70crp14 single 13 jan - ccisua – ccisua

ICSC/70/CRP.14

13 January 2010 English Only

Seventieth session Santiago, 22 February – 5 March 2010 Item 6(a) of the provisional agenda* Conditions of service of the Professional and higher categories Mobility and hardship: A historical overview and comparison between United Nations policies/practices and those of the comparator civil service Note by the Secretariat of the International Civil Service Commission I. Background 1. The Commission established the mobility and hardship scheme with effect from 1990 as part of the 1989 Comprehensive Review of the Conditions of Service of the Professional and Higher Categories1 in response to General Assembly Resolution A/RES/226, which requested the Commission to:

“…analyze how best adequate incentives can be provided for mobility and for service in hardship duty stations. It should take into account the particular needs of those organizations whose programmes require that staff be reassigned to and from headquarters and field locations. In reviewing the scope and purpose of all the current allowances payable in cases of mobility and hardship, the entitlements provided by the comparator for non-diplomatic expatriates may serve as a general point of reference.”2

2. Since 1989, the Commission has continued to reaffirm that the rationale for the scheme was to motivate staff to serve at hardship locations and that the general reference point for the scheme would continue to be based on entitlements provided by the comparator for non-diplomatic expatriates.

* ICSC/70/R.1 1 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-Fourth Session, Supplement No. 30, (A/44/30), volume I. 2 See A/RES/43/226, section I.

-2-

3. The scheme was originally designed as a matrix comprising three elements, hardship, mobility and non-removal. The hardship allowance compensates staff for particularly unfavourable living and working conditions and acts as an inducement for staff to work at such locations. The mobility allowance encourages staff to move (the initial move having been seen as the most difficult to achieve) and after the first move, incentivizes further moves. The non-removal allowance compensates staff for the non-payment of the removal of household goods. The allowances were meant to be synergistic, a hardship allowance to recognize difficult working and living conditions on the ground and a mobility allowance to prompt moves. 4. The three allowances in the matrix were linked to movements in the base/floor salary, following the comparator’s practice of pegging its hardship differential to its base salary. Despite the fact that several reviews after 1990 concluded that the scheme was operating satisfactorily and fulfilling its stated objectives, the General Assembly continued to question and be concerned by the costs arising from the automaticity of the adjustment procedures. In 2004, the Commission decided to separate the mobility element from the hardship element and to delink both allowances from the base/floor salary scale.3 In 2005, the Commission proposed flat amounts for hardship, mobility and non-removal,4 to be reviewed every three years. 5. The United Nations hardship/mobility scheme covers some 27,000 staff 5 at about 580 duty stations. The United States Government foreign area compensation program covers more than 40,000 United States citizen civilian employees at approximately 600 posts abroad.6 Although they are expatriate civil servants and not members of the United States diplomatic corps, they are paid on the Foreign Service salary scale. While the overall number of locations between the two services is comparable, a principal difference is that the comparator has a very large number of posts in non-hardship locations throughout Europe and countries such as Australia, Canada and Japan, whereas the United Nations, aside from the Headquarters locations in Geneva, London, Madrid, Montreal, New York, Paris, Rome, Vienna and a few other locations and regional offices (e.g. Turin and Copenhagen), has very few duty stations in so-called developed country locations. For example, in the United States scheme, Germany alone has 91 locations, Japan has 34 and France and Italy each have 22, none of them hardship posts, but numbered among the 600 locations to which expatriate allowances apply. 6. A fundamental difference between the two schemes is that the United States one is a national system with a population composed entirely of United States citizens whose home country is the United States; after assignments abroad, these employees return to their home base in the United States. The United Nations scheme is an international, expatriate civil service, comprised of diverse nationalities; United Nations staff rotate among United Nations duty stations throughout the world rather than in and out of their home countries. The situation

3 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-ninth Session, Supplement No. 30 (A/59/30), para. 137 (a) and (b). 4 Ibid., Supplement No. 30 (A/60/30), paras. 60 -74; see also A Guide to Mobility and Hardship Arrangements. ICSC, 2009. 5 Derived from the database of personnel statistics of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination (CEB); this figure dos not include Field Service Staff and internationally-recruited General Service staff which increase the number by some 4,000 more recipients. 6 United States Department of State Indexes of Living Costs Abroad, Quarters Allowances, and Hardship Differentials---January 2008, Technical Notes, page 14.

-3-

therefore of expatriate non-diplomatic United States federal civil service staff is not comparable to United Nations international staff, but may be somewhat more comparable to United Nations system project staff who are usually recruited from their home country to work for a project at a particular duty station and are expected to return to that country afterwards. Today, many project staff also become expatriates, moving from duty station to duty station as project staff. Base salary and cost-of-living adjustments 7. The floor for United States expatriate civil service compensation is the base salary at Washington, D.C., and for United Nations staff, the base/floor salary at New York. On the United Nations side, the benchmark (or average reference) for the net base/floor salary is P-4, step VI and on the United States side, GS-13/GS-14, weighted. For 2009, the pay levels are $76,823 and $79,165, respectively.7 For the comparator, a cost-of-living adjustment (post allowance) is provided at posts where living costs, based on an American pattern of living, are significantly higher than in the Washington, D.C. area. The United States post allowance is calculated on the basis of spendable income (defined as the estimated portion of salary used to purchase goods and services, excluding housing or children’s education). In the United Nations, the post adjustment system was designed to ensure that wherever staff work their net remuneration has a purchasing power equivalent to that at the base of the system which is New York. The United Nations establishes cost-of-living indexes through periodic comparisons of cost-of–living data between the base city and other locations. II. Field allowances 8. Table 1 below reflects only the most important basic allowances presently in place for United Nations and comparator staff assigned to international locations. Not all allowances are applicable at all duty stations and since this is not a total compensation comparison, installation and education allowances (which appear to be working well), for example, as well as a number of others, are not included in the analysis. Table 1 Key elements of United Nations/United States field remuneration packages

United Nations

United States

Base/floor salary Base salary Post adjustment Post allowance Hardship allowance Post differential (hardship) Hazard pay Danger pay Mobility allowance Living Quarters Allowance (LQA) or free housing

Service Need Differential (SND) Separate Maintenance Allowance (SMA)

7 See ICSC/69/R.6, para. 4.

-4-

The concept of hardship 9. Most national foreign services compensate their employees for working and living under conditions considered more difficult than those prevailing in their home countries. The United States pays its expatriate civil servants a taxable post differential (hardship allowance) of up to 35 per cent of basic pay as a recruitment and retention incentive at duty stations where conditions of environment differ substantially from those in the continental United States and warrant additional compensation. These locations involve extraordinarily difficult living conditions, excessive physical hardship, or notably unhealthful conditions affecting the majority of employees.8 10. The United Nations also pays its staff for serving in hardship locations. Assigning hardship categories to United Nations locations involves an assessment of the overall quality of life at a duty station, taking into account safety and security, health care, education, housing, climate, isolation and the availability of basic amenities of life. Duty stations are then ranked on scale of A to E, according to level of difficulty, E being the most difficult. According to the matrix, designed at the time of the comprehensive review in 1989, staff were paid a percentage of the base/floor salary for hardship according to the categorization of the duty station as shown in table 2 below. Table 2 Value of the United Nations hardship element in the pre-2006 matrix 11. Table 3 below shows the current value of the flat amounts introduced in 2007 and readjusted beginning 2009, expressed as percentage points of the base/floor salary (see para. 4 above). All payments have increased slightly under the flat amount methodology, dropping to their lowest point in the third year and recovering somewhat in the first year of the adjustment. As can be seen by comparing tables 2 and 3, delinking the allowance from the base/floor salary has increased the amounts payable for hardship, particularly at E duty stations, but because the amounts remain close to the percentages in the original matrix (see table 2 above), the effect has not been significant. Note: The data reference point for all of the following tables in the document is end 2008, unless otherwise specified.

8 United States Office of Allowances, Department of State Standardized Regulations, 512 and 513.

Hardship category Percentage of base/floor salary H and A 0 B 8 C 15 D 20 E 25

-5-

Table 3 United Nations hardship allowance after introduction of flat amounts - per cent of base/floor salary

Hardship category

2007

2008

2009

H and A 0 0 0 B 8.8 8.6 8.9 C 16.1 15.8 16.2 D 20.5 20.1 20.7 E 26.4 25.9 26.6

12. In 1990, when the Commission established a base line for comparing United Nations/United States hardship emoluments, it was shown that the comparator paid its employees considerably more than the United Nations at most locations. Two subsequent major reviews of hardship entitlements, which took place in 1992 and 1996, reaffirmed this finding. In 2003, the review showed that the gap in overall compensation had begun to narrow, though in terms of hardship alone, the comparator still paid more at most locations. The narrowing of the overall gap, moreover, was due, inter alia, to the special circumstances prevailing with respect to the base/floor salary for 2004.9 13. For a current comparison of United States/United Nations hardship entitlements (see annex I). Annex II expresses the information from annex I in graph form. For an evolution of United Nations/United States hardship ratings between 1993 and the present (see annex III). These annexes show that the comparator has consistently paid more for hardship than the United Nations. 14. In 1989, at the time of the comprehensive review, the comparator had only four levels of hardship, with a minimum threshold of 10 per cent; the 5 per cent level was added in 1995, increasing the number of hardship levels at that time to five. In 2003, when the Commission reviewed United Nations and comparator arrangements with respect to hardship, the comparator had five levels of hardship and the United Nations, four. 15. In 2006, the comparator increased the maximum amounts for both the post differential (hardship) and danger pay from 25 to 35 per cent of basic compensation to create additional incentives for staff to go to the most difficult and most dangerous locations. At the same time, the minimum threshold needed to qualify for a 5 per cent post differential was raised, eliminating a number of locations that had previously qualified for the 5 per cent hardship category. Today, the United Nations still has four levels of hardship, while the United States has seven, paying some $7,300 more annually than the United Nations for service at the most difficult locations (see table 4 below).

9 See ICSC/56/R.5, paras. 6-8.

-6-

Table 4 Comparison of Current United Nations/United States hardship compensation10

United Nations United States

Category

Per cent

Flat ($)

Category

Per cent

Amount ($)

H

A

B

C

D

E

not payable not payable or 8.9 or 16.2 or 20.7 or 26.6

- -

6 800

12 470

15 880

20 410

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

not payable

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

-

3 958

7 919

11 875

15 833

19 791

23 750

27 708

16. Tables 5 and 6 below show that at the time of the 2003 review, in 138 capital cities where both services had staff, 30 per cent of United Nations locations provided no hardship entitlement; as at end of 2008, that number was 31 per cent for the United Nations. On the United States side, the locations involving no hardship amounted to 10 per cent in 2003 and 8 per cent in 2008. 17. At the other, or extreme hardship end of the spectrum, capital cities providing the highest level of compensation on the United Nations side numbered 4 per cent in both 2003 and 2008, whereas the United States numbers were 34 per cent in 2003, when the highest level of hardship paid 25 per cent of United States base salary, and a total of 45 per cent (29 per cent receiving hardship compensation at 25 per cent, 13 per cent at 30 per cent and 30 per cent at 35 per cent) in 2008.

10 The dollar amounts are monthly and are based on the benchmark levels of both services, the base/floor salary of a P-4, step VI and the net base pay level (weighted) of a GS-13/GS-14, respectively.

-7-

Table 5 United Nations hardship classification

2003 2008

Allowance (%)

Number of duty stations

Per cent of total

Allowance (%)

Number of duty stations

Per cent of total

not payable

8

15

20

25

42

39

32

20

5

30

28

23

15

4

not payable

8.9

16.2

20.7

26.6

40

35

30

21

5

31

27

23

16

4 TOTAL

138 100 - 131 100

Table 6 United States post (hardship) differential

2003 2008

Percentage

points

Number of

duty stations Per cent of total

Percentage points

Number of duty

stations Per cent of total

not payable

5

10

15

20

25

12

14

9

22

23

41

10

12

7

18

19

34

not payable

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

11

5

15

21

20

38

17

4

8

4

12

16

15

29

13

3TOTAL 138 100 - 131 100

18. Table 6 above also illustrates a decrease between 2003 and 2008 from 12 per cent to 4 per cent at locations entailing a 5 per cent post differential. The comparator’s rationale was that eliminating some of the least difficult locations made it possible to fund and offer

-8-

greater incentives at the most difficult locations. The fact that within a 10-year period (1995-2005) a 5 per cent level was introduced and was subsequently all but eliminated, illustrates that certain locations remained and were becoming more difficult to staff. It also indicates that a hardship level of 5 per cent was perhaps seen as a negligible amount, insufficient to impact recruitment, whereas taking those same funds and applying them to more difficult locations could incentivize recruitment. 19. Annexes IV and V show that in the United Nations scheme, 68 per cent of all staff serve at headquarters or A duty stations where they do not receive a hardship allowance. (In 1996, this figure was 52 per cent of the total number of staff). Of the remaining 32 per cent of staff, approximately 21 per cent serve at B to E duty stations on the first assignment. P-4/P-5 level staff outnumber other levels of staff at all duty stations, but the number of P-4/P-5 and P-2/-P-3 level staff at C and D duty stations is almost the same. Service Need Differential (SND) 20. In 2001, the comparator introduced a Service Need Differential (SND) for selected difficult-to-staff foreign posts. A list of the current locations may be found in annex VI. Of the 47 locations where the SND is paid, 44 are duty stations where United Nations organizations also have staff. The SND provides an additional 15 per cent of basic compensation as an incentive to staff who agree to serve three years at one of the SND-identified posts. The current annual monetary value of the SND is $11,875 and more than one-third of all capital cities under the United Sates hardship scheme qualify for the allowance. If the post for which the SND is authorized is also authorized for danger pay allowance, the combination of the danger pay allowance and the SND may not exceed 35 per cent of basic compensation. However, on the current list, only two exceed the 35 per cent formula, Sudan and the Republic of Yemen. 21. The fact that a realignment in hardship levels was made in 2005, on top of the already existing SND, indicates that the comparator, despite its advantageous housing benefits (see below), still needs to provide greater monetary incentives to its employees than does the United Nations to staff difficult locations. Housing 22. The comparator base salary contains an amount equal to some 15 to 20 per cent for housing costs at Washington, D.C.11 This figure was reported some 20 years ago and today’s amount is estimated to be approximately 30 per cent. Expatriate civil servants serving at posts abroad, receive either free furnished housing, including utilities, or are reimbursed a substantial portion of the cost of privately rented housing in the form of a living quarters allowance (LQA). While free housing is provided to approximately 90 per cent of United States Department of State employees for all allowable rent and household utility expenditures, LQAs are much more heavily used, for example, by civilian Department of Defense employees. LQAs reimburse employees for rent, electricity, gas, fuel and water; the allowance may also be used to cover some of the costs for garage rent and necessary furniture rental. 11 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-fourth Session, Supplement No. 30 (A/44/30), para.290.

-9-

Free housing or payment of an LQA is one of the comparator’s main financial inducements for foreign assignments, and was noted as such by the Commission at the time of the Comprehensive Review.12 Because data from the comparator in 1989 was less available than it is today, the Preparatory Working Group on the Comprehensive Review was obliged to resort to a rough approximation for the value of housing in the United States expatriate scheme, setting it at 17.5 per cent, reflecting a range of between 15 and 20 per cent. The Preparatory Working Group saw this as a conservative estimate, but considered that in the absence of hard data, it would rather err on the side of an undervaluation. Today, the value of housing has increased considerably and free or reimbursed housing continues to be the single largest motivation for United States staff to serve abroad. In addition to free housing or the LQA, some account of housing-related costs is also taken into consideration under the comparator’s hardship scheme. 23. On the United Nations side, housing is one of the components used in cost-of-living comparisons with New York to establish post adjustment indexes abroad. It generally has the single largest weight among the major expenditure groups in the post adjustment index structure. In addition, a rental subsidy scheme, whose parameters are different for headquarters and field duty stations, covers situations where acceptable housing cannot be found at average rent levels already taken into account in the post adjustment. Rental subsidies usually go down as post adjustment goes up. In the United Nations hardship scheme, a mix of factors, of which housing is one, combine through a weighting system to determine an overall hardship classification for a duty station. Only in cases where housing is drastically sub-standard or non-existent, can it determine the overall rating of a duty station and this is exceptional. In other words, the housing factor rarely, if ever, determines the hardship level of a duty station in and of itself. While the comparator reimburses for housing, the United Nations pays only for the hardship associated with the housing available at a given location. This is a fundamental difference between the two schemes. 24. Recent figures provided by the comparator establish an average across-the board-value of some $45,100 annually for the LQA (using the Group 2 with family pay band and pegged to the United States benchmark salary level cited in para. 7 above). However, because this figure includes many locations in Europe, Australia, Japan, etc. where the United Nations has few or no staff, averages more comparable to that of the locations of United Nations duty stations are provided as follows: (a) comparator field locations only; (b) comparator field locations combined with data available for seven of the eight United Nations headquarters duty stations;13 (c) field and headquarters locations, plus other European locations where the United Nations has offices and;14 (d) seven headquarters duty stations alone. The applicable percentage point equivalents of the United States base salary are provided for the individual averages. See table 10 below for a range of possible averages that could represent the average value of the LQA. In the past for locations where free housing was provided (used primarily, but not exclusively, for diplomatic staff), an estimate of 20 per cent of gross salary was used.

12 Ibid. 13 The headquarters duty stations are Geneva, London, Madrid, Montreal, New York, Paris, Rome and Vienna. New York is not included because LQAs are paid only abroad. 14 The seven headquarters locations cited in footnote 13 above, plus Bern, Bonn, Copenhagen, The Hague, Turin and Brindisi where there are significant numbers of UN staff. Not included are some two dozen or more United Nations Information Centres offices in Europe that, if included, would increase the average.

-10-

Today this would amount annually to $18,429, a figure that is known to be understated. In fact, in 2003, the ICSC secretariat reported: “However, the housing entitlement of the United States staff posted overseas may be substantially higher than the value included in the United States/United Nations field entitlement comparisons,”15 a reference, inter alia, to the value of the free housing. Though figures for free housing are still not available, new information from the comparator indicates that consideration was given a few years back to using the LQA program for its State Department employees because it was more cost-effective, a clear indication that the value of the free housing is worth more than the LQA. Therefore, and according to information in Table 10 below, it is estimated that at the very least free housing would be worth more than the lowest amount reflected under field locations only, or 29 per cent, and in all likelihood is substantially higher.

Table 10 Annual Living Quarters Allowance (LQA) rates (averaged)

(US$)

LQA

All

%

Field only

%

Field +head-

quarters

%

Field +head-

quarters+ Europe

%

Head- quarters

only

% Group 2

45,100

57

23,315 29 25,726 32 26,459

33 69,471 88

25. The important point is that the LQA is an amount paid on top of salary and other allowances and is not subject to tax. As was noted already at the time of the Comprehensive Review, the LQA was considerably more favourable than the common system counterpart (housing element in base salary and post adjustment plus rental subsidy).16 While the United Nations provides a rental subsidy (see para. 23 above), it cannot in any way be compared to the LQA, first, because it is not earned by a majority of staff and tends for the most part to be small and secondly, because its purpose and composition are different. Reflecting the rental subsidy as an amount on the United Nations side of the equation would require collection of data on actual amounts paid by the organizations in different duty stations. LQA stands on its own as a large and undeniable tangible benefit whose worth must be taken into account and assigned its proper value when comparing United States/United Nations field entitlements. The mobility concept 26. The Preparatory Working Group for the Comprehensive Review observed that a variety of factors affected a staff member’s willingness to move at the request of the organizations. These included, inter alia, the relative attractiveness of the destination duty station; the effect of the move on career prospects and promotion; length of the assignment; entitlements gained by moving compared to those left behind; importance of the assignment itself; and the degree to which the organization is prepared to assign staff members to duty stations of their choice.17 15 See ICSC/57/R.5, para.30. The secretariat also reported that it was trying to obtain more precise information on housing and would report to the Commission if it did. 16 See ICSC/89/PWG/5, para.27. 17 See ICSC/29/R.6/Add.2, para. 9.

-11-

They further observed that an adequate level of incentive was required to offset the intangible costs and sacrifices faced by staff who move from one place to another…that owing to the hardship involved and to personal and family considerations …a mobility incentive serves to make the reassignment more attractive and offset the sacrifices involved.18 Among the family considerations, moreover, were possibilities for spouse employment, education of children and separated families. 27. It was understood and accepted by the Commission when the hardship and mobility scheme was under consideration that there was a need for an allowance, in addition to a hardship entitlement, that encouraged moves in the way that the comparator’s housing allowance, its major world-wide incentive to foreign service, did. General Assembly Resolution 226 (see para. 1 above) called for the enhancement of mobility, with apparent emphasis on organizations with field programmes and therefore rotation requirements. Indeed, at the time a mobility allowance was seen as an offset, at least in part, to the comparator’s housing allowance. While even then, the assigned value was underestimated and the offset known to be partial, it is only now, with the passage of time and availability of average housing figures (see table 10 above) that it becomes evident how rough an estimate the original assigned value of 17.5 per cent was. Today, the United Nations annual payment for mobility on the maximum (seventh) assignment at the P-4/P-5 level is $14,580, much lower than any of the figures in table 10 above. To provide some perspective, there are presently 321 staff members, or just over 1 per cent of the total number of staff, in receipt of a mobility allowance on the seventh move. Salary caps 28. It was reported in 1996 that the maximum amount that any United States employee could receive as combined annual gross basic salary and hardship differential was $133,600 per year. Although the United Nations has no such cap, the 1996 combination of the top salary of a D-2 staff member together with the maximum mobility and hardship allowance payable at that level was reported to be $105,950 per year.19 29. Although the current aggregate pay cap limits comparator compensation to $196,700, according to recent information received from the comparator, any eligible earnings in excess of the cap may be rolled over into subsequent years until all amounts are paid, meaning that the payments for hardship, danger pay and any other allowance may be postponed until they can be fully paid. The cap amount, moreover, does not reflect the LQA, which is reimbursed in addition to compensation. 30. As at end 2008, a United Nations staff member at the highest step of the D-2 level serving at a duty station in receipt of the highest hardship classification, on the seventh assignment and also in receipt of danger pay can earn up to $173,183 per year (see table 11 below), or $180,803 per year for those receiving danger pay in Afghanistan at the temporary enhanced rate of $2,000 per month. As at end 2008, only 43 staff across the system fell into the category of annex IV), a statistically inconsequential number. 18 Ibid, para. 11. 19 See ICSC/43/R.14/Add.1, para. 3.

-12-

Table 11 Maximum United Nations field compensation (US$)

D-2/VI

Net salary

E duty station Seventh

assignment

Hazard pay

Total

117,633

22,680

16,490

16,380

173,183 31. Table 12 below presents a more representative picture, because the single largest number of staff (excluding H and A duty stations where hardship does not apply) serve at C duty stations at the P-1/P-3 level on the first assignment where there is no mobility allowance. There are 1,185 such staff (see annex IV). While it is theoretically possible for staff at C duty stations to receive hazard pay, conditions at C duty stations rarely warrant it, which is why it is not in included in the total amount. In fact, annex IV shows that P-1/P-3 level staff out number P-4/P-5 at D and E duty stations and at E duty stations in particular. Table 12

Single populated group, excluding non-hardship categories

(US$)

P-1/P-3 net salary (averaged) C duty station

FirstAssignment Hazard pay

Total

44,626 7,650 not applicable [16,380]

52,276

32. Table 13 below reflects the salary profile (averaged) for P-4/P-V staff. In duty stations B through E, P-1/P-3 staff and P-4/P-5 staff are represented in almost equal numbers, 4,058 and 4,084, respectively. The single largest number of P-4/P-5 level staff, excluding those at headquarters locations where hardship entitlements do not apply, serve at C duty stations and are on their first assignment. There are 961 such staff, almost half of whom are paid at the single rate, across the system (see annex IV). Table 13 Benchmark Staff Member P-4, Step VI (US$)

P-4/P-5 net salary

(averaged)

C duty stationSecond

assignmentHazard

pay

Total 83,861 (dependency rate)

12,470

8,000

[16,380]

104,331

77,736 (single rate)

9,360

6,010

[16,380]

93,106

-13-

33. Table 14 below shows maximum applicable allowances. Table 14 Maximum United Nations field compensation D-1 and above (dependency rate) (US$)

Hardship Mobility Hazard pay Hazard pay Total

E duty station Seventh ssignment Regular [Afghanistan]

22,680 16,490 16,280 [24,000] 55,450 or [63,170] Separate Maintenance Allowance (SMA) 34. The comparator provides a Separate Maintenance Allowance (SMA) which is intended to assist employees to meet the additional expenses of maintaining family members elsewhere than at the employee’s foreign post of assignment. There are three types of SMA, involuntary, voluntary and transitional. Although the SMA has existed since the late 1940’s, the different rates for involuntary versus voluntary were introduced only within the last five years or so. The involuntary (convenience of the government) rate is higher than the voluntary rate (see table 15 below). 35. Involuntary SMA may be granted if dangerous, notably unhealthful, or excessively adverse living conditions at the employee’s post of assignment warrant the exclusion of family from accompanying the employee to assignment post. A voluntary SMA may be granted to an employee who requests it, based on special needs or hardship reasons including, but not limited to career, health, educational or family considerations for the spouse or domestic partner, children or other family members. Transitional SMA may be granted to an employee whose family members temporarily occupy commercial quarters following termination of an evacuation or in connection with an unaccompanied assignment. Annual rates for the involuntary and voluntary SMAs are determined by the number of family members maintained elsewhere than at the assignment post. The rates in table 15 below differ by type of SMA, but do not vary by location of the separate household. Table 15 Separate Maintenance Allowance (SMA) annual rates (US$)

SMA type

One child only

Two or more

children

One adult only

One adult andone additionalfamily member

One adult and two or three additional

family members

One adult and four or more

additional family members

Involuntary 6,000 9,900 11,300 15,300 17,300 20,200

Voluntary 4,300 7,500 8,400 10,700 13,200 15,900

-14-

36. Transitional SMA is paid at a daily rate and varies only by the number of family members maintained at a location other than the assignment post. The rates in table 16 below do not vary by either the post location or location of the separate household. Table 16 Transitional SMA rates (US$)

Per family not per person Day 1-30 Day 31-60 Day 61-90

One to two family members

100 per day 70 per day 50 per day

Three or more family members

120 per day 80 per day 60 per day

37. As can be seen from table 15 above, the comparator remunerates staff under involuntary circumstances an additional $15,000 to $20,000 a year (an average of 22 per cent more on top of base salary), and even grants payments under voluntary circumstances. Within the past two years there have been approximately 16 countries where the United States has designated posts as fully unaccompanied (no family members) or partially (a specific group, e.g. children, is excluded). A sample includes the following countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Republic of Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Central African Republic, Chad, Republic of Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Kosovo, Lebanon, Liberia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen. Many of these countries have among the highest entitlements for both hardship and danger pay and are also eligible for a Service Need Differential (see paras. 20-21 above). In addition to the above-cited countries, there are others for which voluntary SMAs are also established. The names of these countries are not available as they involve personal data pertaining to family health issues, etc. which determine whether a voluntary SMA may apply. 38. The United Nations has some 13 capital city duty stations currently considered non-family, meaning that family members must reside outside the duty station. Current non-family duty stations are in Afghanistan, Algeria, Benin, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Guinea, Haiti, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. United Nations staff members are paid according to the entitlements applicable at the duty station to which they are assigned and do not have a separate allowance, though some common system organizations continue to provide staff with allowances for separated families of staff serving at non-family duty stations. Indirect benefit 39. At the time of the comprehensive review, the Preparatory Working Group pointed out that a tangible benefit for many United States civilian employees serving abroad was their ability to limit their income tax liability to federal income taxes only, instead of the usual combination of state and federal taxes. A preponderance of expatriate staff pay only federal taxes because they are able to claim residence in a state with no income tax or simply do not

-15-

file a state return. This avenue remains open to comparator employees. United Nations staff, who are paid on a net basis, have no such means by which to increase their net remuneration.20 III. Conclusions 40. Table 17 below lists the amounts for the major elements in the field compensation packages for both services. The amounts termed maximum for the United Nations are pegged to the benchmark P-4/VI staff member, though it has been shown that P-1/P-3 staff are close runners-up in terms of representation at B-E duty stations (see annex IV).

Table 17

United Nations/United States field compensation packages key elements/annual amounts (US$)

United Nations United States

Base salary 76,823 Base salary 79,165 Hardship allowance Minimum Maximum

6,800 20,410

Hardship differential Minimum 21 Maximum

7,919

27,708

Hazard pay

16,380 Danger pay Minimum Maximum

11,880 27,708

Mobility allowance Minimum Maximum

5,220 12,360

Living Quarters Allowance (LQA) Minimum Maximum

23,315 45,100

Service Need Differential (SND)

11,875

Separate Maintenance Allowance (SMA)

14,267 22

41. Table 17 above shows that the average comparator package, at the minimum, pays about 25 per cent more than the average United Nations package and about 63 per cent more at the maximum total. Moreover, if comparator employees receive all of the allowances at maximum rates available in their field package, they can almost double their salary, whereas United Nations employees receiving all entitlements at maximum rates can increase their salary by less than a third.

20 See ICSC/89/PWG/5, para. 29. 21 This is the 10 % post differential; the lower one of 5%, or $3,959, is not reflected here as it applies to only five out of 131 locations and may be in the process of being phased out. 22 This is an average of one adult and one family member and one adult and four or more family members.

-16-

42. A review of the current state of the field compensation packages provided by the two services shows that the comparator pays substantially more for hardship than the United Nations. Further, it offers greater incentives than the United Nations to field its nationals abroad. These results are due in large part to the different underlying principles or raisons d’être that distinguish an international expatriate civil service from a national civil service. For the purposes of field compensation, the United States began serving as the United Nations comparator at a crucial time in the conceptualization and design of the United Nations hardship scheme. It fulfilled its role in providing a model for the United Nations scheme and while it remains a valid comparator for the purposes of benchmarking, each service continues to have its own needs and priorities. As such, differences between them are to be expected—differences which appear not only in the type of allowances offered, such as mobility and housing, but also in the amounts of the entitlements themselves.

-17-

Annex I

Comparison of United States/United Nations hardship allowances as at the end of 2008

Country Duty Station US Hardship Rating (%)

UN HardshipRating (%)

US Total [Hardship+ Base Salary] ($)

UN Total [Hardship+ Base Salary] ($)

Difference

A B B-A (%)

AFGHANISTAN Kabul 35 26.6 106872.8 97233 -10% ALBANIA Tirana 20 8.9 94998 83623 -14% ALGERIA Algiers 20 26.6 94998 97233 2% ANGOLA Luanda 25 16.2 98956.25 89293 -11% ARGENTINA Buenos Aires 0 0 79165 76823 -3% ARMENIA Yerevan 25 20.7 98956.25 92703 -7% AZERBAIJAN Baku 25 8.9 98956.25 83623 -18% BAHAMAS Nassau 15 0 91039.75 76823 -19% BANGLADESH Dhaka 30 16.2 102914.5 89293 -15% BARBADOS Bridgetown 0 0 79165 76823 -3% BELARUS Minsk 25 0 98956.25 76823 -29% BELIZE Belmopan 15 8.9 91039.75 83623 -9% BENIN Cotonou 20 8.9 94998 83623 -14% BOLIVIA La Paz 15 8.9 87081.5 83623 -4% BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA Sarajevo 20 0 94998 76823 -24% BOTSWANA Gaberone 0 0 79165 76823 -3% BRAZIL Brasilia 10 0 87081.5 76823 -13% BURKINA FASO Ouagadougou 25 8.9 98956.25 83623 -18% BURUNDI Bujumbura 25 20.7 98956.25 92703 -7% CAMBODIA Phnom Penh 25 8.9 98956.25 83623 -18% CAMEROON Yaounde 25 8.9 98956.25 83623 -18% CAPE VERDE Praia 25 8.9 98956.25 83623 -18% CENTRAL AFRICAN REP. Bangui 30 20.7 102914.5 92703 -11% CHAD Ndjamena 30 20.7 102914.5 92703 -11% CHILE Santiago 0 0 79165 76823 -3% CHINA Beijing 10 0 87081.5 76823 -13% COLOMBIA Bogota 5 8.9 87081.5 83623 -4% CONGO Brazzaville 25 20.7 98956.25 92703 -7% CONGO, DEM. REP. Kinshasa 25 16.2 98956.25 89293 -11% COSTA RICA San Jose 0.05 0 79204.58 76823 -3% COTE D IVOIRE Abidjan 20 16.2 94998 89293 -6% CROATIA, REPUBLIC OF Zagreb 0 0 79165 76823 -3%

-18-





Difference

A B B-A (%)

CUBA Havana 10 8.9 87081.5 83623 -4% DJIBOUTI Djibouti 30 16.2 102914.5 89293 -15% DOMINICAN REPUBLIC Santo Domingo 15 0 91039.75 76823 -19% ECUADOR Quito 15 0 91039.75 76823 -19% EGYPT Cairo 15 0 91039.75 76823 -19% EL SALVADOR San Salvador 15 8.9 91039.75 83623 -9% EQUATORIAL GUINEA Malabo 35 20.7 106872.8 92703 -15% ERITREA Asmara 30 20.7 102914.5 92703 -11% ETHIOPIA Addis Ababa 25 16.2 98956.25 89293 -11% FIJI Suva 20 8.9 94998 83623 -14% GABON Libreville 20 0 94998 76823 -24% GAMBIA Banjul 20 16.2 94998 89293 -6% GEORGIA, REPUBLIC OF Tbilisi 30 20.7 102914.5 92703 -11% GHANA Accra 20 8.9 94998 83623 -14% GUATEMALA Guatemala City 15 8.9 91039.75 83623 -9% GUINEA Conakry 30 20.7 102914.5 92703 -11% GUINEA BISSAU Bissau 25 26.6 98956.25 97233 -2% GUYANA Georgetown 25 16.2 98956.25 89293 -11% HAITI Port-Au-Prince 25 20.7 98956.25 92703 -7% HONDURAS Tegucigalpa 20 8.9 94998 83623 -14% INDIA New Delhi 15 0 91039.75 76823 -19% INDONESIA Jakarta 30 8.9 102914.5 83623 -23% JAMAICA Kingston 15 8.9 91039.75 83623 -9% JORDAN Amman 0.05 0 79204.58 76823 -3% KAZAKHSTAN Astana 25 16.2 98956.25 89293 -11% KENYA Nairobi 30 16.2 102914.5 89293 -15% KIRIBATI Tarawa 0 20.7 79165 92703 15% KOREA, DEM. PEO. OF Pyongyang 25 26.6 98956.25 97233 -2% KOREA, REPUBLIC OF Seoul 0 0 79165 76823 -3% KUWAIT Kuwait 15 8.9 91039.75 83623 -9% KYRGYZSTAN Bishkek 25 16.2 98956.25 89293 -11% LAO PEO. DEM. REP. Vientiane 30 16.2 102914.5 89293 -15% LEBANON Beirut 25 16.2 98956.25 89293 -11% LESOTHO Maseru 20 16.2 94998 89293 -6% LIBERIA Monrovia 30 20.7 102914.5 92703 -11%

-19-





Difference

A B B-A (%)

LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA Tripoli 20 8.9 94998 83623 -14% MACEDONIA (FYROM) Skopje 15 0 91039.75 76823 -19% MADAGASCAR Antananarivo 25 8.9 98956.25 83623 -18% MALAWI Lilongwe 25 16.2 98956.25 89293 -11% MALAYSIA Kuala Lumpur 10 0 87081.5 76823 -13% MALI Bamako 25 16.2 98956.25 89293 -11% MAURITANIA Nouakchott 25 16.2 98956.25 89293 -11% MAURITIUS Port Louis 0.05 0 79204.58 76823 -3% MEXICO Mexico City 15 0 91039.75 76823 -19% MOLDOVA Kishinev 20 8.9 94998 83623 -14% MONGOLIA Ulan Bator 25 20.7 98956.25 92703 -7% MONTENEGRO Podgorica 15 0 91039.75 76823 -19% MOROCCO Rabat 0.05 0 79204.58 76823 -3% MOZAMBIQUE Maputo 25 8.9 98956.25 83623 -18% MYANMAR Yangon 30 16.2 102914.5 89293 -15% NAMIBIA Windhoek 10 0 87081.5 76823 -13% NEPAL Kathmandu 25 16.2 98956.25 89293 -11% NICARAGUA Managua 15 8.9 91039.75 83623 -9% NIGER Niamey 25 16.2 98956.25 89293 -11% NIGERIA Abuja 25 16.2 98956.25 89293 -11% OMAN Muscat 0 8.9 79165 83623 5% PAKISTAN Islamabad 20 16.2 94998 89293 -6% PANAMA Panama City 10 0 87081.5 76823 -13% PAPUA NEW GUINEA Port Moresby 25 20.7 98956.25 92703 -7% PARAGUAY Asuncion 10 0 87081.5 76823 -13% PERU Lima 15 8.9 91039.75 83623 -9% PHILIPPINES Manila 20 0 94998 76823 -24% QATAR Doha 10 8.9 87081.5 83623 -4% RUSSIAN FEDERATION Moscow 15 0 91039.75 76823 -19% RWANDA Kigali 25 16.2 98956.25 89293 -11% SAMOA Apia 15 16.2 91039.75 89293 -2% SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE Sao Tome 25 20.7 98956.25 92703 -7% SAUDI ARABIA Riyadh 20 8.9 94998 83623 -14% SENEGAL Dakar 15 0 91039.75 76823 -19% SERBIA Belgrade 15 0 91039.75 76823 -19% SIERRA LEONE Freetown 30 20.7 102914.5 92703 -11%

-20-





Difference

A B B-A (%)

SOLOMON ISLANDS Honair 15 16.2 91039.75 89293 -2% SOUTH AFRICA Pretoria 10 0 87081.5 76823 -13% SRI LANKA Colombo 20 8.9 94998 83623 -14% SUDAN Khartoum 25 20.7 98956.25 92703 -7% SURINAME Paramaribo 25 8.9 98956.25 83623 -18% SWAZILAND Mbabane 10 0 87081.5 76823 -13% TAJIKISTAN Dushanbe 35 20.7 106872.8 92703 -15% TANZANIA, UNITED REP. OF Dar es Salaam 25 16.2 98956.25 89293 -11% THAILAND Bangkok 10 0 87081.5 76823 -13% TIMOR-LESTE Dili 35 20.7 106872.8 92703 -15% TOGO Lome 25 8.9 98956.25 83623 -18% TONGA Nuku`Alofa 0 8.9 79165 83623 5% TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Port-of-Spain 0.05 0 79204.58 76823 -3% TUNISIA Tunis 10 0 87081.5 76823 -13% TURKEY Ankara 10 0 87081.5 76823 -13% TURKMENISTAN Ashkhabad 25 20.7 102914.5 92703 -11% UGANDA Kampala 25 16.2 98956.25 89293 -11% UKRAINE Kiev 20 0 94998 76823 -24% UNITED ARAB EMIRATES Abu Dhabi 0 8.9 79165 83623 5% URUGUAY Montevideo 0 0 79165 76823 -3% UZBEKISTAN Tashkent 30 16.2 102914.5 89293 -15% VANUATU Port Vila 15 8.9 91039.75 83623 -9% VENEZUELA Caracas 20 0 94998 76823 -24% VIETNAM Hanoi 25 8.9 98956.25 83623 -18% YEMEN, REPUBLIC OF Sana'a 20 20.7 94998 92703 -2% ZAMBIA Lusaka 20 16.2 94998 89293 -6% ZIMBABWE Harare 30 26.6 102914.5 97233 -6%

-21-

Annex II

Comparison of United Nations and United States hardship allowances

-22-

Annex III

Evolution of United States/United Nations hardship ratings

Country Duty Station

US Hardship Rating 1996 (%)

UN Hardship Rating 1996 (%)





AFGHANISTAN Kabul 25 25 25 25 35 26.6 ALBANIA Tirana 20 15 25 15 20 8.9 ALGERIA Algiers 20 25 25 20 20 26.6 ANGOLA Luanda 25 20 25 20 25 16.2 ARGENTINA Buenos Aires 0 0 0 0 0 0 ARMENIA Yerevan 25 25 20 20 25 20.7 AZERBAIJAN Baku 25 20 25 15 25 8.9 BANGLADESH Dhaka 20 15 25 15 30 16.2 BARBADOS Bridgetown 0 0 5 0 0 0 BELARUS Minsk 20 8 25 8 25 0 BELIZE Belmopan 15 15 10 15 15 8.9 BENIN Cotonou 15 8 20 8 20 8.9 BOLIVIA La Paz 15 8 15 8 15 8.9 BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA Sarajevo 25 25 15 0 20 0 BOTSWANA Gaberone 0 0 0 0 0 0 BRAZIL Brasilia 0 0 0 0 10 0 BURKINA FASO Ouagadougou 20 15 25 8 25 8.9 BURUNDI Bujumbura 25 20 25 20 25 20.7 CAMBODIA Phnom Penh 25 20 20 15 25 8.9 CAMEROON Yaounde 20 8 20 8 25 8.9 CAPE VERDE Praia 15 15 20 15 25 8.9 CENTRAL AFRICAN REP. Bangui 20 20 25 20 30 20.7 CHAD Ndjamena 25 20 25 20 30 20.7 CHILE Santiago 0 0 0 0 0 0 CHINA Beijing 15 8 15 8 10 0 COLOMBIA Bogota 10 8 5 8 5 8.9 CONGO Brazzaville 25 15 25 20 25 20.7 CONGO, DEM. REP. Kinshasa 25 25 25 15 25 16.2 COSTA RICA San Jose 0 0 0 0 5 0 COTE D IVOIRE Abidjan 15 8 25 15 20 16.2 CROATIA, REPUBLICOF Zagreb 10 0 5 0 0 0 CUBA Havana 15 8 20 8 10 8.9 DJIBOUTI Djibouti 15 15 25 15 30 16.2

-23-








DOMINICAN REPUBLIC Santo Domingo 10 0 15 0 15 0 ECUADOR Quito 10 8 15 8 15 0 EGYPT Cairo 10 0 15 0 15 0 EL SALVADOR San Salvador 15 15 10 8 15 8.9 ERITREA Asmara 20 15 20 8 30 20.7 ETHIOPIA Addis Ababa 20 15 20 8 25 16.2 FIJI Suva 5 8 10 8 20 8.9 GABON Libreville 10 0 15 0 20 0 GAMBIA Banjul 15 15 20 15 20 16.2 GEORGIA, REPUBLIC OF Tbilisi 25 20 25 20 30 20.7 GHANA Accra 15 15 25 8 20 8.9 GUATEMALA Guatemala City 10 8 10 8 15 8.9 GUINEA Conakry 25 20 25 20 30 20.7 GUINEA BISSAU Bissau 20 25 25 25 25 26.6 GUYANA Georgetown 20 15 20 15 25 16.2 HAITI Port-Au-Prince 25 20 25 20 25 20.7 HONDURAS Tegucigalpa 10 8 15 8 20 8.9 INDIA New Delhi 10 8 15 8 15 0 INDONESIA Jakarta 10 0 15 8 30 8.9 JAMAICA Kingston 10 8 10 8 15 8.9 JORDAN Amman 5 0 10 0 5 0 KAZAKHSTAN Astana 20 15 25 16.2 KENYA Nairobi 5 8 25 15 30 16.2 KOREA, REPUBLIC OF Seoul 0 0 0 0 0 0 KUWAIT Kuwait 15 8 15 8 15 8.9 KYRGYZSTAN Bishkek 25 20 25 20 25 16.2 LAO PEO. DEM. REP. Vientiane 20 15 25 15 30 16.2 LEBANON Beirut 25 15 20 8 25 16.2 LESOTHO Maseru 10 15 15 15 20 16.2 LIBERIA Monrovia 25 25 25 25 30 20.7 MACEDONIA (FYROM) Skopje 15 15 15 8 15 0 MADAGASCAR Antananarivo 15 15 20 15 25 8.9 MALAWI Lilongwe 10 8 5 8 25 16.2 MALAYSIA Kuala Lumpur 0 0 5 0 10 0 MALI Bamako 20 15 25 15 25 16.2 MAURITANIA Nouakchott 20 20 25 15 25 16.2

-24-








MAURITIUS Port Louis 5 0 5 0 5 0 MEXICO Mexico City 5 0 5 0 15 0 MONGOLIA Ulan Bator 25 25 25 25 25 20.7 MOROCCO Rabat 0 0 0 0 5 0 MOZAMBIQUE Maputo 20 15 20 15 25 8.9 MYANMAR Yangon 25 20 15 15 30 16.2 NAMIBIA Windhoek 0 0 0 0 10 0 NEPAL Kathmandu 15 15 20 15 25 16.2 NICARAGUA Managua 10 15 15 8 15 8.9 NIGER Niamey 20 15 25 15 25 16.2 NIGERIA Abuja 25 20 25 20 25 16.2 OMAN Muscat 5 8 5 8 0 8.9 PAKISTAN Islamabad 15 8 20 8 20 16.2 PANAMA Panama City 0 0 0 0 10 0 PAPUA NEW GUINEA Port Moresby 15 15 25 15 25 20.7 PARAGUAY Asuncion 5 0 5 0 10 0 PERU Lima 15 8 10 8 15 8.9 PHILIPPINES Manila 20 0 15 0 20 0 QATAR Doha 5 8 5 8 10 8.9 RUSSIAN FEDERATION Moscow 15 8 0 0 15 0 RWANDA Kigali 25 25 25 15 25 16.2 SAMOA Apia 10 8 15 15 15 16.2 SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE Sao Tome 25 20 25 20 25 20.7 SAUDI ARABIA Riyadh 15 8 20 8 20 8.9 SENEGAL Dakar 10 0 15 0 15 0 SERBIA Belgrade 15 15 20 0 15 0 SIERRA LEONE Freetown 25 20 25 25 30 20.7 SOLOMON ISLANDS Honair 15 15 15 20 15 16.2 SRI LANKA Colombo 15 8 20 8 20 8.9 SUDAN Khartoum 25 25 25 20 25 20.7 SURINAME Paramaribo 15 15 20 15 25 8.9 SWAZILAND Mbabane 0 0 0 0 10 0 TAJIKISTAN Dushanbe 25 25 25 20 35 20.7 TANZANIA, UNITED REP. OF Dar es Salaam 20 15 25 15 25 16.2 THAILAND Bangkok 10 0 10 0 10 0 TIMOR-LESTE Dili 25 20 35 20.7

-25-








TOGO Lome 20 15 25 15 25 8.9 TRINIDAD &TOBAGO Port-of-Spain 5 0 5 0 5 0 TUNISIA Tunis 5 0 5 0 10 0 TURKEY Ankara 5 0 10 0 10 0 TURKMENISTAN Ashkhabad 20 20 20 20 25 20.7 UGANDA Kampala 25 20 25 15 25 16.2 UKRAINE Kiev 20 8 20 8 20 0 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES Abu Dhabi 0 8 5 8 0 8.9 URUGUAY Montevideo 0 0 0 0 0 0 UZBEKISTAN Tashkent 25 20 25 15 30 16.2 VENEZUELA Caracas 5 0 15 0 20 0 VIETNAM Hanoi 25 20 25 8 25 8.9 YEMEN, REPUBLIC OF 25 20 20 20 20 20.7 ZAMBIA Lusaka 10 20 15 15 20 16.2 ZIMBABWE Harare 0 0 5 8 30 26.6

-26-

Annex IV Professional and Higher Category Staff in Receipt of Mobility and Hardship Allowances (as at end 2008) A S S I G N M E N T N U M B E R

H A R D S H I P C A T E G O R Y

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Staff Total

D S D S D S D S D S D S D S H

P1 - P3 2086 3162 128 198 71 80 46 26 18 15 1 2 0 1 5834 P4 - P5 3816 2634 305 298 244 155 135 89 120 59 45 11 56 12 7979 D1+ 785 366 94 46 80 37 43 17 49 29 22 8 33 4 1613 Total 6687 6162 527 542 395 272 224 132 187 103 68 21 89 17 15426 A P1 - P3 206 357 90 93 50 30 27 9 13 6 3 1 2 0 887 P4 - P5 606 330 263 123 150 58 80 32 68 29 26 6 26 0 1797 D1+ 74 30 61 21 34 9 21 11 23 8 7 1 17 2 319Total 886 717 414 237 234 97 128 52 104 43 36 8 45 2 3003 B

P1 - P3 137 228 48 35 28 14 16 5 8 2 3 0 0 0 524 P4 - P5 280 125 113 54 77 26 41 18 28 16 17 2 12 3 812 D1+ 31 13 35 8 20 6 8 5 12 2 3 1 6 0 150Total 448 366 196 97 125 46 65 28 48 20 23 3 18 3 1486 C

P1 - P3 296 889 125 77 73 41 45 23 22 10 8 1 3 1 1614 P4 - P5 413 548 174 110 111 64 83 40 60 26 33 4 39 5 1710 D1+ 42 71 40 16 38 13 13 9 20 8 6 1 24 4 305 Total 751 1508 339 203 222 118 141 72 102 44 47 6 66 10 3629 D

P1 - P3 182 626 90 34 49 22 23 12 9 9 4 1 3 1 1065 P4 - P5 309 386 98 41 51 22 26 7 27 14 19 4 18 1 1023 D1+ 31 48 18 4 11 6 6 2 7 6 3 1 5 2 150 Total 522 1060 206 79 111 50 55 21 43 29 26 6 26 4 2238 E

P1 - P3 141 488 58 28 38 17 34 9 22 3 10 1 6 0 855 P4 - P5 116 215 34 23 22 12 23 10 30 4 16 3 28 3 539 D1+ 14 20 6 0 3 3 0 0 4 2 2 2 2 1 59Total 271 723 98 51 63 32 57 19 56 9 28 6 36 4 1453 TOTAL 9565 10536 1780 1209 1150 615 670 324 540 248 228 50 280 40 27235

-27-

Annex V Professional and Higher Category Staff in Receipt of Mobility and Hardship Allowances (as at end 2008)

A S S I G N M E N T N U M B E R

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

HA

RD

SHIP C

AT

EG

OR

Y

H 16,188 2,241

A

B

C

D 5,649 3,157

E

Non-Removal 16,188 59% Hardship+ Non-Removal 2,241 8% Mobility+Non-Removal 5,649 21% Hardship+Mobility+Non-Removal 3,157 12% Total 27,235

-28-

Annex VI

United States Service Need Differential (SND) locations

Country Duty Station ANGOLA Luanda BANGLADESH Dhaka BELARUS Minsk BENIN Cotonou BURKINA FASO Ouagadougou BURUNDI Bujumbura CAMEROON Yaounde CAMEROON Douala CAPE VERDE Praia CENTRAL AFRICAN REP. Bangui CHAD Ndjamena CHINA Shenyang CONGO Brazzaville CONGO, DEM. REP. Kinshasa DJIBOUTI Djibouti EQUATORIAL GUINEA Malabo ERITREA Asmara GAMBIA Banjul GUINEA Conakry GUYANA Georgetown HAITI Port au Prince INDIA Calcutta INDONESIA Medan KAZAKHSTAN Astana LIBERIA Monrovia MALAWI Lilongwe MAURITANIA Nouakchott MICRONESIA Kolonia MOLDOVA Kishinev NIGER Niamey NIGERIA Lagos NIGERIA Abuja PAPUA NEW GUINEA Port Moresby QATAR Doha RUSSIAN FEDERATION Vladivostok RUSSIAN FEDERATION Yekaterinburg RWANDA Kigali SAUDI ARABIA Riyadh SERBIA Pristina SIERRA LEONE Freetown SUDAN Khartoum SURINAME Paramaribo TAJIKISTAN Dushanbe TIMOR-LESTE Dili TOGO Lome TURKMENISTAN Ashkhabad YEMEN, REPUBLIC OF Sana'a

70crp14 single 13 jan - ccisua – ccisua

Documents