Kong, Japan, Malaysia, Nepal, New Zealand, ROCATCA Taiwan, Sri Lanka.

EUR: Austria, Belgium, Channel Islands, Cyprus, Denmark, Eurocontrol, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, USSR.

Following Member Associations, again listed by Region, have NOT YET replied to the 1992 edition of the IHB Questionnaire:

AFM: Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Mauritius, Namibia, Nigeria, Sudan, Tunisia, Uganda.

AMA: Antigua and Barbuda, Brazil, Canada, Cenamer, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Netherlands Antilles, Panama, Suriname.

ASP: Papua New Guinea

EUR: Ireland, Luxembourg.

Conclusion

Thanks to the efforts of the Executive Vice-Presidents of the 4 IFATCA Regions, Standing Committee IV, Sub-Committee IHB, was able to collect, only six month after the mailing of the questionnaire, nearly 72% of the replies, During previous updates, we had to wait at least one year to obtain this percentage.

The number of updates received, expressed in percentage, for each of the IFATCA Regions is the following:

AFM: 61% (14 out of 23)

AMA: 52% (11 out of 21)

ASP: 90% (9 out of 10)

EUR: 92% (23 out of 25)

This year’s improvement does not consist only of the number of replies received, but also of the fact that 72% of the answers reached us within the target date specified in recommendation 88C1. If this positive trend is continued, SC4 Sub-Committee IHB, will be able to update the IHB every two years as specified in the above mentioned recommendation. In last year’s report, it was mentioned that the automation of the IHB has been completed. It included also a brief explanation of its possibilities. With regard to the layout, the Regional Meetings decided in favour of an “item-by item” presentation instead of the usual “country-by-country” format. Sub-Committee IHB expects the new IHB to be ready for distribution by the end of January.

It is Sub-Committee IHB’s opinion that the new lay out of the IHB, decided upon by the Regional Meetings, will be more expensive than the “country-by-country” layout. Not only for the initial printing due to the increased number of pages, but certainly for the updating which will require a complete reprinting of the IHB every time additional responses to the questionnaire are received. Extra difficulties occur when MA’s are commenting the Yes/No or multiple choice questions. These comments are very difficult to insert in the new column format and might be lost.

Recommendation

The IHB continue in the “country-by-country” format presentation, and that MAs requesting comparative information on any particular item make a request to SC4, Sub-Committee IHB.