CL 127/6

Council

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary

II. Background

III. Analysis

IV. Conclusion

Annex I:
FAO Grade points system and Grade salary ratios

Annex II:
Trend of representation status using different methodologies

Annex III:
Geographic representation of member states based on the approved (not-grade-weighted) methodology and two different grade-weighting options

II. Background

2. At its Thirty-first Session in November 2001 in the context of its review of the Programme Implementation Report 1998-99^1/, the Conference noted the request for the preparation of a comparative study of staff recruitment practices of FAO and the United Nations, focusing in particular on geographic distribution aspects which should be submitted to the Council at its Hundred and Twenty-third Session (ref. C 2001/REP, para. 79).

3. At its Hundred and Twenty-third Session (28 October – 1 November 2002), that study was submitted to the Council^2/,which confirmed that the paramount consideration in the employment of staff should be the necessity of securing the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity, with due regard being given to recruiting on as wide a geographical basis as possible. In the light of the various methodologies used in the UN System to determine equitable geographic distribution (including that used in FAO with only minor modifications since 1957), the Council requested the secretariat to prepare options for a new FAO methodology.

4. The different options formulated by the secretariat for the revision of the methodology were considered by the Finance Committee at its Hundred and second Session (5-9 May 2003) and the Council at its Hundred and Twenty-fourth Session (23-28 June 2003). A further analysis of the options was conducted by the Finance Committee at its Hundred and fourth Session in September 2003. In light of the recommendations made by the Finance Committee, the Council at its Hundred and Twenty-fifth Session decided to establish a Working Group to review further the options and determine the terms under which a revised methodology could be implemented, and to report to the Thirty-second Session of the Conference on the state of progress made.

5. Having examined the report of the Working Group, the Conference decided to introduce the proposed new methodology with effect from 1 January 2004. This methodology was based on that used in the United Nations and did not include any element to reflect the grade level of the posts covered by the geographic distribution formula. The Conference requested the secretariat to submit a report for the consideration of the Hundred and Twenty-seventh Session of Council through the Finance Committee on the results of the application of the new methodology, including, for comparison purposes, information on the outcome of adding a grade-weighting factor to the system.

6. The following provides the requested analysis of the application of the new methodology.

III. Analysis

7. The analysis covers the period January to May 2004. It compares the results of the approved (not-grade-weighted) methodology with two others in which different grade-weighting options are applied: (1) the grade-point weighting system applied formerly in FAO under the previous methodology and (2) a system based on grade salary ratios (the respective values of the two systems are indicated in Annex I, together with an explanation of their origin). The overall impact of the three methodologies over the period in question is shown graphically in Annex II. The impact on each country is shown in Annex III. Table 1 below summarizes the result:

8. Table 1 shows that the impact of grade-weighting on the representation status is rather small. The largest difference in the number of equitably represented countries calculated with the three methodologies is 7.

9. Analyzing the changes between the methodologies in detail shows that the total number of countries whose representation status is affected through application of grade-weighting is well below 10 percent. Using the grade-weighted methodologies, slightly more countries changed from equitably to either over or under represented than vice versa.

10. It is noted that from month to month the number of staffing changes (e.g. appointments, separations and transfers) that could potentially impact on representation status is relatively low. The differences in such impact among the three methodologies is illustrated in Table 3 below.

IV. Conclusion

11. Of the three options considered, the not-weighted methodology is intuitive and easy to grasp. The grade-weighted methodologies, however, are not as readily understandable and require more complex calculations, because the grading structure of any given country, as well as the overall grading structure, must be known to recapitulate the representation status.

12. Variations in representation status among the three options analyzed in this report are small. Some countries may become equitably represented with one method, others at the same time with the same method over or under represented. Under all options the number of month to month status changes is very low.

13. Following the introduction of the new formula for the determination of equitable geographic distribution, the representation status of the vast majority of member countries is now within the desirable range. This outcome is the same regardless of whether a grade-weighted approach is applied.

_____________________________________

^{1 /} C 2001/8; C 2001/8-Corr.1-Rev.1; C 2001/LIM/4, C 2001/II/PV/1, C 2001/II/PV/6; C 2001/PV/14

^{2 /} CL 123/18

Annex I:

FAO Grade points system and Grade salary ratios

1. Under the previous FAO system, the proportion of a country’s representation was based on the percentage of its contribution to the Regular Programme. This representation was further refined by assigning point values to grade levels, as indicated in the second column above.

2. The percentage of representation of each country was obtained by dividing the points of posts staffed from a country by the total number of points of all filled Regular Programme posts.

3. It is recalled, however, that providing a justification for this particular weighting pattern had been problematic, as there was no apparent basis for the relative “worth” of each grade level. The only explanation would appear to be the fact of having been adopted by the Council in 1957 and that no change had been proposed since then.

4. Other organizations that have applied a weighting system have based the weights on the salary scale for staff in the professional and higher categories. Under this approach the salary at each grade level is divided by that of the P-1 level to establish a ratio that serves as the “value” for that grade level. The weighting pattern^3/ would be as shown in the fourth column above.

_____________________________________

^{3 /} Based on the gross salaries at step 1 effective 1 January 2003.

Annex II

Trend of representation status using different methodologies