MARKING WORLD HUMANITARIAN DAY, UN LAUDS HEROIC EFFORTS ON THE FRONT LINES

The United Nations will mark the second-ever World Humanitarian Day on Thursday by paying tribute to the life-saving work carried out by aid workers around the globe, often in perilous places, to help those whose lives have been torn asunder by conflict, natural disasters and other crises.

Events will be held at UN offices and peacekeeping missions worldwide, with many focusing on those personnel at the front lines who have been killed in the cause of assisting people in need.

Last year, 102 humanitarian workers lost their lives, compared with 30 deaths among aid workers in 1999. In addition, nearly 280 aid workers were victims of security incidents, more the quadruple the number one decade ago.

The General Assembly proclaimed 19 August as World Humanitarian Day two years ago to commemorate the 2003 Canal Hotel bombing in Baghdad, which claimed the lives of 22 UN staff members, including the world body’s top envoy in Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello, and wounded more than 150 people.

Mr. Ban will lay a wreath at UN Headquarters in New York in remembrance of the personnel killed seven years ago.

For many years, humanitarian workers have relied on the idea that they must be protected by all parties to allow them to carry out their work wherever needed.

However, the false perception that aid is delivered only by Western groups or represents one ideological or religious world view has led to relief workers increasingly being targeted, ultimately hurting the world’s poorest and most vulnerable.

Earlier this month, Mr. Ban welcomed the United Kingdom’s recent ratification of a protocol expanding an international treaty aimed at protecting UN staff members and other humanitarian workers, thus enabling the pact to enter into force this week.

The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Safety of UN and Associated Personnel provides legal protection to staff delivering emergency humanitarian assistance and to those providing political and development assistance in peacebuilding situations.

It extends the legal protection offered by the 1994 convention on the same subject, which only applies to personnel engaged in peacekeeping operations.

Mr. Ban, in a statement, called the Convention “the cornerstone” of the legal regime affording protection to UN and associated personnel operating in hostile and volatile environments.

This session was particularly onerous and some of the outcomes were quite disappointing for staff.  This was most notably the case concerning the allowance for a second household for staff assigned to non-family duty stations.  As the Commission did not approve the proposals made by the ICSC technical working group (ICSC/71/R.16), the Commission retired to private sessions to work out a solution. After a week of discussions in private, informal and plenary sessions, the result of “harmonization” was a new allowance for peacekeeping staff, which satisfied the UN administration, but at the same time seriously let down the organizations currently using the Special Operations Approach (SOA). If approved by the General Assembly, staff in organizations currently applying the SOA scheme would see the allowance for a second household reduced by up to more than 60% between now and 2015. This move will likely make it more difficult for the specialized agencies to recruit staff for work in non-family duty stations while at the same time facilitating recruitment for peacekeeping positions. Ironically, it is just this type of competition between agencies that the so-called ‘harmonization’ of conditions of service is meant to prevent! FICSA has its advocacy work cut out for itself as a strong campaign against the reduced allowance will need to target this year’s Fifth Committee representatives.

Another disappointment to staff concerned the decision of the Commission not to establish a formal working group for the purpose of reviewing pensionable remuneration (PR). It was decided instead that the secretariats of the Pension Fund and the Commission would meet informally and as necessary to complete the review. The recommendations would be presented at the 72^nd sessions of the ICSC in spring 2011 and a final report would be discussed at the 58^th session of the UNJSPB and at the 73^rd session of the ICSC for final approval. Thus, staff representatives will be excluded from this stage of the review process. Since staff contribute substantially to the Pension Fund, excluding them seems particularly inappropriate.

The review itself appears to be comprehensive, including the common scale of staff assessment, income replacement ratios, non-pensionable component, double taxation, small pensions and the impact of steep devaluation of local currency and/or high inflation. Fortunately, the Commission did not agree to the comparison of the UN pension scheme with the U.S. federal civil service scheme since they are different types of plans – the UN has a defined benefit scheme while the US is a defined contribution scheme. However, a comparison of the two schemes on the basis of cost to the employer will be carried out.

ICSC reviews the level of the education grant every two years based on information submitted by the HR Network. The Commission decided to increase the level of the grant in Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, UK, USA and the US dollar area outside the US.

Current grant levels were maintained in Belgium, Ireland, Japan and Sweden.  With the exception of Ireland and Japan, boarding rates were increased.

Special measures would be discontinued for Bulgaria but maintained for China, Hungary, Indonesia, Romania, the Russian Federation and the eight specific schools in France.

ICSC also discussed the upcoming review of the education grant methodology and identified a number of issues to include in the review. These included inter alia the underlying philosophy of the grant, zoning, streamlining the list of admissible expenses, how adjustments are done, exchange rates, and criteria used for determining special measures.

The Commission was requested by the General Assembly to look into possible cases of misuse of the termination indemnity. After review of the data presented by the HR Network, ICSC concluded that it did not demonstrate any inappropriate application of the scheme and that the overall termination indemnity-based separation trends appeared to be driven by the operational  needs of the organizations.

The children's and secondary dependant's allowances were also up for review this year. The new global flat rate for the children's allowance, established in 2008, would be $2929, while the rate for a secondary dependant, set at 35% of the children's allowance, would be $1025, if approved by the General Assembly this fall. The disabled children's allowance would be $5858. As a transitional measure, where at the time of implementation, the revised flat-rate allowance was lower than the one currently in effect, the allowances payable to currently eligible staff would be reduced by 50% of the difference between the old rate and the revised flat-rate. The transitional measures would be discontinued as from 1 January 2013. The Commission also reiterated its decision to maintain until the next biennial review, the amount of the global flat-rate allowance in local currency.

Turning to salaries, the Commission decided to recommend to the General Assembly that the current base/floor salary scale for the Professional and higher categories be increased by 1.37% on a no loss, no gain basis by commensurately reducing post adjustment. FICSA called for a real increase through restoring the net remuneration margin to the desirable 115 midpoint, to no avail. The margin methodology will be reviewed in 2011.

The working groups on the hardship and mobility scheme and on the review of the general salary survey methodologies will continue their work this winter.

A comprehensive assessment of issues and practices on inter-agency mobility and a performance management framework were presented to the Commission.

Disappointment was expressed that the gender balance review showed that the goals had not been met.

11th Annual Conference of Staff Associations of International Organizations (CSAIO).

European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN)

385, route de Meyrin

Geneva, Switzerland

Tuesday 28 October (Afternoon) and Friday 29 October 2010

Review Panel Judges See a Culture of U.N. Secrecy

By NEIL MacFARQUHAR

UNITED NATIONS — Independent judges appointed to revamp the way the United Nations reviews decisions on matters like hiring, firing, promotions and raises are accusing Secretary General Ban Ki-moon of shielding an unhealthy culture of secrecy and trying to undermine the new system.

The United Nations Dispute Tribunal, inaugurated last July to replace a process so deteriorated that employees challenging employment decisions sometimes waited years for answers, has succeeded in shrinking a backlog of about 300 cases.

But some of the decisions issued by the tribunal contend that Mr. Ban and the highest levels of management are determined to preserve a system in which their personnel decisions remain absolute. One judge even characterized their lack of cooperation as “an attack on the rule of law.”

Diplomats, lawyers and others tracking the cases describe the United Nations’ stance on the tribunal as contradictory, if not hypocritical, given the organization’s role in promoting the rule of law globally. “The organization has to decide from the S.G. on down whether this is an organization that respects the rule of law or not,” said George Irving, a former president of the staff union and a lawyer who has worked on administrative cases at the United Nations for more than 30 years. “What you are witnessing essentially is a power struggle. It is all about control, who is going to control the system.”

In several instances, the United Nations has ignored a judge’s orders to produce documents or have officials testify about how decisions were reached. In one case, the judge ordered the organization to pay $20,000 in compensation for the mistreatment of a translator who questioned why he was not promoted.

“Sometimes there may be some cases of decisions which are not totally in line with what the Secretariat has been doing,” Mr. Ban said at a news conference last month. “But we will try to respect all the decisions.”

Mr. Ban and his advisers believe they have the prerogative to make decisions in some administrative matters, which has become an issue with the court, he acknowledged. He declined to discuss specific cases.

Critics suggest that the secretary general is violating at least the spirit and possibly the letter of the rules approved by the General Assembly.

The old system was completely internal. There were no hearings, and the secretary general essentially served as his own judge and jury. It was deemed too slow and too haphazard to cover the needs of about 60,000 United Nations employees globally.

The new system, which the internal literature describes as “independent, professionalized, expedient, transparent and decentralized,” is run by independent judges whose decisions are binding. United Nations employees cannot sue the organization in national courts, so the tribunal is their sole route to address grievances. New York, Geneva and Nairobi, Kenya, each have a judge, with some extras appointed to deal with the case backlog. A three-judge appeal panel will begin hearing appeals in New York on Monday.

Without the power to declare someone in contempt of court, the tribunal judges rely on the Secretariat to engage with them in good faith. But some judges believe accountability goes only so high. Part of the problem stems from the rigid hierarchy of the United Nations, lawyers and other experts say. The judges were assigned an administrative rank that puts them below an assistant secretary general, so those who rank higher often feel that answering the tribunal is beneath them, they said.

Noting that an employee was fired despite a pending tribunal hearing, a May order from the Nairobi tribunal said that the decision “is significant for the contempt it shows of these proceedings.” It said that the United Nations’ response “does not bode well” for a system supposedly based on international law and due process.

“You have to look at the culture here,” Judge Michael F. Adams, an Australian judge, said at the end of his stint on the dispute panel in New York. “Someone in the position of under secretary general is never confronted with the requirement that particular questions be answered.”

Judge Adams has been notably scathing in his written decisions about the lack of due process in the tribunals. “The United Nations legal system may be an island, but it does not inhabit its own planet,” he wrote in one.

The outcomes of three appeals of Judge Adams’s rulings are being watched with particular interest to see what power the higher panel grants the tribunal.

In one case of an employee passed over for a promotion, Susan Maddox, the lawyer representing the secretary general, refused to produce any of the crucial documents requested or even identify the person who made the decision to refuse to cooperate. The secretary general, like a head of state, had to be allowed to make some decisions in private, the United Nations maintained.

Judge Adams dismissed the idea that the secretary general is akin to a head of state, calling him the chief administrative officer. The tribunal is not examining whether the decision was right, he said, but whether it was arrived at in the right way.

In another case, James Wasserstrom, who now serves as the anticorruption officer at the American Embassy in Kabul, is seeking $1 million in lost wages, compensation for defamation and mental distress, plus legal expenses. He contends that he was fired from his job with the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Kosovo after reporting his suspicions of corruption. He said his mistreatment included being arrested at the border, having his house searched and having posters bearing his picture hung around the headquarters to bar his admittance.

Because he had been identified by internal investigators as a whistle-blower, he should have been protected from losing his job, he contends. But an Ethics Office investigation found no link between his allegations of corruption and his dismissal. Judge Adams ruled that the United Nations turn over that report and the evidence behind it, but Ms. Maddox refused.

In a third case, Samer Abboud, a senior translator, said he was passed over for promotion, the victim of discrimination by Egyptian officials who dole out plum jobs to their inner circle.

Shaaban M. Shaaban, an under secretary general and the most senior Egyptian official at the United Nations, initially testified to the tribunal, but then refused any further dealings pending the appeal. Judge Adams found that Mr. Shaaban’s testimony lacked credibility, calling him “an unreliable witness in respect of every important issue of fact.” The judge also found that Mr. Abboud was “subjected to insult, patronizing comments and retaliatory threats,” and ordered the United Nations to pay him $20,000 in compensation. The decision is under appeal.

Statement on

 The aggression against the “Freedom Flotilla”

of

Staff Representatives and Staff of UN ESCWA, ILO Regional Office for the Arab States, UNRWA, and UN OHCHR, operating in Lebanon

            We, the Staff Representatives and Staff of United Nations  Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia , International Labour Organization Regional Office for the Arab States, United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East – UNRWA, and United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights – OHCHR, based in Lebanon and assembled in the UN House on 1 June 2010, while renewing our commitment to the principles of human rights and to the Charter of the United Nations, under whose banner we have pledged to work, express our deep anger and firm condemnation of the attack perpetrated by Israeli forces in international waters, at dawn on 31 May 2010, against a convoy of international human rights activists who were on board of the Freedom Flotilla, headed toward blockaded Gaza to deliver humanitarian aid.

This deliberate attack, unprecedented in the history of conflicts in contemporary times, targeted a maritime convoy carrying food rations and humanitarian aid and provisions, with unarmed civilians of various nationalities on board.  It constitutes a serious and unacceptable violation of all laws and international conventions, particularly those related to human rights, international humanitarian law and the prevention of piracy and violations in times of war and conflict, which the United Nations, its agencies as well as Member States and their peoples work on upholding and enforcing.

This attack is a continuation of the ongoing blockade that Israel has been imposing on the Gaza Strip for the past three years and constitutes a violation of all human rights, in particular the right to development.  In addition, the government of Israel still refuses to abide by a number of international conventions on human rights and international human law.

Moreover, this attack coincides also with intensive ongoing preparations for the World summit to monitor progress achieved in the implementation of the Millennium Declaration, to which all Governments and States are committed and where peace and stability are the main issues. What happened on that day will have direct repercussions on security and stability in the region and the world.

We, the Staff of the United Nations and advocates of human rights, express our strong solidarity with the international activists who were victims of the attack, their families and countries.  We demand immediate and unconditional release of the detainees and a statement of the names of the martyrs and the wounded.

We call upon the United Nations and all its agencies to exert all possible efforts to end the Gaza blockade, to play a more effective role in helping the besieged citizens of Gaza and protecting all their rights, under the banner and management of the United Nations and to ensure the right of the Palestinian people to free self-determination.

We also call upon the United Nations Secretary-General, its leadership and Member States to deal with this unprecedented aggression with utmost seriousness.  We urge them to take all necessary decisions and measures to protect the Palestinian people and international activists against similar aggressions in the future in order to ensure security and stability in the region and in the world.  

We call for the establishment of an international investigation commission to determine responsibilities for the attack and submit a report on this issue to the United Nations.

Success of the United Nations in its role as the protector of human rights in this part of the world strengthens its credibility among peoples and countries of the region and among those contributing to the “Freedom Flotilla”.  It also enhances the presence and role of the Organization in building peace and promoting development and security.

 Beirut, 2 June 2010.

United Nations staff living with HIV applaud Chinese decision to remove HIV related entry restrictions

Geneva 27 April 2010

The United Nations HIV Positive Staff Group (UN Plus) congratulates the Chinese Government for removing HIV related entry restrictions for visitors living with HIV.

UN Plus stands firmly against laws that impede the movement across borders of people living with HIV as they fuel stigma and are of no public health value. Earlier this year, UNAIDS called for global freedom of movement for people living with HIV.  This decision of the Chinese Government is one step in that direction.

We are extremely happy that the Chinese Government has lifted this policy. Restrictions on entry, stay and residence are just one of the many forms of discrimination that those of us living with HIV face worldwide.  As a member of this community, I can imagine what this positive move will mean to my brothers and sisters living in other countries who desire to visit China, just as I desire to visit them. All forms of discrimination against people living with HIV do nothing but make the whole situation worse. We hope other countries that implement such restrictions will follow this example soon’, said Beijing based UN Plus member Ming Tian-hao (alias).

Justice Edwin Cameron of the South African Constitutional Court, himself living with HIV, has travelled to China twice in the last 18 months and met with Government officials to discuss the travel ban.

‘I am particularly delighted to hear of this decision as the visa restrictions were illogical. They nearly led to the cancellation of my last trip to China because of a misunderstanding between government departments. I am relieved this will never happen again to anyone living with HIV’, stated Justice Cameron on learning of the news.

Fifty one countries, territories, and areas currently impose some form of travel restriction on the entry, stay and residence of people living with HIV based on their HIV status; five countries deny visas to people living with HIV for even short-term stays; and 23 countries deport individuals once their HIV-positive status is discovered.

In January 2010, the United States of America removed its long-standing HIV-related entry, stay and residence restrictions. Several other countries plan to remove restrictions shortly. More information on the list of countries with some form of entry restriction for people living with HIV can be found at this website: http://hivtravel.org.

About UN+

UN Plus is the United Nations system-wide advocacy group of staff living with HIV. It was established in March, 2005 brings together HIV positive staff working in the UN system from across the regions and agencies. Its mission statement is: 'Uniting for Solidarity, equality and acceptance for people living with HIV within the UN system through awareness raising, policy change and advocacy.' UN Plus provides peer advice, support and advice for HIV in the workplace related issues to UN staff and external partners.

For more information please contact: Bhatupe Mhango at mhangob@unaids.org. You may also visit the website: www.unplus.org

Interview from UN SPECIAL

Mr Mauro Pace (FAO) – NEWLY-ELECTED PRESIDENT FROM FICSA

Before starting the interview, you were in Santiago, Chile when the earthquake hit early on the morning of 27 February. You were there with the General Secretary representing FICSA at the meeting of the ICSC. What were your impressions? Can you give us some details on the experience?

Frankly speaking, although the memory of that night will mark our lives for ever, finding a suitable reply to this question goes beyond my communication abilities. It would be tantamount to describing in a few lines sentiments such as the astonishment, fear, impotence, sorrow, happiness and hope: to me, the earthquake meant feeling all these sentiments at the same time. To date, about ten days later, the real dimension of the tragedy is not yet known, and probably it will never be. Perhaps one day we shall know exactly how many lives were lost and what magnitude of the economic damage was; however, psychological consequences on those who survived, but lost their families, their homes and their source of living will never be measurable. For sure, I was impressed by the unity and the immediate solidarity shown by the Chilean people, of ell ages and classes, to help those who were hit by this tragedy. Both the General Secretary and I are committed to do whatever is in our possibilities to see our Federation contributing to such an exceptional solidarity effort.

FICSA held its 63rd FICSA Council in mid-January of this year here inGeneva. You were elected President for a two-year term. Can you give us a brief background of your history as a staff representative?

What was your most memorable moment as a staff representative? Your greatest achievement? Before replying, please let me thank UN Special for the opportunity to share some ideas about the Federation and its role.

I joined UGSS, the Union of General Service Staff of FAO and WFP, in 1984, shortly after my recruitment in FAO. I was elected as a member of the Executive Committee in 1991 and, almost at the same time, I joined the UGSS Technical Committee. Through active participation in both bodies I learnt the correlation between the political and the technical aspects of staff representation, eventually realizing the importance of building my capacity in both areas.

My involvement in FICSA runs almost in parallel, from my initial election as Vice- Chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Management back in 1992 up to the recent election as President, having in the meantime gained experience as a member of the Executive Committee for Compensation Issues.

Anyway, this is history now. Today, I’m more inclined to look at my present and future activities.

A memorable moment? The expression of gratitude by a young single mother who had run the risk of being separated during an organizational downsizing. We found a solution to keep her on board: I’ll never forget her smile and tears, while reading the renewal notice.

I consider a major achievement to be the strengthening of our training programmes: in my opinion unity, solidarity and knowledge are the three fundamental pillars of an effective staff representation, the latter being as important as the others.

What are the most important issues for staff at the present time which are being debated at the high level bodies such as the ICSC, CEB, IASMN, UNGA?

This question would be more easily answered by listing the issues that are “not” under discussion.

Actually, almost all fundamental aspects of the conditions of employment in the International Civil Service appear on the agendas of the bodies you are referring to: salaries and allowances, pensions, post classification, performance management, contractual framework, health care, safety and security of staff...: we have a duty to follow-up on all of them very closely, although security needs primary attention. At a time when UN staff is increasingly being targeted in malicious acts, the need to safeguard the lives of staff and their families becomes top priority.

What is your vision for FICSA? What do you foresee as important issues in the next two or three years?

I’ve always considered our Federation as a transparent, democratic and competent staff representative organization, a unique tool for promoting our conditions of work and the image of the International Civil Service. Yet, there is scope to do better in adapting to a rapidly changing global context.

Far too often we, the staff, are depicted as a restricted caste of privileged bureaucrats: this image influences public opinion and, eventually, that of our governing bodies, resulting in staff representation being an endless struggle for “damage containment”. FICSA can play a fundamental role in making justice of this bias, calling for proper recognition of the efficiency, competence and integrity of staff, as reflected in article 101 of the UN Charter.

Communication and capacity-building are key in this process: should I summarize my vision in three words, here they are.

What do you think will be your most important challenge as President of FICSA?

The only possible answer to this question is a logical consequence of the situation I’ve just described: being on top of all fundamental issues related to our conditions of employment, ensuring at the same time that our message is heard by decision makers and our membership alike.

Not an easy challenge. However, immediately after the election I felt the enthusiasm and the support of many colleagues, first and foremost those in the Executive Committee and the Secretariat. One of them, during our first ExCom meeting two weeks ago, said: “I feel like being in a family”. “We are on the right footing”, I thought.

It is premature, but how do you wish to be remembered after your mandate with FICSA ends?

Ah ah, this is something I have not been thinking of! ... Let’s say that, when my successor takes over from me, a Federation in which all members recognize themselves as being adequately represented. Then I would be more than happy.

You have been a staff representative for many years and a member of the FICSA Executive Committee and an expert/resource person. How has staff representation and staff/management relations evolved over the years? Has it improved? Are staff representatives losing ground?

As I said, change happens, and is increasingly happening.

Staff/management relations are not insulated from the process, although the impact of changes may be different according to circumstances. Organizational attitude towards staff representation, the presence of a more or less enabling environment, the degree of financial independence of unions and associations, the contractual situation and job security; these are just a few examples of factors that can substantially influence the cohesion and effectiveness of staff representation.

In essence, diversity can be our weakness or our strength. Making the best use of it represents our ultimate, perhaps most engaging, challenge.

The UN Special magazine is a monthly publication for international civil servants in Geneva.  More than 10,500 copies are printed each month. It is distributed to international organizations and diplomatic missions based in Geneva. Copies are also sent to various offices of the United Nations Secretariat, and the magazine is available online at the following site: www.unspecial.org

UN Special est le mensuel des fonctionnaires internationaux à Genève. Il est imprimé à plus de 10'500 exemplaires. Il est diffusé auprès des Organisations internationales et Missions diplomatiques basées à Genève. Quelques exemplaires sont également envoyés dans différents bureaux du Secrétariat des Nations Unies. Le magazine UN Special  est aussi accessible en ligne : www.unspecial.org

The US Administration has indicated that same gender relations of American staff employed by the UN are to be recognized for the purposes of benefits and entitlements. This recognition is the responsibility of the UN to administer, not the US Mission. Neutral criteria are used as the basis for recognition in a given instance, rather than reference to any domestic practice or jurisprudence.

 By a memo dated 1 March 2010, the US Mission to the UN has instructed the UN Secretariat to recognize the personal status of US staff members in same-sex unions on the basis of a signed affidavit, indicating “if an American United Nations staff member files such an affidavit, the United nations may accept that the United States Mission has verified the personal status of that staff member in connection with their entitlements or benefits.”

 What this means for the UN and the Funds and Programmes

 US nationals working for the UN and the Funds and Programmes, in which same-sex unions are recognized under ST/SGB/2004/13 and its equivalents, can ask for their personal status to be recorded as non-single (the actual terminology used varies, in IMIS the category is "married and related"). According to the instructions of the US Mission, verification of the legitimacy of the union is to be performed by the UN as the staff member's employer on the basis of the signed affidavit (attached to this message), rather than by referring the matter to the US Mission. The affidavit alone is used for verification. No domestic US practice or jurisprudence is considered.

 What this means for the specialized agencies

 In the UN agencies which follow UN Secretariat policy on the recognition of same-sex unions, US staff members should draw the attention of their human resources departments to the memo.

Because those agencies mirror not just the recognition policy but also the verification procedure used by the UN, the instructions of the US mission to the UN in New York should apply in similar fashion.

 Note that the usual verification procedure at the UN consists of writing a letter to the Mission to the UN of the staff member's country of nationality and awaiting a "yes" or "no" decision. A handful of countries have instructed the UN to dispense with this letter, to handle the recognition process itself, and to assume their tacit agreement to recognition of their nationals' same-sex unions. However, the new US instruction is the first to prescribe the use of a signed affidavit unconnected to any national legislation, a policy that has existed for many years at the IMF and World Bank, and which was introduced in 2009 for US Foreign Service employees.