Conditions of service applicable to both categories
F. Mission subsistence allowance
248. In section IV of General Assembly resolution 51/218 E of 17 June 1997, entitled AMission subsistence allowance@ (MSA), the Assembly had requested the Commission to develop, for submission to the Assembly at its fifty-second session, a proposal to provide for a post allowance and separate maintenance allowance for those staff members whose families remained at the home duty station while the staff member was on mission assignment. Given the brief period between the time the request was made and the forty-sixth session of the Commission, the subject had been deferred.
249. The documentation before the Commission provided an overview of the establishment and application of MSA and the implementation and practices of the different common system organizations. The relationship between MSA, DSA and post adjustment was also explored. The conditions offered by the comparator civil service were included as relevant to specific issues raised by the Assembly.
Views of the organizations
250. The representative of CCAQ noted that the matter concerned only the United Nations and two other organizations that made use of the allowance.
251. The representative of the United Nations stated that MSA was a daily allowance payable by the organization for living expenses incurred by staff members in the field in connection with their assignment to a special mission. Therefore, it was only paid to staff serving at peacekeeping, peacemaking and special humanitarian missions.
252. MSAs were established for administrative reasons for larger mission areas. Thus, staff were able to move freely throughout the area without being financially affected by continuous fluctuations in their subsistence allowance. The United Nations was of the view that the practice of providing MSA was essential since it allowed for administrative and practical effectiveness. It was essential for the United Nations in providing its staff with fair and adequate living allowances while serving in special missions.
253. MSA rates were primarily determined on the basis of board, long-term lodging and miscellaneous costs at duty stations. MSA represented the total contribution of the organization towards living expenses instead of any other cost-of-living allowance (i.e. post adjustment) or per diem at the duty station and in lieu of mobility and hardship allowance. Staff members in receipt of MSA, however, continued to receive the entitlements of their parent duty stations to address their financial obligations at these duty stations. All special missions were non-family duty stations, and staff were required to maintain their families at the parent duty
station. Moreover, special missions were only mandated on a six-month basis by the Security Council, and staff were only fielded to those missions for similar periods. It would therefore be inappropriate to assign staff and their families to those locations.
254. The practice of granting staff an MSA was an effective mechanism for reimbursing the longer-term subsistence costs of mission personnel. The provision of such allowance was not part of the United Nations common system of salaries and allowances, and fell under the strict prerogative of the Secretary-General for application for staff in peacekeeping, peacemaking and special humanitarian missions.
Discussion by the Commission
255. The Commission emphasized the importance of the calculation of an adequate MSA, noting its role in supporting the operational needs of peacekeeping, peacemaking and humanitarian missions (special missions). The need to attract highly qualified individuals and retain the services of experienced personnel for service in field missions was of critical importance.
256. The Commission reviewed the modalities of the payment of MSA, and noted that it was the total contribution of the organization to meet living expenses of staff. While hazard pay was also applicable at some duty stations, its purpose was different. The relationship between MSA and DSA was also noted, including the different purposes of the two allowances. In order to facilitate administration, a single MSA rate applied to an entire mission area, while a different DSA rate could apply to several locations within a mission area. The Commission also noted that DSA rates were based on hotel room costs and meals taken at restaurants, while MSA was based on costs of longer-term accommodation and lower food expenses.
257. The Commission considered that development of a post allowance and separate maintenance allowance, as requested by the General Assembly, would lead to a duplication of current remuneration elements. The request appeared to be related to the post allowance system of the comparator, which was the counterpart of the common system post adjustment. While a post adjustment amount existed for special mission duty stations, it was not paid to staff members on mission assignment because of the short duration of those assignments. Application of the entitlements of regular assignment were thus precluded. The Commission noted that United Nations staff members continued to receive the post adjustment of the parent duty station because of the need to maintain families and/or a home at those locations. The creation of a special post allowance for the special missions could duplicate the post adjustment system.
258. Likewise, the payment of a separate maintenance allowance for those staff members whose families remained at the home duty station was unnecessary, as this was precisely the reason why their emoluments were left intact at the home duty station. Accordingly, the Commission considered that developing a separate maintenance allowance along the lines of the comparator=s practice would duplicate current arrangements.
259. The Commission noted that all relevant information from the organizations using the MSA system or a derivative of the MSA known as the mission approach had not been available during the Commission=s consideration of this item. It further noted the comparison of remuneration amounts provided in the documentation before it. It considered that while a
degree of flexibility should be maintained to permit organizations to fulfil their mandates, it should not lead to significantly different remuneration amounts among the organizations for the same work at the same duty station. In order for the Commission to arrive at a better determination it would require more information on remuneration levels from the organizations using this approach. It emphasized that MSA should be confined to its original purpose, for short -term peacekeeping, peacemaking and humanitarian missions. The normal remuneration packages should be applied to other missions.
Decisions of the Commission
260. The Commission decided:
(a) To note that MSA generally seemed to respond to the operational needs of the special missions;
(b) To note that at many locations MSA was somewhat lower than DSA, and even though both were intended to compensate for the same elements of expenditure during temporary assignments away from the regular duty station of a staff member, some differences existed;
(c) To request the organizations to improve the coordination of MSA practices and to request its secretariat to examine these practices periodically;
(d) That the establishment of a post allowance or separate maintenance allowance was not warranted at this time;
(e) To note the disparity of the remuneration arrangements in certain locations, and to request its secretariat, in consultation with the organizations, to determine a common approach to resolve this situation;
(f) To request its secretariat to continue to solicit information from those organizations that had not provided it , and to ensure that it was taken into account in developing a common approach.