STATEMENT OF THE CEB HR NETWORK AT THE 62nd SESSION OF ICSC: RESOLUTIONS AND DECISIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
AND THE LEGISLATIVE/GOVERNING BODIES OF
OTHER ORGANIZATIONS OF THE COMMON SYSTEM
(ICSC/62/R.2 and Add. 1)
Mr. Chairman,
The HR Network notes that the General Assembly did not conclude its deliberations of agenda item 131 on the United Nations common system and decided to defer to its resumed sessions a number of decisions on issues of importance to the organizations of the Network.
Of particular importance, as you know, is the introduction of the new Mobility and Hardship Allowance scheme. The proposal before the Assembly was for an implementation date of 1 July 2006. We note in your report that “a number of delegations questioned the reason for delaying the implementation date to 1 July 2006” The Network wishes to point out that the date of 1 July was not proposed in order to delay the implementation. Rather, this date was seen as the earliest possible date at which organizations could be ready to implement the new scheme. You may recall, Mr. Chairman, that we had a lengthy debate on this at the Commission’s session last summer, when organizations explained in detail their reasons for needing a period of six months between the GA’s decision and the roll-out of the new scheme. Perhaps it may be useful to reiterate those reasons here, also for the benefit of the new members of the Commission.
Firstly, the change-over from an allowance scheme that was pegged to the base/floor salary scale to one that operates with a lump sum approach requires organizations to make a host of changes to their IT systems. This is rendered more difficult by the fact that many organizations are currently in the process of introducing new ERP systems. Unfortunately, this work cannot be started unless we know that the Assembly has approved the package as proposed. Secondly, and tied in to the above, is the question of acquired rights and of harmonizing the organizations’ approaches to the phasing-out of the old allowance scheme. This is a rather complex undertaking, given that some staff will get less than before under the new scheme and others will get more. The HR Network has already progressed in this work and reached a better understanding of the issues of concern and the steps to be taken; nevertheless, more work will need to be done once the GA has taken a decision. Last but not least, once a decision has been taken, we will need to inform and educate our staff on the new package and have in place a detailed communication strategy. As you know, we are working with the ICSC Secretariat on this and are confident that it can be accomplished in time – provided that sufficient time is allowed between a decision and the implementation.
Given all the above, Mr. Chairman, the Network wishes to request that, if the General Assembly approves the Mobility and Hardship Allowance scheme at its resumed session, the implementation date be shifted to 1 January 2007.
In addition to the implementation date, the issue of mobility payments for staff serving at “H” and “A” duty stations remains of great concern to the Network. We note that the statements made in paragraph 9 of document R.2 suggest that this continues to be a matter that raises questions about the validity of a mobility allowance for staff assigned to H and A locations. Mr. Chairman, the HR Network has explained at length, and on many occasions, the reasons why we think it critical to distinguish between the hardship element – which reflects the degree of difficulty of a duty station – and the mobility element, which reflects the degree of mobility of a staff member. The latter has nothing to do with whether a staff member serves in New York or Kabul, Dakar or Pyongyang. It only provides incentives to moving from one duty station to another, often six, seven and more times in a career. Rather than going into further detail, once again, on this, the HR Network would like to circulate the statement Executive Heads have issued on the mobility and hardship allowance last year.
Let me now turn to Hazard Pay. The Network notes that in paragraph 14 of R.2, reference is made to the expansion of the criteria for payment to include “life-threatening diseases to which medical personnel were directly exposed in the performance of their duties”. Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission, since your last session, a new and potentially devastating threat has emerged in full force – the Avian Influenza, which carries with it the danger of turning into a global human pandemic. Already, UN staff who are not medical personnel are at risk of being directly exposed to the Avian virus in the performance of their duties. I am thinking, for example, of FAO specialist staff whose work requires them to be exposed to the virus. Therefore, the Network wishes to request that the definition provided reflected in paragraph 14 be broadened to include also non-medical personnel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Showing posts with label International Civil Service Commission Statements. Show all posts
Showing posts with label International Civil Service Commission Statements. Show all posts
Wednesday, 29 July 2009
STATEMENT OF THE CEB HR NETWORK AT THE 62nd SESSION OF ICSC: RESOLUTIONS AND DECISIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND THE LEGISLATIVE/GOVERNING BODIES OF
STATEMENT OF THE CEB HR NETWORK AT THE 62nd SESSION OF ICSC: REFERENCE CHECK WITH THE WORLD BANK AND OECD
STATEMENT OF THE CEB HR NETWORK AT THE 62nd SESSION OF ICSC: REFERENCE CHECK WITH THE WORLD BANK AND OECD
(ICSC/62/R.12)
Mr. Chairman,
The HR Network thanks the Secretariat for conducting the reference check with the World Bank and OECD and the information provided in document R.12. In our previous two statements, we have already pointed out that the Network sees a real and urgent need to conduct more comprehensive Noblemaire studies, and to rely not solely on one national civil service as a comparator. The Network believes that the time has come to consider international civil services also for comparison purposes, and not merely for reference checks.
With regard to the information provided on the World Bank, the Network noted that paragraph 57 of R.10 states that World Bank did not think that the current situation had been appropriately depicted, and we look forward to further information and clarification by the Secretariat.
We would also appreciate receiving some more information about the narrowing of the gap between the World Bank and UN?
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF THE CEB HR NETWORK AT THE 62nd SESSION OF ICSC: RESULTS OF THE UNITED NATIONS/UNIED STATES GRADE EQUIVALENCY STUDIES (SES)
STATEMENT OF THE CEB HR NETWORK AT THE 62nd SESSION OF ICSC: RESULTS OF THE UNITED NATIONS/UNIED STATES
GRADE EQUIVALENCY STUDIES (SES)
(ICSC/62/R.10)
Mr. Chairman,
The HR Network thanks the Secretariat for its efforts to pursue the United States/United Nations Grade Equivalency studies. At the same time, the Network notes that document R.10 is again only a progress report. We fully appreciate, of course, the difficulties your Secretariat has had in obtaining the data required to undertake the necessary in-depth equivalency studies. The current comparator is restructuring, broadbanding, moving towards individualized pay. Therefore, it is becoming more and more difficult to undertake a proper comparison between the United States federal civil service and the United Nations international civil service. These difficulties demonstrate, once again, the vulnerability of our pay system, in that it relies on only one national civil service as a comparator - and a civil service which now is no longer easily comparable, for the reasons given.
Mr. Chairman,
Two weeks ago, when the HR Network discussed the three items under agenda item 9, there was a growing sense of frustration in the room. The ICSC Secretariat colleagues, who were in the room with us, could no doubt attest to that sense of frustration. It resulted from the fact that for some twenty years now, the organizations expressed serious concerns to the Commission on the non-application of the Noblemaire principle. Many Executive Heads of various UN organizations pointed out, time and time again, that the capacity of organizations to recruit and retain staff of the highest standards of competence has significantly been undermined.
However, frustration was not the only sentiment at the HR Network. There was also an increasingly strong spirit of determination. The organizations of the common system, Mr. Chairman, are and will remain determined in their efforts to convince the Commission that the non-application of Noblemaire over the past years is not acceptable and that we need an in-depth review of Noblemaire and its application.
At the HR Network meeting, we circulated to our members a document which goes back thirteen years. It is entitled “An annotated history of the compensation philosophy of the League of Nations and the United Nations”. This document, prepared by the CCAQ Secretariat was written in preparation for the 1993 summer session of ICSC (which also took place here in Vienna). We will be happy to make the document available to members of the Commission if desired.
This document provides very interesting insights into the thinking of the Noblemaire Committee when it laid the foundations for one of the world’s first international civil services in 1921. One can only admire the visionary qualities of these “founding fathers” more than eighty years ago.
But it might also be true to say that even the five visionary men who formed the Noblemaire Committee would have been hard pressed to imagine our world as it looks in the year 2006. The international civil service of 2006 is no longer comparable with that of the 1920s, or the 1950s, or the 1970s. Members of the Commission are well aware of the fundamental changes that have taken place in the employment market over the last two decades. Let me highlight some of the most salient changes as they relate to the junior, mid-level and senior levels in the UN system.
For entry staff, employability is more important than employment security: Young people, the people in their late 20s and early 30s, are no longer basing their career choices on the pursuit of lifelong employment contracts. The prospect of lifelong employment with one employer was a powerful incentive for past generations, one that would have outweighed the pursuit of income maximization. But that no longer holds true. The generation that is now entering the job market is more concerned with managing their future employability with different employers. The opportunity to learn and develop new skills and competencies is now a powerful incentive for choosing an employer, as are work life balance and working in a team rather than a hierarchical structure. The move away from long-term job security with one employer also requires this new generation to maximize their earnings in the short run and early on: Young people nowadays are well aware that jobs may be hard to come by once they will be in their fifties, and therefore they will go for the most competitive remuneration early on. While it is true that for some jobs in the UN system, there may be no acute recruitment problem at the very junior levels for the time being, organizations are currently encountering difficulties to recruit qualified staff in many areas, where we simply cannot compete with private sector salaries, or those of other international governmental organizations.
The best mid-level staff are hard to retain. Some organizations are experiencing that staff leave the UN system when they have reached P-3/P-4 levels and are in their mid- to late thirties. Regrettably, women make up a higher percentage of the “departees”. Many of the mid-level staff who leave are highly qualified staff who find that the requirements of working under difficult and often dangerous conditions and of uprooting their lives and families every few years are not matched by the commensurate financial incentives. We have reported on this many times to the Commission, most recently in the context of the review of the Mobility and Hardship Allowance scheme.
There is a serious recruitment problem at the senior and specialist levels. Mr. Chairman, the HR Network has pointed out on many occasions that it is very difficult to attract highly qualified senior-level staff at the D1 and above levels, and these difficulties are very directly linked to the uncompetitive remuneration package for this level. At a time when member states are calling for greater accountability of senior managers, and are assigning increasing responsibility to this critical group of staff, we simply cannot afford to not be able to attract and retain the very best. The imbalance of the scale at the senior levels has become a crucial matter, which needs to be addressed urgently in the context of the management reforms within the UN system.
The same goes for specialist positions, where the UN salary scale is simply not competitive with the private sector and other international and national research institutions. In fact, even the Bretton Woods organizations have already signaled that they are experiencing increasing difficulties in attracting, for example, lawyers, engineers and economists, because their pay is not considered sufficiently competitive. These are the very same occupations needed in large numbers by organizations of the common system.
Mr. Chairman,
It is not the first time the HR Network conveyed to you the concerns and views I just expressed. We have expressed these views and concerns time and time again, for some twenty years. The fact that we reiterate the same concerns again today should not be seen as a wish to be repetitive but as a reflection of the spirit of determination I mentioned at the beginning of this statement: We wish to help ensure that our international civil service will remain viable, competitive and equipped to drive forward and implement the much needed reform of the United Nations system. It is a challenge that concerns all of us. “Progress” reports of the kind that is contained in document R.10 will not rise to that challenge, will not get us there. What is needed is an in-depth review of the application of the Noblemaire principle, including comparisons with other multilateral institutions. Once again, therefore, the Network wishes to urge the Commission to consider a more comprehensive approach to addressing the challenges we are facing. All organizations of the HR Network stand ready to assist the Commission in this regard.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
GRADE EQUIVALENCY STUDIES (SES)
(ICSC/62/R.10)
Mr. Chairman,
The HR Network thanks the Secretariat for its efforts to pursue the United States/United Nations Grade Equivalency studies. At the same time, the Network notes that document R.10 is again only a progress report. We fully appreciate, of course, the difficulties your Secretariat has had in obtaining the data required to undertake the necessary in-depth equivalency studies. The current comparator is restructuring, broadbanding, moving towards individualized pay. Therefore, it is becoming more and more difficult to undertake a proper comparison between the United States federal civil service and the United Nations international civil service. These difficulties demonstrate, once again, the vulnerability of our pay system, in that it relies on only one national civil service as a comparator - and a civil service which now is no longer easily comparable, for the reasons given.
Mr. Chairman,
Two weeks ago, when the HR Network discussed the three items under agenda item 9, there was a growing sense of frustration in the room. The ICSC Secretariat colleagues, who were in the room with us, could no doubt attest to that sense of frustration. It resulted from the fact that for some twenty years now, the organizations expressed serious concerns to the Commission on the non-application of the Noblemaire principle. Many Executive Heads of various UN organizations pointed out, time and time again, that the capacity of organizations to recruit and retain staff of the highest standards of competence has significantly been undermined.
However, frustration was not the only sentiment at the HR Network. There was also an increasingly strong spirit of determination. The organizations of the common system, Mr. Chairman, are and will remain determined in their efforts to convince the Commission that the non-application of Noblemaire over the past years is not acceptable and that we need an in-depth review of Noblemaire and its application.
At the HR Network meeting, we circulated to our members a document which goes back thirteen years. It is entitled “An annotated history of the compensation philosophy of the League of Nations and the United Nations”. This document, prepared by the CCAQ Secretariat was written in preparation for the 1993 summer session of ICSC (which also took place here in Vienna). We will be happy to make the document available to members of the Commission if desired.
This document provides very interesting insights into the thinking of the Noblemaire Committee when it laid the foundations for one of the world’s first international civil services in 1921. One can only admire the visionary qualities of these “founding fathers” more than eighty years ago.
But it might also be true to say that even the five visionary men who formed the Noblemaire Committee would have been hard pressed to imagine our world as it looks in the year 2006. The international civil service of 2006 is no longer comparable with that of the 1920s, or the 1950s, or the 1970s. Members of the Commission are well aware of the fundamental changes that have taken place in the employment market over the last two decades. Let me highlight some of the most salient changes as they relate to the junior, mid-level and senior levels in the UN system.
For entry staff, employability is more important than employment security: Young people, the people in their late 20s and early 30s, are no longer basing their career choices on the pursuit of lifelong employment contracts. The prospect of lifelong employment with one employer was a powerful incentive for past generations, one that would have outweighed the pursuit of income maximization. But that no longer holds true. The generation that is now entering the job market is more concerned with managing their future employability with different employers. The opportunity to learn and develop new skills and competencies is now a powerful incentive for choosing an employer, as are work life balance and working in a team rather than a hierarchical structure. The move away from long-term job security with one employer also requires this new generation to maximize their earnings in the short run and early on: Young people nowadays are well aware that jobs may be hard to come by once they will be in their fifties, and therefore they will go for the most competitive remuneration early on. While it is true that for some jobs in the UN system, there may be no acute recruitment problem at the very junior levels for the time being, organizations are currently encountering difficulties to recruit qualified staff in many areas, where we simply cannot compete with private sector salaries, or those of other international governmental organizations.
The best mid-level staff are hard to retain. Some organizations are experiencing that staff leave the UN system when they have reached P-3/P-4 levels and are in their mid- to late thirties. Regrettably, women make up a higher percentage of the “departees”. Many of the mid-level staff who leave are highly qualified staff who find that the requirements of working under difficult and often dangerous conditions and of uprooting their lives and families every few years are not matched by the commensurate financial incentives. We have reported on this many times to the Commission, most recently in the context of the review of the Mobility and Hardship Allowance scheme.
There is a serious recruitment problem at the senior and specialist levels. Mr. Chairman, the HR Network has pointed out on many occasions that it is very difficult to attract highly qualified senior-level staff at the D1 and above levels, and these difficulties are very directly linked to the uncompetitive remuneration package for this level. At a time when member states are calling for greater accountability of senior managers, and are assigning increasing responsibility to this critical group of staff, we simply cannot afford to not be able to attract and retain the very best. The imbalance of the scale at the senior levels has become a crucial matter, which needs to be addressed urgently in the context of the management reforms within the UN system.
The same goes for specialist positions, where the UN salary scale is simply not competitive with the private sector and other international and national research institutions. In fact, even the Bretton Woods organizations have already signaled that they are experiencing increasing difficulties in attracting, for example, lawyers, engineers and economists, because their pay is not considered sufficiently competitive. These are the very same occupations needed in large numbers by organizations of the common system.
Mr. Chairman,
It is not the first time the HR Network conveyed to you the concerns and views I just expressed. We have expressed these views and concerns time and time again, for some twenty years. The fact that we reiterate the same concerns again today should not be seen as a wish to be repetitive but as a reflection of the spirit of determination I mentioned at the beginning of this statement: We wish to help ensure that our international civil service will remain viable, competitive and equipped to drive forward and implement the much needed reform of the United Nations system. It is a challenge that concerns all of us. “Progress” reports of the kind that is contained in document R.10 will not rise to that challenge, will not get us there. What is needed is an in-depth review of the application of the Noblemaire principle, including comparisons with other multilateral institutions. Once again, therefore, the Network wishes to urge the Commission to consider a more comprehensive approach to addressing the challenges we are facing. All organizations of the HR Network stand ready to assist the Commission in this regard.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF THE CEB HR NETWORK AT THE 62nd SESSION OF ICSC: TOTAL COMPENSATION COMPARISON – STAGE II (BELGIUM)
STATEMENT OF THE CEB HR NETWORK AT THE 62nd SESSION OF ICSC: TOTAL COMPENSATION COMPARISON – STAGE II (
(ICSC/62/R.11 and CRP.5)
Mr. Chairman,
Before providing our comments on documents R.11 and CRP.5, allow me to refer back to the statement the HR Network made under the previous agenda item, Grade Equivalency Studies. The concerns we expressed with regard to the non-application of the Noblemaire principle and the need to ensure renewed competitiveness of the United Nations system are also applicable to the deliberations of this item. They provide the context in which we wish to make a number of specific comments on the information provided by your Secretariat on the Belgian Civil Service.
In general, the HR Network wishes to express its fullest support to a continuation of the analysis of the Belgian Civil Service. Having reviewed the information provided in the documents, we believe that the total compensation package may well compare favourably with that of the current comparator. Specifically, we note
· That the Belgian civil service seems “better paid” with regard to pension benefits and with regard to leave, holiday and work hours;
· That the Belgian civil service seems approximately equal to the
· That, with regard to salary, as stated in paragraph 18 of CRP.5, "at the lowest comparable positions the Belgian salaries are significantly higher while at the highest comparable positions Belgian salaries are approximately equivalent to US salaries”. In this connection, there seems to be a contradiction between these findings presented in paragraph 18 and the conclusion drawn subsequently in paragraph 35(i) which states that “the US federal civil service is “better paid” with regard to salary”. If the Belgian salaries are significantly higher at the lower levels and approximately the same at the higher levels, then the overall comparison should be in favour of the Belgian civil service. We therefore appreciated hearing the Secretariat’s explanation just now that this contradiction might be an error in the document.
Also, with respect to salaries, we note that in paragraph 14 of CRP.5, it is stated that the salary, at the maximum relevant level, would be 117,601 Euro per annum. The Network’s research of the Belgian website however provided us with a salary scale which shows a level 7 salary of more than 180,000 Euro, i.e. a significantly higher amount.
In summary, the Network believes that the initial compensation comparison findings are encouraging, as is the fact that the size of the Belgian civil service is significant and exceeds that of
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the HR Network wishes to comment on paragraph 38 of CRP.5, which suggests that in the future, a ten year cycle of Noblemaire studies be applied. The Network is not in agreement with this proposal by the Secretariat. While we fully appreciate the amount of work and the degree of complexity that these studies entail, the application of the Noblemaire principle remains the foundation on which our compensation system is built. At a time when the world is changing at an ever increasing and faster pace, and when no organization or civil service is exempt from adapting to change on a daily basis, the review of how the international civil service compares with the best paid cannot take place only once every decade. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the HR Network wishes to request the Commission to maintain the current five year cycle.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF THE CEB HR NETWORK AT THE 62nd SESSION OF ICSC: REPORT OF THE TWENTY-EIGTH SESSION OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON POST ADJUSTMENT QUESTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CEB HR NETWORK AT THE 62nd SESSION OF ICSC:
REPORT OF THE TWENTY-EIGTH SESSION OF
THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON POST ADJUSTMENT QUESTIONS
(ICSC/62/R.4)
Mr. Chairman,
The Network wishes to compliment the Secretariat for providing a clear and comprehensive report of ACPAQ’s 28th session.
Our comments will refer to the issues of methodology contained in section II and section XII of the report. The representatives from the different headquarters’ locations may wish to comment on the sections III to XI.
At the outset, let me recall the comments made 5 years ago in respect of the last round of surveys when we complimented your secretariat for the collaboration and transparency in which the exercise had been conducted. The same is equally true for the 2005 round of surveys. We also congratulate the Secretariat for having developed a computerized notebook application for the more efficient collection of data. Another innovation which organizations welcomed at the recent ACPAQ session was the manner in which those responsible for data collection at the different locations presented those data to ACPAQ. This is a positive team building approach which further enhances the transparency of the process.
The HR Network noted the Committee’s conclusion that the collection and processing of data from the 2005 place-to-place survey in all eight headquarters duty stations were carried out in accordance with the approved methodology.
The HR Network , however, wishes to point out three areas for particular consideration:
- the very low response rates for the household expenditure surveys at all eight duty stations (referred to in paragraphs 13 and 19);
- The need for examination of the way in which the new approach to optimizing the pricing coverage of outlets is working – or not working – in practice (referred to in paragraph 16); and
- The potential improvements to the methodology (referred to in particular in paragraphs 14 and 20).
1. As mentioned in ACPAQ, organizations said in ACPAQ they very much regret the low response rates to the household expenditure surveys. There are many reasons for this; the complexity of the questionnaire itself and the time it takes to complete; the technical difficulties with electronic completion of the questionnaire; concerns for confidentiality; lack of interest; lack of confidence and so on.
The HR Network supports the suggestion that the Secretariat revise the questionnaires with a view to simplifying them, both in terms of structure and content, and make the electronic version of the questionnaires more user-friendly. The Network also recommends that the Secretariat develop specific mechanisms to improve the response rates to the surveys. We all have to do better next time; and we do need to find a way of using national expenditure weights – presumably suitably adjusted – to determine common weights. The organizations can assure you that they will do all they can to assist the Secretariat and ACPAQ to find a solution to this vexatious problem before the next round of headquarters’ surveys.
2. In paragraph 16, there is a very good description of the concerns raised at ACPAQ for the new approach to pricing; this was used for the first time in 2005. We had all thought that this new approach – essentially to collect as many prices as possible in the same outlet even if that outlet had not been originally listed for some items – made good sense. Now organizations are concerned, however, that this may be introducing a bias, especially in those locations such as Montreal and Geneva where there are comparatively fewer outlets than in New York for example.
The matter is technical but – for those familiar with the North American market – it was described in ACPAQ as pricing a clothing item (say a ladies wool suit) in Sears in Montreal with the same item in Saks in New York!
We join others in supporting ACPAQ’s request contained in the last sentence of paragraph 16 that the Secretariat re-examine this approach to data collection.
3. Let me now turn to those areas in which the organizations consider that improvements might be introduced in the next round of surveys - that is to say in 2010. Although 2010 may sound as though it is a long way away, it is surprising how quickly these surveys come round; moreover, improvements to the methodology need time for further discussion in ACPAQ - they also may need time for testing.
The areas in which the organizations would welcome methodological changes fall into 5 areas:
a. keeping the specifications up to date - especially for electronic items
b. using internet pricing
c. considering using internet outlets
d. improving the way in which clothing prices are collected; and
e. the treatment of data which are deemed to be “out of line" - that is considerably above or below the average prices collected for the items in question
These matters were reported to ACPAQ in document ICSC/ACPAQ/28/CRP 3 and were the subject of considerable discussion at the Committee. ACPAQ has asked the Secretariat to consider these proposals and we look forward to receiving the secretariat's views thereon at the next session of ACPAQ.
Inter alia, we consider that some of these proposals will help alleviate the problem of bias to which I referred a few moments ago somewhat colloquially as the Saks/Sears syndrome.
But the main thrust of these suggestions for improvements in the methodology is that of keeping abreast of technological change - both in terms of keeping specifications up to date in a world in which electronic items (computers, digital cameras, and even televisions) are being introduced and withdrawn from the sales markets with increasing and sometimes bewildering rapidity. Most outlets in New York - or Vienna for that matter - consider that there will be four or even five new models of a given digital camera introduced over a 12 month period. That means that the model taken as a specification in January is unlikely to be available to price in June of the same year.
In the cost-of-living survey conducted in Paris in September 2005 by the ICSC Secretariat, the UNESCO representative raised again the concern relating to the specifications for education costs and suggested that the comparability of schools used for cost-of-living measurements should be further studied. The HR Network supports this suggestion.
In summary, we are grateful to the attention paid to the suggestions put forward by the organizations at ACPAQ and we look forward to the outcome of the secretariat's further review thereof in due course.
Mr. Chairman, I would be grateful if you would accord the floor to colleagues having questions relating to the individual headquarters' locations referred to in the report of the Advisory Committee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)