Inter-organization cost-sharing

(1)      At the second part of the 22nd session (July 1961: CO-ORDINATION/R.373, para. 34) CCAQ informally considered and agreed to a proposal by the Secretary regarding the sharing of joint costs. Under this proposal, which UN was to circulate formally, there would be a single consolidated annual billing by UN covering expenses for:

     - ICSAB;
     - ECPA;
     - CCAQ Staff Office;
     - Out-of-pocket costs of cost-of-living surveys.

Beginning with 1961, total annual expenditure actually incurred would be shared by all organizations in the ratio of numbers of Professional posts (regular and expert). The basis for this could be either the annual CCAQ listing or the lists prepared for calculation of WAPA for pension purposes, whichever UN found most convenient administratively. For 1961 itself, UN would absorb amounts attributable to the smaller agencies if they were unable to meet them. Beginning in 1962, UN would early in the year circulate an estimate of probable total costs.

(2)      At the 24th session (March 1963: CO-ORDINATION/R.430, para. 68) CCAQ noted that, if the scope of ICSAB's activities was enlarged as contemplated, joint costs might be of the order of $100,000 a year by 1964. ACC in May 1963 reported to ECOSOC (E/3765, para. 201) that it had agreed to continue existing cost-sharing arrangements for a further year, to 31 December 1964.

(3)      In 1967 ACC had agreed that the cost of JIU, whose establishment had been endorsed by the General Assembly in its resolution 2360 (XXII), should be shared by participating organizations on the basis of their total expenditures from all sources of funds during the previous year. At its 29th session (March 1968: CO-ORDINATION/R.679, para. 12) CCAQ agreed that it was too early to revise this formula but expressed the view that the UN share of the cost should be based on total UN expenditure figures, including the cost of UNDP Headquarters and field offices.

(4)      At the 31st session (March 1970: CO-ORDINATION/R.799, paras. 49-52) CCAQ considered a criticism by the World Food Programme that the formula for sharing the costs of the JIU took no account of the fact that some WFP projects were not executed by WFP itself and agreed to re-examine the formula.

(5)      At the 33rd session (March 1971: CO-ORDINATION/R.864, paras. 39-43) CCAQ adopted a cost-sharing formula for joint projects apportioning costs according to the total for all posts, Professional and General Service. This formula was to be effective for the year 1971 and subsequently.

(6)      At the 40th session (March 1974) CCAQ suggested that UN, which was providing initial financing for various joint projects, might charge the other organizations on a quarterly basis, with appropriate adjustments at the end of the year (CO-ORDINATION/R.1054, para. 29).

(7)      The Committee approved at the 42nd session (September 1975: CO-ORDINATION/R.1114, annex E) an apportionment of the 1976-1977 costs of ICSC, established as indicated in Section 1.6, and of CCAQ, on the basis of the CCAQ list of authorized posts at 1 January 1974. However, it was agreed at the 43rd session (March 1976: CO-ORDINATION/R.1146, paras. 42 and 43) that the second set of computerized personnel statistics, showing staff in post at 31 December 1975, was sufficiently reliable to be used for this purpose instead. The end-1975 statistics would also provide a more up-to-date basis for apportioning costs in 1976-1977.

(8)      At the 46th session (March 1977: CO-ORDINATION/R.1211, paras. 30-32) the Committee examined at the request of ACC arrangements for sharing the cost of conferences. It was agreed that evaluating the costs and their distribution presented little difficulty once it was known what organizations' programme inputs were to be. These could best be determined by joint planning in the framework of prior consultations on medium-term plans and, at a later stage and in greater detail, on proposed programme budgets. It would be for the organization convening a conference to take the necessary initiatives in the joint planning work. In the case of UN, system-wide cost figures might best be given in a note to the related expenditure estimates in the programme budget.

(9)      At the same session (CO-ORDINATION/R.1211, paras. 44 and 45) the Committee agreed that the cost in 1978-1979 of ICSC, the CCAQ secretariat and IOB should be shared by the participating organizations on the basis of CCAQ personnel statistics showing staff in post at 31 December 1977. These arrangements were agreed by ACC (CO-ORDINATION/R.1219, para. 117).

(10)      In view of the exceptional financial difficulties faced by one organization, CCAQ at its 48th session (March 1978) agreed that its members should study the implications of basing the organizations' shares of the cost of certain jointly-financed administrative activities, for 1978 and 1979, on the personnel statistics at the end of each of those years, thereby reflecting the most recent position (CO-ORDINATION/R.1279, para. 25). At its 49th session (September 1978) the Committee, although opposed in principle to ad hoc modification of the cost-sharing formula, agreed to accept "as an exceptional measure" that the proposal should apply to the costs of ICSC, CCAQ and IOB for 1978 and 1979 (but not thereafter); in the case of JIU contributions would continue to be in proportion to the organizations' total expenditures in the preceding year (CO-ORDINATION/R.1307, paras. 17 and 18).

(11)      At the 49th session (September 1978) CCAQ also agreed that contributions of IFAD to ICSC and CCAQ for 1978, its first year of operations, should cover only the last six months of that year, the period during which it had participated in the inter-organization bodies (CO-ORDINATION/R.1307, para. 19).

(12)      At the 51st session (September 1979) CCAQ considered a UN proposal for a standard scale of charges for the services provided by organizations designated as lead agencies for providing inter-organization procurement services. It was sympathetic with the principle of compensation for services rendered, but in the procurement area judged it preferable that such compensation be negotiated on an ad hoc basis, pending a decision on the broader issue of support costs (see Section 20.2) (ACC/1979/R.69, para. 32).

(13)      At the 52nd session (March 1980) UN drew the Committee's attention to the increasing need to put security measures into effect to protect the organizations' international staff and proposed the establishment and financing on an inter-organization basis of a fund of $400,000 to pay for such measures (assembling of a basic inventory of radio communications equipment; operating costs). CCAQ agreed to the establishment of such a fund and the principle of joint financing on the basis of a simple cost-sharing formula using available statistics on the number of international staff employed by the participating organizations. It was also agreed that organizations would reimburse UN for any costs of the kind that the fund was designed to cover if they had to be incurred before the fund could be set up (ACC/1980/16, paras. 34 and 35).

(14)      At the 53rd session (September 1980) the Committee agreed to a proposal by UN that the fund for security measures should be established at a level of $400,000 from 1 January 1981. The fund would be replenished annually, expenditures in each calendar year being accounted for through CCAQ in March of the succeeding year. The Committee also agreed to a cost-sharing formula put forward by UN, subject to the expression of percentage shares to a single decimal place (ACC/1980/32, paras. 31-33).

(15)      At the 54th session UN informed the Committee that its request for resources to meet its contribution to the security fund in 1981 had been denied; proposals would be submitted again in the draft programme budget for the biennium 1982-1983. Other organizations would be consulted in advance on their content. In the meantime an Ad Hoc Interagency Meeting on Security Matters had agreed that the level of the fund could be raised to $1 million. The Committee noted that it was now too late for several organizations to provide for increased contributions in 1982 and 1983. The revolving nature of the fund and lack of experience in using it at the present level also needed to be borne in mind. A budget would in addition be necessary to show the proposed use of a larger fund (ACC/1981/10, paras. 22-25).

(16)      At the 55th session (September 1981) the Committee noted a draft of the report on the security fund (to be fixed at $400,000) which was to be presented to the General Assembly at its 36th session. The Committee also noted that the cost-sharing arrangements to be worked out by UN would provide for the apportionment of costs on the basis of total staff in post outside headquarters countries and the sites of peace-keeping activities and special missions (ACC/1981/30, para. 44).

(17)      At the 55th session the Committee also agreed that in view of organizations' current budgetary arrangements the costs of JIU in each biennium should be apportioned in future in accordance with participating organizations' total expenditures from all sources of funds in the preceding biennium. The cost of other jointly-financed activities would continue to be apportioned in each biennium on the basis of the CCAQ personnel statistics showing staff in post at the end of the preceding biennium (ACC/1981/30, para. 16).

(18)      At the 56th session (March 1982) CCAQ(FB) was informed that CCAQ(PER), given the circumstances of the releasing organization, had agreed to the idea of distributing among the organizations the replacement cost of the General Secretary of FICSA; it had also been considered that this arrangement might be extended to cover the replacement cost of the President. CCAQ(FB) had been requested to develop an appropriate cost-sharing formula and examine practical arrangements. CCAQ(FB) considered that such proposals should in future be submitted in advance in the form of budget estimates. To emphasize the exceptional nature of the measure it proposed to restrict the arrangement to the case of the General Secretary, while exempting the releasing organization of the President from participation in the sharing of the costs. It requested the CCAQ secretariat to work out the percentage shares of the other organizations on the basis of the CCAQ personnel statistics; on this basis the releasing organization of the General Secretary was to proceed to a single billing in the course of the year (ACC/1982/6, paras. 7-10). (In the event it did not prove necessary to apply these measures owing to the retirement of the General Secretary.)

(19)      At the 56th session CCAQ also noted the expenditures incurred for security purposes by UN in 1981. It was informed that the General Assembly had not approved the establishment of a global security fund, but had authorized the Secretary-General to enter into commitments for security purposes up to an amount of $300,000 per biennium, for reimbursement according to the cost-sharing formula; commitments in excess of that amount would require the prior concurrence of ACABQ. The Committee requested UN to consult the other organizations before any request concerning such supplementary commitments was placed before ACABQ, which did not have authority to authorize expenditures by other organizations (ACC/1982/6, paras. 64 and 65).

(20)      At the 58th session (March 1983) CCAQ noted a report by UN setting out expenditures for security purposes in 1982 and apportioning these expenditures among participating organizations. It hoped that UN would also provide a programme report supporting the expenditure figures on future occasions (ACC/1983/11, paras. 62-68).

(21)      At the 59th session (September 1983) CCAQ considered the possibility that the cost-sharing formula for security measures should be revised to provide for the apportionment of costs incurred at major duty stations on the basis of the number of staff belonging to each of the organizations at such locations. In the interests of simplicity it was judged preferable to maintain the existing arrangements (ACC/1983/21, para. 62).

(22)      At the 60th session (March 1984) CCAQ was informed of inter-organization security measures taken by UN in 1983 and their cost (ACC/1984/10, paras. 68 and 69). At the 63rd session (September 1985) it noted similar information on security measures in 1984 and requested UN to circulate advance information on costs in 1985, to enable funds to be obligated before the year-end. In view of the relatively small amount involved, it considered the possibility of biennial rather than annual billing under the agreed cost-sharing arrangements, and concluded that annual billing should be maintained subject to the existing agreement that inter-organizations charges of less than $50 would normally be waived (ACC/1985/17, paras. 5 and 6).

(23)      Also at the 63rd session, CCAQ(FB) was informed of the agreement of CCAQ(PER) to the principle of an ad hoc cost-sharing arrangement for the current President of FICSA. It considered a suggested apportionment of the cost involved, submitted by UNESCO, and concluded that it could not agree to the arrangement envisaged since, to command general acceptance, it would have to be extended to other organizations releasing staff for service with staff representative organizations (ACC/1985/17, paras. 7 and 8). Given the difference in the positions of CCAQ(PER) and CCAQ(FB) the matter was subsequently referred to the Organizational Committee, which agreed on an ad hoc basis, and given the special situation of UNESCO, to endorse the decision of CCAQ(PER), it being understood that organizations whose staff were represented by FICSA would participate in the cost-sharing arrangements in an appropriate proportion (ACC/1985/21, para. 33).

(24)      At the 65th session (September 1986) CCAQ(FB) took note of the cost of security measures at field locations in 1984-1985 and their purpose, together with an apportionment of the cost (ACC/1986/12, para. 22).

(25)      At their 64th sessions (February-March and March 1986) CCAQ(PER) and CCAQ(FB) considered a request by ITU for cost-sharing in respect of the newly-elected General Secretary of FICSA. CCAQ(PER) agreed that when organizations required assistance in making staff available for such positions the assistance could be provided, on a strictly ad hoc basis; it requested CCAQ(FB) to determine the cost-sharing mechanism to be used on this occasion. UN, however, had indicated that it did not seek participation by other organizations in the cost of its staff serving on CCISUA and could not participate in the arrangement (ACC/1986/3, para. 4). Considerable opposition to the arrangement was voiced in CCAQ(FB), given the lack of appropriations for this purpose, ACABQ objections to other proposed extensions of the principle of joint financing, the current financial situation, the increasing frequency of requests for arrangements along the same lines and the possibility that such arrangements might invite still further pressure for the sharing of costs. After consultations between the two Chairmen, CCAQ(FB) subsequently agreed to accept the arrangement and approved a cost-sharing formula, subject to discussions between the Chairmen or prior consultation in cases where such matters came forward (ACC/1986/4, paras. 11-14). For the outcome of the further discussions, see Section 1.3.

(26)      At their 66th sessions (March and March-April 1987) CCAQ(PER) and CCAQ(FB) considered a request from ITU that the cost-sharing arrangement agreed upon in respect of the General Secretary of FICSA (see para. 26 above) should be continued for an additional year, the same staff member having been elected President of the Federation. Different positions of principle were taken in CCAQ(PER), which concluded that the arrangement should continue, but that in view of organizations' financial difficulties the expenses should be limited to the cost of replacement of the staff member released (ACC/1987/4, paras. 4 and 5). Reservations were also expressed in CCAQ(FB), which agreed to the arrangement on the understanding that its concurrence implied no commitment as regards similar proposals in future (ACC/1987/6, para. 47).

(27)      At the 67th session (September 1987) the Committee took note of the cost of security measures at field locations in 1986 and of an apportionment of this cost (ACC/1987/12, para. 8).

(28)      At its 68th session (February-March 1988) CCAQ(PER) declined to support a formalized cost-sharing arrangement proposed by the ILO and ITU for sharing among the organizations concerned the expenses arising from the release of the President, Vice-President and General Secretary of FICSA. It agreed to extend for another year the existing ad hoc arrangement for sharing the costs of releasing from ITU the President of the Federation; the ILO, which would continue to finance the post of General Secretary, and UN, which provided facilities to CCISUA, would be excluded from this arrangement (ACC/1988/4, paras. 169, 170). Subject to the reservation in principle of UNDP, CCAQ(FB) endorsed that agreement (ACC/1988/5, paras. 13-15).

(29)      At the 69th session (September 1988) CCAQ(FB) noted costs totalling $56,935 for security measures at field locations in 1987; under approved arrangements they would be shared among the participating organizations. The Committee agreed that in its next report on this subject UN should describe the expenditures being apportioned and the relationship between that source of financing and others available for global security measures (ACC/1988/13, paras. 15, 16).

(30)      At both its first special (1989) session (January: ACC/1989/2, paras. 21-23) and its 70th session (March 1989: ACC/1989/6, paras. 56-59) CCAQ(PER) discussed a proposal from the UN Security Co-ordinator to fund two posts on an inter-agency basis to provide support for field security. Following the expression of reservations by some organizations UN raised the proposal in ACC. In the meantime CCAQ(FB) had also considered the proposal (70th session, March 1989) but was unable to support it (ACC/1989/7, paras. 21-23). ACC agreed to the new posts, and asked CCAQ(FB) to examine the detailed modalities for financing them (decision 1989/14; see also section 14.5).

(31)      At the 71st session of CCAQ(FB) (September 1989) all the organizations concerned indicated willingness to participate in financing the new posts on the basis of the formula already used for inter-organization security measures, based on the total number of international staff and volunteers serving at field duty stations other than sites of peacekeeping and special missions (ACC/1989/15, paras. 20-22).

(32)      At the same session the Committee was informed that the cost to be shared among the participating organizations of security measures taken by UN in 1988 at field locations had amounted to $93,100. This excluded expenditure of $157,324 incurred by UN for evacuating the staff of diplomatic missions and representatives of non-governmental and other voluntary organizations; action was under way to recover that amount from the governments and organizations concerned (ibid., paras. 23, 24).

(33)      At the 72nd session (March 1990) and at the request of ACC, the Committee considered three issues with financial implications arising from the Ad Hoc Inter-Agency Meeting on Security which had taken place in July 1989: the development of a cadre of regional security advisers; insurance coverage for staff at hazardous duty stations; and establishment of a jointly-financed security fund. The Committee agreed to a proposal that the cost of the advisers' missions (formerly frequently borne by UNDP) be met by organizations participating in the existing arrangements for jointly-financed security measures. On the second proposal, it noted that group insurance coverage for staff at hazardous duty stations had come into effect on 1 January 1990; it was at present limited to internationally-recruited staff but was intended to be extended later to locally-recruited staff, staff on missions and consultants. CCAQ considered that participating organizations' shares in the premium (currently $126,000) should be determined on the basis of the number of staff covered, according to the CCAQ personnel statistics, subject to some adjustments as necessary; non-participating organizations would not contribute. The inter-organization security fund was proposed for establishment as from 1992-1993 in an amount of $500,000, and it was suggested that contributions would be shared in accordance with the agreed cost-sharing formula for security measures. CCAQ recalled that in the past ACC had given its agreement to the principle of such a fund, and there appeared to be no reason to change that position; nor did the Committee find the proposed level of the fund unreasonable. Members expressed the hope that if the fund were indeed set up, annual reports on expenditures and their purpose would be submitted to CCAQ for its examination (ACC/1990/5, paras. 17-22).

(34)      At the 73rd session (September 1990) the Committee noted that in 1989 the cost of measures taken by UN for security at field locations had amounted to $62,542. Along with the cost of two posts in the Office of the Security Co-ordinator (see paras. (35) and (36) above), which would be communicated later, it would be shared by participating organizations according to the agreed arrangements. UN undertook to study the possibility of including under the cost-sharing agreement emergency security costs incurred by UNDP at field duty stations; in the meantime organizations directly concerned would reimburse UNDP. It was also agreed that UN would review the existing cost-sharing formula (ACC/1990/12, paras. 6, 7).

(35)      At both its 74th and 75th sessions (March and July-August 1991: ACC/1991/5, paras. 165-167; ACC/1991/17, paras. 156-159) CCAQ(PER), in the context of a request from IAEA, discussed more formalized arrangements for sharing the costs of releasing the President and the General Secretary of FICSA (see para. (31) above). There was, however, no consensus in favour of such arrangements, and the organizations supporting the idea informed the Committee that they would agree among themselves on a cost-sharing arrangement. At its 75th session (September 1991) CCAQ(FB) took note of those developments (ACC/1991/18, paras. 31-33).

(36)      At the 75th session (September 1991) the Committee took note of information from UN on expenditures for security measures. These had totalled $150,058 in 1990, plus $85,278 from 1 May 1989 to 31 December 1990 for posts in the office of the Security Co-ordinator. In 1991 $225,000 had already been allotted for security measures and a further $200,000 might be needed before year-end (ACC/1991/18, para. 23).

(37)      The Committee then reviewed details of a UN proposal for a global jointly-financed security trust fund to be established from 1 January 1992. UN had earlier proposed an amount of $500,000 for such a fund, and CCAQ(FB) had agreed (see para. (39) above); the Ad Hoc Inter-Agency Meeting on Security of June 1991 had subsequently recommended that the ceiling for security-related expenditure be raised to $1 million, whether by way of a fund or via the ceiling established for each biennium by the General Assembly. In addition to the security posts already referred to, the fund would be used to finance expenditure for evacuation operations, movable security equipment, short-term security personnel in an emergency, and field security missions. (It would not be used for payment of evacuation allowances, reimbursements for the loss of personal property, costs related to training, fixed security equipment in offices or residences or the employment of full-time guards.) The UN Security Co-ordinator would administer the fund and would be responsible for expenditures, which would be apportioned according to the existing formula and reported annually to CCAQ(FB). The fund would be replenished annually, or more often if necessary; interest earned on balances would be recredited to the fund, which would be managed and audited according to the terms of the UN Financial Regulations and Rules. CCAQ(FB) confirmed its agreement to the establishment of the fund, but reiterated its view that a level of $500,000 would be appropriate at the present time, subject to later review on the basis of experience.

(38)      On the question of insurance coverage for staff at hazardous duty stations, also discussed at an earlier session (see para. (33) above) the Committee took note at the same session of information provided by UN on recent developments.

(39)      At the 76th session (March 1992) the Committee was informed that UN had not been authorized to establish the proposed global security trust fund (see paras. (33) and (37) above), but that its authority to incur jointly-financed expenditures for security measures had been increased from $300,000 to $500,000. At the same session the Committee returned to the question of insurance coverage raised in paragraph (38)      above, which was also on the agenda of CCAQ(PER) at its current (76th) session; UN provided the information requested, but both CCAQ(FB) and CCAQ(PER) decided against collective arrangements for such coverage, although individual organizations could go ahead if they so wished (ACC/1992/6, paras. 129, 130; ACC/1992/11, paras. 9, 10).

(40)      At the 77th session (August-September 1992) the Committee took note of expenditure of $520,855 incurred by UN in relation to security measures in 1991, and their apportionment. It gave general support to a UN proposal for two further posts (one P-3, one GS) in the Office of the Security Co-ordinator, but agreed that corresponding savings would be sought for other jointly-financed activities when the Committee considered their budgets for 1994-1995. FAO and UNDP requested that from 1992 onwards WFP and UNFPA respectively should be shown separately in cost apportionments for all jointly-financed activities in which they participated (ACC/1992/25, paras. 10-13).

(41)      At the 78th session (March 1993) the Committee noted the 1992-1993 percentage shares of participating organizations in the costs of ICSC, JIU and the secretariats of CCSQ(OPS), CCAQ and ACCIS. It also noted that the apportionment of the costs of JIU would be adjusted as soon as comparable 1990-1991 expenditure data had been ascertained for UNDP and UNFPA (ACC/1993/7, para. 31).

(42)      At the 79th session (August-September 1993), the Committee was invited to address the issue, raised at an Ad Hoc Inter-Agency Consultation on Jointly-Financed Secretariats of ACC Standing Committees held in July 1993, of possible contributions to the budgets of these bodies by the Bretton Woods institutions. CCAQ(FB) believed that contributions from the financial institutions would be most suitable in the case of the secretariat of CCPOQ, and suggested that consideration be given to raising this matter with the institutions at an appropriate level, in a letter signed by the UN Secretary-General, in his capacity as Chairman of ACC, or by the Secretary of ACC (ACC/1993/23, paras. 7-9). (For budgetary matters considered by CCAQ(FB) on the basis of conclusions reached at the Ad Hoc Inter-Agency Consultation, see section 16.7, para. A12).

(43)      Also at the 79th session, one organization indicated that its declining resources would oblige it to reduce its contributions to jointly-financed activities by about 30 per cent. The other organizations represented judged that such action on a unilateral basis would violate established agreements and obligations, but believed that the burden of the organizations concerned might be alleviated by changes in cost-sharing arrangements and budget reductions already recommended or now scheduled to be considered. In this context the Committee noted with regret that some of the reductions which it had agreed upon had not been reflected in the budget proposals being submitted to the General Assembly (ibid., paras. 10-11).

(44)      At the same session, after percentage apportionments of the costs of various jointly-financed activities for 1992-1993 had been noted, reservations were expressed about the data underlying the apportionment for the JIU, based on expenditure data reported by the participating organizations. The Committee agreed that the data used should be consistent and verifiable and requested its secretariat to develop draft reporting guidelines for consideration at its next session. The Committee examined the advantages and disadvantages of applying the JIU or the CCAQ formula to the secretariat of CCPOQ instead of the separate formula previously developed for CCSQ(OPS) and decided to return to this matter as soon as an improved apportionment for JIU could be developed (ibid., paras. 27-29).

(45)      Finally, at the 79th session the Committee also noted expenditures of $180,823 incurred by UN for jointly-financed security measures during 1992 and an apportionment of these costs on the basis of the relevant formula. UN cautioned that security costs could be substantially higher in 1993 and agreed to circulate data on the amount at an early date (ibid., para. 30).

(46)      At its 80th session ( February - March 1994), CCAQ(FB) considered the question of a cost-sharing formula for the secretariat of CCPOQ and agreed in principle that, for this secretariat, a cost sharing formula based on expenditure would be appropriate. However, it decided not to formally adopt a formula until the issues raised in its current discussion on reporting under the JIU formula could be resolved (ACC/1994/5, para. 5).

(47)      At the same time, the Committee also decided that the costs of the new Information Systems Coordination Committee (ISCC) should be apportioned among organizations on the basis of total staff in post at the close of the preceding biennium (the "CCAQ" formula), as had been the costs of its predecessor, ACCIS (ibid., para. 8).

(48)      At the same session, the Committee had a general discussion of the issues involved in the cost sharing formulas for jointly financed activities, in the context of a recommendation made by the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions that the Secretary -General should carry out an analysis of the criteria for these. It noted that two standard cost-sharing formulas were in use, the first based on total staff in post at the close of the preceding biennium (the "CCAQ" formula), and the second based on total expenditure from all sources of funds during that biennium (the "JIU" formula). The CCAQ formula was applied to activities concerned wholly or to a significant extent with personnel questions, notably the International Civil Service Commission and the secretariat of CCAQ. It was also now to be applied to the new ISCC. The JIU formula was applied to jointly-financed bodies where the volume of activity of participating organizations appeared to be the most relevant consideration. This formula had been used for the costs of the JIU and would be used for the costs of CCPOQ.

(49)      A number of other ad hoc formulas had also been developed, including the formulas applied to inter-organization security measures, and to salary survey activities. The first of these was based on the total number of organizations' international staff and volunteers serving at field duty stations other than the sites of peace-keeping and special missions at the close of the preceding year. The second took account of the volume of salary survey activities carried out by different organizations, as well as overall salary survey responsibilities, the number of duty stations surveyed in a four year cycle and the level of resources committed by each organization under the current methodology for salary determination. CCAQ(FB) noted that it had decided to review the latter formula after it had been considered by CCAQ(PER); such a review should take account of developments since the adoption of the formula in 1987, and should find the means of making the formula transparent and more objective.

(50)      In summary, CCAQ(FB) considered that the major consideration to be borne in mind in the establishment of cost-sharing arrangements was that they should be adapted as far as possible to the nature of the jointly-financed activities considered, and that they should, as far as possible, be simple, objective and verifiable. The last of these would normally involve a link to published figures. Finally, CCAQ(FB) reiterated its view that all organizations participating in a jointly-financed activity should contribute to its cost (ibid., paras. 20 - 24).

(51)      The Committee also considered the draft guidelines which had been developed by its secretariat for expenditure reporting under the JIU formula. It came to the conclusion that as a general rule the expenditure reported should correspond to that which was reflected in the organizations' financial statements and which was subject to external audit. It would thus normally include expenditure in kind or for management, procurement or other services to the extent that such expenditure passed through the organization's accounts. Expenditure under specially assessed peace-keeping budgets and the value of donated commodities supplied would however be excluded. CCAQ(FB) requested its secretariat to proceed with the development of the draft guidelines and, on the basis of these, to collect corresponding 1992-1993 expenditure figures, for submission, together with the resulting percentages, to the next session of CCAQ(FB) (ibid., para. 25 - 27).

(52)      Finally, at the same session, CCAQ(FB) noted the cost of inter-organization security in 1993 incurred by the United Nations, and the proposed apportionment of these costs. The United Nations agreed to provide further information on the costs related to United Nations Volunteers, and the various jointly-financed security arrangements in force, at the next session (ibid., para. 28).

(53)      At its 81st session (August - September, 1994), CCAQ(FB) noted that CCAQ(PER) had recommended that the current formula for sharing the costs of salary survey activities should be maintained. While agreeing to the use of the formula for sharing the costs in 1994, CCAQ(FB) urged CCAQ(PER) to make further proposals to permit the use of a more logical, straightforward formula for 1995 (ACC/1994/15, paras. 11 and 12).

(54)      At the same session, the Committee also examined the revised expenditure figures and the resulting percentages for the JIU formula for sharing the costs of jointly-financed activities in 1994-1995. It agreed that the formula should henceforth be derived from the expenditure reported in the audited accounts of the participating organizations, excluding (a) expenditure related to peace-keeping; (b) expenditure in kind (including the value of donated commodities); and (c) 50% of the expenditure of the ITC corresponding to the GATT share, on the principle that the regular budget of the ITC was funded in equal parts by the GATT and the United Nations. CCAQ(FB) agreed that the new methodology would definitely apply to the sharing of the costs of the JIU from 1996. As regards the sharing of costs of the JIU for 1994-1995, appreciating the budgetary problems that the change to the formula would create, the Committee exceptionally agreed that, without creating a precedent, the methodology used to distribute the 1992-1993 costs would continue to apply for the distribution of the costs incurred for the JIU in 1994; it also agreed to defer to its next session a decision on the practical arrangements for sharing the 1995 costs. As concerned the sharing of costs of the secretariat of CCPOQ, CCAQ(FB) decided that the new methodology would apply to these immediately, with the billing of the 1994 costs (ibid., paras. 13 - 18).

(55)      Finally, at the same session, the Committee agreed to proposals made by the United Nations concerning the sharing of costs for inter-organization security; (a) that the formula should include all staff members (except those serving at Headquarters locations) including personnel of United Nations organizations who are serving at sites where this is a peace-keeping or special mission but excluding civilian staff of the peace-keeping mission per se, (b) that all charges relating to United Nations volunteers, beginning with the costs for 1994, would be billed directly to UNV Geneva, which could pass on the costs to the appropriate organizations; and (c) that the United Nations should bill organizations once expenditure had reached $250,000, as an interim measure to cope with the ceiling of $500,000 which is available to the United Nations for such security measures (ibid., paras. 19 and 20).

(56)      At its 82nd session (February 1995), CCAQ(FB) agreed that, as regards the sharing of costs of the JIU in 1995, as a transitional measure, 50 per cent of the changes in percentage shares which would result from the application of the new methodology should be applied in 1995; the percentage shares which would be used to distribute the 1995 costs of the JIU would thus be an average of those arrived at under the old and new methodologies (ACC/1995/6, paras. 13 and 14).

(57)      At the same session, the Committee also gave initial consideration to a proposal made by the United Nations for sharing the costs of salary surveys based on contribution bands taking into account the number of staff for which salaries were surveyed and duty stations for each organization. The proposal took account, in a quantifiable way, of three new elements. These were (a) the number of National Officers, since scales also had to be established for these staff; (b) the number of duty stations at which each organization had staff, since these gave an indication of an organization's use of salary scales; and (c) the contributions of organizations in the form of costs of posts devoted to salary surveys, other than the jointly-financed salary staff. CCAQ(FB) agreed that the method proposed was more logical and straightforward; it considered that the number of bands could be refined to make finer distinctions, and requested the United Nations to present proposals at its next session along these lines. It also decided to retain the present formula for sharing the costs of salary surveys for 1995 (ibid., paras. 15 - 18).

(58)      Finally, the Committee considered a paper by the United Nations giving details of the costs of inter-organization security in 1994, and of the costs to be charged to organizations based on the new methodology approved at the last session (ibid., para. 50).

(59)      At its 83rd session (August - September 1995), CCAQ(FB) examined and approved a revised proposal made by the United Nations for sharing the costs of salary surveys, based on the methodology presented at its last session (ACC/1995/20, paras. 19 - 22).

(60)     At its 84th Session,  February 1996, the Committee noted the contents of a paper (Document: ACC/1996/FB/R.5) prepared by the United Nations giving details of expenditures on inter-organization security measures in 1995 together with a calculation of costs to be charged to individual organizations. Detailed data was also presented on the costs of insurance at hazardous duty stations. The Committee welcomed the reduction in overall jointly-financed security costs in 1995 and noted that costs of specific missions to some countries were being charged directly to the organizations with activities there. It was also noted that savings resulting from a premium reduction with respect to 1995 insurance at hazardous duty stations would be reflected in charges to organizations in 1996.

(61)      At its 86th Session,  February 1997, the Committee noted the indicative shares of the costs of jointly-financed activities as provided in ACC/1996/FB/R.27/Rev.1; (see also  ACC/1996/FB/R.31) and recalled that the share hitherto attributed to the United Nations would be apportioned between the United Nations and its subsidiary programmes in a manner to be determined between them. It further noted that the budgets of these bodies were administered by the United Nations on behalf of the system as a whole and that the costs advanced by the United Nations were recovered through a six-monthly billing procedure.

(62)      At its 87th Session, August 1997, the Committee approved the costs to be charged to individual organizations for inter-organizational security measures in 1996, on the basis of a document (ACC/1997/FB/R.17) prepared by the United Nations. This gave a breakdown of expenditures related to security measures incurred by the United Nations during 1996 totalling $525,466. The Committee also approved expenditure on malicious acts insurance for 1996 totalling $1,469,331 and noted that there would be a refund with respect to 1995 insurance amounting to $367,509.90.

(63)      At its 88th Session,  September 1998, the Committee was pleased to note that the "Security in the Field" Handbook, which had been financed by the United Nations budget, had been distributed. It approved the costs to be charged to individual organizations for inter-organizational security measures in 1997, on the basis of documents (ACC/1998/FB/R.2 and Add.1) prepared by the United Nations. This gave a breakdown of expenditures related to security measures incurred by the United Nations during 1997 totalling $653,335. The Committee also approved expenditure on malicious acts insurance for 1997 totalling $1,037,253; this covered 25,022 staff members as well as consultants and experts on mission. The Committee was briefed by the Deputy United Nations Security Coordinator on the possible impact of incidents which had already occurred in 1998 on the level of insurance premiums.

(64)      The Committee was also advised of the latest status of plans for security training in high risk locations. While a Trust Fund has been set up for donations to the cost of training, only one significant contribution has been received so far. Organizations should, therefore, still plan to contribute their shares to the total of $600,000 earmarked for security training activities in 1998-1999. However, because the start of training had been delayed, they should expect that the major part of the expenditure would now take place in 1999.

(65)      At its 89th session (February 1999: ACC/1999/6, paras. 6-9) the Committee had an extensive discussion of budgetary issues facing the organizations, most of which continued to face considerable budgetary pressures that were reflected in their budgets for 2000-2001. In many cases these budgets were based on zero nominal growth. In accordance with standing arrangements, the Committee reviewed the proposed programme budgets for 2000-2001 for jointly-financed bodies. Preliminary reviews had taken place in informal working groups which had met to discuss individual budget proposals prior to the session. Representatives of these groups presented the key issues arising from these reviews together with any clarifications obtained from the secretariats of the jointly-financed bodies. This process greatly aided the Committee, which expressed its appreciation to those who had participated in the informal review groups and thus helped the Committee make more productive use of its time at the session. In examining the budgets, the Committee noted that organizations were facing increasing pressure on their own budgets and recalled the general considerations of financial policy which had guided its review of budgets for jointly-financed bodies for some time and continued to be relevant, namely that there should be no increase in staffing levels and that costs should be maintained within current levels subject only to adjustments for currency fluctuations and statutory salary increases. Some organizations expressed their concern at the difficulty in paying for their share of jointly-financed activities. With these considerations in mind, the Committee recommended, on behalf of ACC, decreases in the proposed programme budget of ICSC (see section 16.7E, paras. (24)-(25)).

(66)      At the same session (ibid., paras. 18-19) the Committee considered the indicative shares of the costs of jointly-financed activities and recalled that the share hitherto attributed to the United Nations would be apportioned between the United Nations and its subsidiary programmes in a manner to be determined between them. It further noted that the budgets of these bodies were administered by the United Nations on behalf of the system as a whole and that the costs advanced by the United Nations were recovered through a six-monthly billing procedure. In view of incorrect coding under the new IMIS of UNICEF's temporary staff (i.e. with terms of employment under one year), which were not reportable for the purposes of the cost-sharing formula, the Committee agreed that, until new indicative figures were produced by the secretariat, there could be no endorsement of the cost-sharing allocations. Accordingly, the Committee would revert to the matter at the next session.

(67)      At the same session (ibid., paras. 20-21) the Committee noted that the WTO secretariat had been established on 1 January 1999 with its own Staff Regulations and Pension Plan, independent of the Common System and that WTO had indicated that it would no longer participate in the work of the ICSC. It was not clear, however, whether WTO would contribute to the ICSC costs for only half or all of the biennium 1998-1999. It was assumed that WTO would contribute its share for the whole biennium. WTO had written to the ICSC saying that while it would no longer participate in its work it would appreciate continuing to receive ICSC documents to which ICSC agreed. WTO had also written to CCAQ and ISCC indicating a desire to continue to participate in their sessions and a willingness to contribute to the costs of those secretariats according to the CCAQ cost-sharing formula. Although in the Committee's view it would be appropriate for WTO to contribute to the costs of ICSC for the whole biennium since as a member of the Committee WTO had approved the proposed budget, WTO indicated that it would not contribute to 1999 costs. WTO noted that the ICSC budget could absorb the shortfall given a number of unfilled posts in the ICSC secretariat and the fact that WTO's modest share of ICSC costs was equivalent to less than half the standard cost of one Professional post.

(68)      At the same session (ibid., paras. 22-23) the Committee was informed that the staffing data, on which apportionment under the CCAQ formula was based, did not include a number of emerging organizations established under resolutions of the General Assembly or of the Security Council and others set up under international treaties. It was, however, probable that many of these organizations were applying the common UN system of salaries and allowances and thus were benefitting from the work of the ICSC and CCAQ(PER). The Committee decided that further fact-finding and analysis was appropriate to determine the exact status of such organizations and the extent to which they might in the future be requested to contribute to some or all jointly-financed bodies. Noting that in past biennia UNOPS had been an integral part of UNDP and was now a separate body but that its executive head was not a member of ACC, the Committee decided to investigate the matter further, in consultation with the Secretary of ACC, to determine whether UNOPS should be a part of the cost-sharing formulae.

(69)      At the same session (ibid., paras. 24-25) the Committee noted that at its second session in 1998 ACC had requested CCAQ(FB) 'to give renewed and continued attention to the financial and budgetary aspects of UN system staff security and safety decisions' and had recommended that each organization create a single budget chapter or line to fund security expenditures of a foreseen nature and to ensure that funds exist for unforeseen security-related expenditures. The Committee recalled that in the past the UN Security Coordinator had problems in obtaining prompt funding from UN system organizations and had called on all organizations to cooperate in speeding up the recruitment of Security Officers for high-risk duty stations by providing the necessary account codes in a timely matter. At the ACC meeting in November 1998, the UN Security Coordinator had underlined that what was important was that these funds were readily available, not so much how this was done within individual organizations. After discussion, the Committee noted ACC's concern and reiterated its prior commitment that all organizations would cooperate fully with the UN Security Coordinator in making funds available as quickly as possible after being requested. It would remain up to each organization to make appropriate provisions to do so.

(70)      At its 90th session (August-September 1999: ACC/1999/14, paras. 3 & 17) the Committee decided that UNOPS should contribute to the costs of the jointly-financed activities based on the agreed cost allocation formulae. Accordingly the Committee approved the cost sharing allocations, including shares attributable to UNOPS, as given in the document before it. The Committee had been advised by the Secretary of ACC that there were other UN system organizations, such as UNU, which were not themselves members of the ACC, yet contributed to the funding of these bodies through the UN Secretariat. While UNOPS had been part of UNDP, UNDP had included the relevant OPS staffing and expenditure statistics in its submissions for cost allocation purposes and thus included the OPS share in its subsequent contributions to jointly-financed activities. The recent JIU report on UNOPS was cited as an indication that UNOPS was subject to the JIU Statute. UNOPS reaffirmed its concerns regarding payments to jointly-funded bodies in which it had no membership. Noting that it could not presently justify the passing of such costs on to its clients, UNOPS confirmed none the less that it would take account of the Committee's conclusions in continuing discussions with the various interested parties.

(71)      At the same session (ibid., para. 15) the Committee approved the costs to be charged to individual organizations for inter-organizational security measures in 1998, on the basis of a document prepared by the United Nations. This gave a breakdown of expenditures related to security measures incurred by the United Nations during 1998 totalling $637,662. The Committee also approved expenditure on Malicious Acts insurance for 1998 totalling $1,309,593 which covered 25,361 staff members, as well as consultants and experts on mission. The Committee was briefed by the Deputy UN Security Coordinator on the possibility of a partial refund of premium for the Malicious Acts insurance with regard to the last three years. In addition, in the absence of major problems in the second half of 1999, it was likely that the premium for the next year would remain at current levels. Participants requested the United Nations to ensure that invoices with respect to 1999 costs were sent out in time to be reflected in organizations' financial statements for the financial period ending 31 December 1999.

(72)      On the same occasion (ibid., para. 16) the Committee was advised of the latest status of plans for security training in high risk locations. A Trust Fund had been set up for donations to the cost of training and contributions in excess of $1.1 million had been received so far. This had made possible security training for 1,348 staff in high risk duty stations at an average cost per staff member trained of approximately $60. Further security and stress management training in 16 high risk duty stations was planned. With regard to funding Security Officers, the Deputy Security Coordinator reiterated previous requests for prompt response by organizations when asked to provide account codes.

(73)      At its 91st session (August-September 2000: ACC/2000/6, para. 5) CCAQ approved the costs to be charged to individual organizations for inter-organizational security measures in 1999 totalling $650,881. The Committee also approved expenditure on Malicious Acts insurance for 1999 totalling $1,606,060 which covered 30,719 staff members, as well as consultants and experts on mission.

(74)      At the same session (ibid., para. 6) the Committee reviewed draft indicative figures for allocation of the 2000-2001 costs of jointly-financed activities based on the agreed cost-sharing formulae and estimated programme expenditures before re-costing and other adjustments. It was noted that the figures reflected the available staffing statistics, i.e. as at end December 1998, and that a final document would be provided to the Committee's next session incorporating cost sharing on the basis of staffing data as at end 1999 as well as dollar figures based on final approved budgets. It was also decided, in line with General Assembly resolution 54/49 relative to the United Nations' assumption of financial responsibility for costs previously allocated to UNHCR and UNRWA, that these would no longer be separately identified but included in the overall United Nations figure.

(75)      At its September 2001 session (ACC/2001/12, para. 4 & annex II) HLCM decided to adopt a cost-sharing formula for the biennium 2002-2003 in respect of a total budget of $53.2 million as follows: (a) Executive direction and management costs ($4.2m) would be borne by the United Nations; (b) Field related expenditures would be cost-shared among all agencies on the basis of the following formula: (i) organizations with less than 0.5 per cent of the total field workforce would pay a flat rate of $25,000 for the biennium; (ii) organizations with between 0.5 per cent and 1 per cent of the total field workforce would pay a flat rate of $100,000 for the biennium; (iii) the remaining costs would be borne by all other organizations on the proportional basis of their overall field presences (a separate negotiation would cover IOM whose contribution is regulated by a treaty agreement with the United Nations). The final table was attached as annex II to the report.

(76)      At its 6th Session (October 2003: CEB/2003/5, paras. 11-13) HLCM was provided with details of the results of the census carried out in July 2003 that would form the basis for cost-sharing for system-wide security management for the biennium 2004-2005. In this context, the Committee was invited to consider whether to maintain the formula adopted for the biennium 2002-2003, by which organizations with less than 0.5 per cent and between 0.5 and 1 per cent of the total field workforce had paid a flat rate (See para. 75 above). The Committee was concerned about the application of relatively small flat rates in the context of increasing overall costs and considered inter alia whether the flat rate should not be expressed as a percentage of the total budget to be cost-shared. The Committee decided to retain the 2002-2003 cost-sharing formula for the biennium 2004-2005 and gave instructions for the preparation of the anticipated budget for the biennium 2004-2005 of some US$69 million (ibid., annex V), requesting that the UN Budget Division, together with UNSECOORD, provide organizations with a more detailed rationale for increases to the overall collective security budget well in advance of the adoption of the cost-sharing formula for the biennium 2006-2007. It decided to continue to seek, through CEB and governing bodies, support from Member States for earmarking a greater proportion of assessed contributions for safety and security purposes.

(77)      At its 7th session (March 2004: CEB/2004/3, paras. 5-7) HLCM received an update on work with UNSECOORD to enable more accurate data collection in the 2004 census to be held in April 2004. Organizations had already been provided with an automated return system that required them to provide information on staff names and numbers by location and contract type. Focal points were being established in each organization, who would be responsible for receiving and signing off on their respective data and returning it to the CEB secretariat within two weeks. Several Committee members voiced concern over the request for inclusion of staff names in the census because staff members moved regularly throughout the UN system and the data would become inaccurate almost immediately, problems could arise if a claim was made for a staff member who was not named in the insurer's records and even if such data were only for the record of the CEB secretariat, it would be obliged to pass such information to the Malicious Acts Insurance Policy (MAIP) underwriters, if requested. The Committee (a) agreed that the 2004 census should include data on numbers of staff by location and contract type but without the names of staff members; (b) requested all organizations to review their census process so as to ensure thorough, rigorous and timely census returns; and (c) requested the CEB secretariat to investigate any anomalies in the data received with individual organizations and, if the count was not rigorous, to refer the matter back to the Committee for a review of the entire census process.

(78)      At the same meeting (ibid., paras. 14-16)) HLCM agreed that the planned budget increases for spending by UNSECOORD could not be met from cost sharing methods and must be a priority item in the UN budget to be put before the General Assembly. The Committee also received a report from the CEB secretariat on the survey on total expenditures on security (CEB/2004/HLCM/R.2) to determine UN system spending (costs for 2003 and budgets for 2004) in the following eight categories for headquarters and the field: (a) Direct costs for staff responsible for security; (b) Security missions; (c) Costs relating to communications supplies; (d) Costs relating to evacuation or other events (2003 only); (e) Costs relating to compliance with the revised Minimum Operating Security Standards; (f) Installation/upgrading of security facilities; (g) Insurance; (h) Other. Responses to the survey had been received from 23 organizations and a number of issues relating to the collection and delineation of the data were highlighted, in particular: over lapping and double counting where organizations provide security services for each other; how to account for shared services such as UNSECOORD; confidentiality of data; costs that were embedded in associated budget line items; and budget appropriation and accounting cycles which made it difficult to verify the requested data. The Committee thanked the CEB secretariat for the work done and agreed that a working group should be established to report back to the next session of the Committee on how security costs should be categorized for reporting purposes. This would then enable all organizations to report security spending in a consistent and transparent manner. The working group should involve the FB Network and should include, in its proposals, how to address the issue of accounting and reporting for spending on security that was cost shared.

(79)      At its July 2004 meeting (CEB/2004/HLCM/25, para. 31) the HR Network considered a proposal for financial support to FICSA. The Network (a) emphasized the importance of staff management relations and the role of the staff federations as interlocutors between management and staff; (b) took note of the paper in response to the concerns raised by Network members regarding the request from FICSA for additional direct financial support - organizations already gave financial support to their own staff associations and the two staff federations, FICSA and CCISUA; (c) expressed the belief that increased direct funding could dilute the autonomy and independence of the staff federations; (d) agreed that the Network should consider options for in kind support and, therefore requested FICSA also to consider mechanisms to mobilize its own experts and financial support from its members through the payment of dues. Recognizing that it would be inappropriate to make separate recommendations to HLCM for each staff federation, and having received an indication from CCISUA that it was considering a similar request for funding, the Network requested the CEB secretariat to clarify the situation with CCISUA regarding their position on financial support and agreed that the Network was not in a position at this time to make a positive recommendation to HLCM regarding FICSA's request for financial support but that it would continue to keep the matter on its agenda for consideration at a future meeting, once it was established whether or not CCISUA wished to submit a similar proposal.

(80)      At its September 2004 video-conference (CEB/2004/HLCM/28, para. 10) the FB Network noted that HLCM (see para. (47) of section 1.3), had requested that the Network review all cost sharing arrangements, including those for the security. The Network noted that organizations were experiencing problems funding their obligations under UNSECOORD (e.g. compliance with MOSS) and that since it was important for organizations to be consulted on the content of all cost-shared budgets as well as the levels, the UN would circulate budget proposals to members of the Network for their input and comment before submission to the General Assembly.

(81)      At the same video-conference (ibid., paras. 11-12) the FB Network noted that HLCM (see para. (78) above) had agreed that a working group of the FB Network should be established and address the issue of total expenditures on security, especially for accounting and reporting for spending that was cost shared. The Network agreed that a methodology be developed or agreed and that UNHCR and ILO should take the lead in facilitating this effort.

(82)      At its 8th session (October 2004: CEB/2004/6, paras. 14-16) HLCM was provided with details of the results of the census carried out in April 2004. There were 24 organizations participating in the data collection for the MAIP database, and each organization was to nominate one focal point to be responsible for data collection in their organization. The dataset elements requested were greatly reduced from the previous year to only five distinct data elements per staff member. There was an improvement in the MAIP 2004 data collection process but not to the extent that was originally envisaged. For 24,214 staff members in the dataset, the staff category was not reported (the problem principally concerned persons on special service contracts); UNSECOORD was therefore unable to determine whether the higher premium rate for the Professional category or the lower rate for General Service and Field Service was applicable. Another area of concern was that one organization failed to report the duty station country for 194 staff members. The Committee: (a) noted that considerable resources of the CEB secretariat and UNSECOORD had already been devoted to investigating and resolving the problems associated with ensuring complete and accurate data from the organizations; (b) requested that the CEB secretariat and UNSECOORD continue to follow up with organizations in an effort to resolve the outstanding problems; and (c) requested that the CEB secretariat, together with UNSECOORD, propose what measures should be taken to avoid such work for any future census.

(83)    At its February 2005 meeting (CEB/2005/HLCM/8, para. 2) the HR Network was informed that, in view of a significant increase in the estimated budget for field-related security, a Working Group of HLCM had agreed to recommend to HLCM that the costs should be apportioned on the basis of the actual percentage of staff, with a minimum amount of US$ 75,000. A Working Group of the FB Network had been tasked by HLCM with a review of all cost-shared budgets. Experience had shown that increased effort would be required to obtain accurate staff data which was the basis for cost-sharing of a number of budgets and the role of HR Directors in ensuring the validity of their organizations' future census data was emphasized.

(84)    At its March 2005 video-conference (CEB/2005/HLCM/8, paras. 33-35) the FB Network was briefed by the CEB Secretariat on the progress of work on total expenditure on security. Only three organizations had replied to the survey launched in October 2004. Nevertheless, respondents had indicated that the agreed framework to collect relevant data – the UNHCR framework – seemed appropriate for such objective. It was agreed that the CEB Secretariat would re-launch the survey, compile results and present them in a comprehensive manner. The Network was also informed of recent discussions on cost-sharing formulas for Field-related security costs. The HLCM technical meeting in February 2005 had agreed on a proposed new formula for the apportionment of field-related security costs, which would be submitted for approval at HLCM meeting in April 2005. The cost sharing formula for salary-survey activities was still under discussion within the HR Network and would be submitted to the FB Network for review once it was finalized.

(85)    At its 9th session (April 2005: CEB/2005/3, para. 12-15) HLCM took note of General Assembly resolution 59/276 of 23 December 2004 by which the Assembly decided to maintain the existing arrangements with regard to cost-sharing for safety and security rather than to fund those costs under the regular budget of the United Nations and requested the Secretary-General, in his capacity as the Chairman of CEB, while fully implementing the decision of the General Assembly to maintain the current cost-sharing arrangements, to submit a report to the Assembly at its sixty-first session on measures taken to improve the operational administration of existing cost-sharing arrangements. It also took note of the Assembly’s request, in the same resolution, for the Secretary-General, as Chairman of CEB, to inform the Assembly at its sixtieth session on the need for a clearer presentation of security spending by each organization of the United Nations system. Subsequently, a technical meeting of HLCM was convened in Geneva in February 2005 to discuss details of field-related security costs for the biennium 2006-2007 and adopt a new approach for the apportionment of such costs. The meeting concluded (a) that, although staff presence in the field was a logical criterion for the apportionment of field-related security costs, the census exercise was not an adequate tool to provide reliable staff counts for that purpose, in view of the difficulty of comparing contract types and tracking staff on mission, constantly changing figures etc.; (b) nevertheless, staff data contained in the census as at 18 July 2003, as checked and updated, should be kept as the basis for the apportionment of field-related security costs for the biennium 2004-2005; (c) Organizations had agreed to provide the CEB secretariat with any corrections on their staff data contained in the census as at 18 July 2003; the resulting updated figures would be used as the basis for the apportionment of field-related security costs for the biennium 2006-2007; (d) the meeting had recommended that HLCM approve a new approach for the apportionment of field-related security for the biennium 2006-2007, based on staff figures as per the revised 2003 census. With the proposed new approach, field-related security costs would be apportioned on the basis of the actual percentage of staff, with a minimum amount of $75,000.

(86)    At the same meeting of HLCM (ibid., paras. 15-20) Organizations reiterated their concern about the lack of consultation during the process that had led to the adoption of Assembly resolution 59/276. This had resulted in a lack of critical financial information at the time of preparation of the budgets of organizations and in the consequent difficulty that they would face in providing coverage for security costs that were subject to cost-sharing. The requested additional funding of security-related costs could also lead to depriving programme activities of resources that had already been assigned. The Committee agreed that a governance system which would ensure more participatory and transparent procedures for future exercises on budgets subject to cost-sharing should be established. This would ensure that all organizations participating in cost-sharing arrangements would be periodically consulted in a timely manner on each step of the formulation, approval, recosting and revision of cost-shared budgets. The Committee also agreed that organizations would raise the awareness of their governing bodies of the potentially negative impact that the decision to support the cost-sharing approach could have on the funding of programme activities. On the cost-sharing formula, the following organizations expressed reservations regarding the level of the minimum amount ($75,000), since this amount would place a disproportionate burden on them, given the size of their budget: WMO, UPU, ITU, ICAO, IMO, WTO (Trade) WTO (Tourism) and ITC. The proposed formula (apportionment on the basis of actual percentage of staff, with a minimum amount of $75,000) was nevertheless agreed to by the majority of participants. The Committee, however, agreed to establish a working group to: (a) outline participatory and transparent procedures for consideration by HLCM at its tenth session; (b) explore alternative criteria for the apportionment of field-related security costs, as well as more appropriate methodologies for the collection of reliable data on field staff; (c) formulate a campaign strategy for the sixty-first session of the General Assembly, when the cost-sharing approach would be reviewed. In this regard, organizations recognized the need to strongly advocate with the States Members of their governing bodies the review of such an approach in favour of the originally proposed funding from the regular budget of the United Nations.

(87)    At its July 2005 meeting (CEB/2005/HLCM/26, paras. 48-57) the FB Network considered the results and analysis from a survey on Security spending of the organizations of the United Nations system launched in March 2005 in response to Resolution A/RES/59/276. The objective of the survey was to collect comprehensive data on security-related spending, as well as to highlight any methodological issues concerning the identification and presentation of such data. The survey used an internally developed UNHCR cost framework since as a field-based organization with significant costs both in the field and in headquarters, UNHCR was considered to be incurring the majority of types of security expenditure. Most organizations provided data in accordance with the proposed framework. Although in some cases they found some difficulties in indicating figures corresponding to all categories, they were generally able to find at least some appropriate items to reflect their own internal categorization. For some cost items in the proposed framework, budget structures and expenditure reports did not facilitate discrimination between security costs originating from joint activities and agency’s specific costs. For internal staff safety and security costs, the majority of the amounts reported were not budgeted separately, but could be derived once the expenditures were incurred, although this required manual analysis in many cases. For these reasons the Network decided that, in order to provide a comprehensive response to the General Assembly’s request on an ongoing basis in a more cost effective manner, organizations should provide the CEB secretariat with a detailed indication of the difficulties encountered in reporting security data, especially in connection with their internal budgeting and expenditure coding structure. At the same time, the CEB secretariat would consolidate data received in a more aggregated format, in line with the security cost breakdown used by the UN Secretariat.

(88)      Also at its July 2005 meeting (ibid., paras. 63-71) the FB Network considered a review of the methodologies currently used for the apportionment of costs of jointly financed activities, including some background on the discussion that led to the agreement on such methodologies. The CEB secretariat explained that a revised formula for the apportionment of field-related security costs had been recommended by the HLCM at its ninth session. Similarly, a technical working group of the HR Network had recently proposed two options for a revised formula for the apportionment of costs related to salary survey activities. Such options were currently being evaluated by the HR Network. The “JIU formula” and the “CCAQ formula” were being used to apportion the budgets of JIU, ICSC, and the CEB secretariat. The FB Network judged them adequate for the first two jointly financed activities provided that current data was used. However the Network deemed it necessary to reconsider the formula used for the CEB secretariat. The 2004-2005 budget of the CEB secretariat had been apportioned on the basis of a combination of the two formulas, in accordance with the relative weight of the three old components (CCAQ, CCPOQ and ISCC) of such body, which were no longer identifiable for 2006-2007 amounts. It was therefore agreed that the CEB secretariat would develop a proposal with one or more options for a revised formula, and submit it for comments and approval to the FB Network by email. It was also agreed that the CEB secretariat would collect the latest available audited financial data for each organization, to be used in all scenarios where cost-apportionment would be based on expenditure data.

(89)    At its 10th Session (October 2005: CEB/2005/5, paras. 13-18) HLCM reviewed the proposals of the working group (see para. 86 above) on the Process for the Development of Field-Related Security Budget Proposals, welcomed the proposals and endorsed its conclusions as follows: (a) The consultative process among organizations must entail dialogue on the strategic direction of the security management system and on the scope of operational requirements for the field-related activities and should not be limited to modalities for the cost-sharing arrangements. This process must be timely and in line with both the UN Secretariat's budgetary planning cycle and that of the agencies, funds and programmes, so that a consensus may be reached on those inputs which are subject to cost-sharing, while at the same time allowing the agencies, funds and programmes to include resource needs in their budget requests to their respective legislative/governing bodies; (b) DSS should first consult with a sub-group of the IASMN comprised of the major contributors to the budget in the spring of 2006 (for the security budget 2008-2009) on the strategic direction and operational requirements of security arrangements for the field. This would allow DSS to prepare and submit - by late 2006 - a budget proposal which had the endorsement of contributors; and (c) The FB Network should also be part of the consultative process to deal with any financial aspects of the cost-sharing arrangements. At the same time, the Committee reiterated its position that Member States on all governing bodies should again be urged to fund centrally the security budget in place of the cost-sharing arrangements.

(90)     At the same meeting (ibid., paras. 19-22) HLCM was informed the World Bank’s intention to withdraw from HLCM’s funding arrangements for the 2006-2007 biennium. The Bank believed that the methodology for calculating its future share of the field-related security budget should depart from the agreements reached within HLCM and instead be consistent with that used in the case of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). This methodology would be based on UN security services being extended only to the Bank’s internationally assigned staff members and visiting personnel. ADB and EBRD, which were not part of the UN system methodology, participated in the field security arrangements but did not receive the full array of services of the DSS; they were billed an amount agreed upon by the UN Controller and these organizations. Such a decision by the World Bank would result in a short-fall of approximately $ 8 million in the 2006-2007 budget which could not be made up by the other organizations of the UN system participating in the field security arrangements. It was decided that the UN Controller, the Office of the Security Coordinator and the World Bank should resolve this issue through further consultations on an urgent basis.