Neunundfünfzigste Tagung Tagesordnungspunkt 64 Resolution der Generalversammlung [auf Grund des Berichts des Ersten Ausschusses (A/59/458)] Verhütung eines Wettrüstens im Weltraum Die Generalversammlung, in Anerkennung des gemeinsamen Interesses der gesamten Menschheit an der Erforschung und Nutzung des Weltraums zu friedlichen Zwecken, erneut erklärend, dass es der Wille aller Staaten ist, dass die Erforschung und Nutzung des Weltraums einschließlich des Mondes und anderer Himmelskörper friedlichen Zwecken dient und zum Vorteil und im Interesse aller Länder ohne Ansehen ihres wirtschaftlichen und wissenschaftlichen Entwicklungsstandes durchgeführt wird, in Bekräftigung der Artikel III und IV des Vertrags über die Grundsätze zur Regelung der Tätigkeiten von Staaten bei der Erforschung und Nutzung des Weltraums einschließlich des Mondes und anderer Himmelskörper, unter Hinweis darauf, dass alle Staaten verpflichtet sind, die Bestimmungen der Charta der Vereinten Nationen betreffend die Anwendung oder Androhung von Gewalt in ihren internationalen Beziehungen, einschließlich ihrer Weltraumaktivitäten, einzuhalten, in Bekräftigung der Ziffer 80 des Schlussdokuments der zehnten Sondertagung der Generalversammlung, worin es heißt, dass zur Verhütung eines Wettrüstens im Weltraum weitere Maßnahmen ergriffen und entsprechende internationale Verhandlungen im Geiste des Vertrags geführt werden sollen, unter Hinweis auf ihre früheren Resolutionen zu dieser Frage und Kenntnis nehmend von den Vorschlägen, die der Generalversammlung auf ihrer zehnten Sondertagung und auf ihren ordentlichen Tagungen vorgelegt wurden, sowie von den Empfehlungen, die den zuständigen Organen der Vereinten Nationen und der Abrüstungskonferenz unterbreitet wurden, in der Erkenntnis, dass die Verhütung eines Wettrüstens im Weltraum eine ernste Gefahr für den Weltfrieden und die internationale Sicherheit abwenden würde, unter Hervorhebung der überragenden Bedeutung der strikten Einhaltung der bestehenden Rüstungsbegrenzungs- und Abrüstungsübereinkünfte über den Weltraum, einschließlich der bilateralen Abkommen, und der bestehenden Rechtsordnung betreffend die Nutzung des Weltraums, die Auffassung vertretend, dass eine breite Teilnahme an der auf den Weltraum anwendbaren Rechtsordnung zu ihrer größeren Wirksamkeit beitragen könnte, feststellend, dass der Ad-hoc-Ausschuss zur Verhütung eines Wettrüstens im Weltraum unter Berücksichtigung der von ihm seit seiner Einsetzung im Jahre 1985 unternommenen Bemühungen und mit dem Ziel der qualitativen Verbesserung seiner Arbeitsweise die Prüfung und Abgrenzung verschiedener Fragen, bestehender Übereinkünfte und Vorschläge sowie künftiger Initiativen betreffend die Verhütung eines Wettrüstens im Weltraum fortgesetzt hat und dass dies zu einem besseren Verständnis einer Reihe von Problemen und zu einem klareren Bild der verschiedenen Standpunkte beigetragen hat, sowie feststellend, dass in der Abrüstungskonferenz keine grundsätzlichen Einwände gegen die Wiedereinsetzung des Ad-hoc-Ausschusses bestanden, vorbehaltlich der erneuten Überprüfung des in dem Beschluss der Abrüstungskonferenz vom 13. Februar 1992 enthaltenen Mandats, hervorhebend, dass bilaterale und multilaterale Anstrengungen auf dem Gebiet der Verhütung eines Wettrüstens im Weltraum einander ergänzen, sowie in der Hoffnung, dass diese Anstrengungen möglichst bald zu konkreten Ergebnissen führen, davon überzeugt, dass im Hinblick auf die Verhütung eines Wettrüstens im Weltraum, namentlich die Stationierung von Waffen im Weltraum, weitere Maßnahmen zur Erreichung wirksamer und verifizierbarer bilateraler und multilateraler Übereinkünfte geprüft werden sollen, betonend, dass die vermehrte Nutzung des Weltraums die Notwendigkeit größerer Transparenz und eines besseren Informationsstands der internationalen Gemeinschaft erhöht, in diesem Zusammenhang unter Hinweis auf ihre früheren Resolutionen, insbesondere die Resolutionen 45/55 B vom 4. Dezember 1990, 47/51 vom 9. Dezember 1992 und 48/74 A vom 16. Dezember 1993, in denen sie unter anderem die Wichtigkeit vertrauensbildender Maßnahmen als Mittel zur Erreichung des Ziels der Verhütung eines Wettrüstens im Weltraum bekräftigte, im Bewusstsein der Vorteile von vertrauens- und sicherheitsbildenden Maßnahmen auf militärischem Gebiet, in der Erwägung, dass Verhandlungen zum Abschluss einer oder mehrerer internationaler Übereinkünfte zur Verhütung eines Wettrüstens im Weltraum nach wie vor eine Hauptaufgabe des Ad-hoc-Ausschusses sind und dass die konkreten Vorschläge betreffend vertrauensbildende Maßnahmen einen festen Bestandteil derartiger Übereinkünfte bilden könnten, 1. bekräftigt die Wichtigkeit und Dringlichkeit der Verhütung eines Wettrüstens im Weltraum sowie die Bereitschaft aller Staaten, in Übereinstimmung mit dem Vertrag über die Grundsätze zur Regelung der Tätigkeiten von Staaten bei der Erforschung und Nutzung des Weltraums einschließlich des Mondes und anderer Himmelskörper1 ihren Beitrag zur Erreichung dieses gemeinsamen Ziels zu leisten; 2. räumt erneut ein, wie auch im Bericht des Ad-hoc- Ausschusses zur Verhütung eines Wettrüstens im Weltraum festgestellt wird, dass die auf den Weltraum anwendbare Rechtsordnung allein noch keine Gewähr für die Verhütung eines Wettrüstens im Weltraum bietet, dass diese Rechtsordnung eine bedeutsame Rolle bei der Verhütung eines Wettrüstens in diesem Umweltbereich spielt, dass es erforderlich ist, diese Rechtsordnung zu konsolidieren und zu stärken und ihre Wirksamkeit zu erhöhen, und dass es wichtig ist, die bestehenden bilateralen und multilateralen Übereinkünfte strikt einzuhalten; 3. betont, dass zur Verhütung eines Wettrüstens im Weltraum weitere Maßnahmen mit geeigneten wirksamen Verifikationsbestimmungen notwendig sind; 4. fordert alle Staaten, insbesondere die führenden Raumfahrtnationen, auf, aktiv zur Verwirklichung des Ziels der friedlichen Nutzung des Weltraums und der Verhütung eines Wettrüstens im Weltraum beizutragen und im Interesse der Wahrung des Weltfriedens und der internationalen Sicherheit sowie der Förderung der internationalen Zusammenarbeit alles zu unterlassen, was diesem Ziel und den bestehenden Verträgen auf diesem Gebiet zuwiderläuft; 5. erklärt erneut, dass die Abrüstungskonferenz als das einzige Forum für multilaterale Abrüstungsverhandlungen die Hauptrolle bei der Aushandlung einer oder gegebenenfalls mehrerer multilateraler Übereinkünfte zur Verhütung eines Wettrüstens im Weltraum unter allen seinen Aspekten spielt; 6. bittet die Abrüstungskonferenz, die Prüfung und Aktualisierung des in ihrem Beschluss vom 13. Februar 19924 enthaltenen Mandats abzuschließen und so bald wie möglich während ihrer Tagung 2005 einen Ad-hoc-Ausschuss einzusetzen; 7. anerkennt in dieser Hinsicht die wachsende Übereinstimmung in Bezug auf die Ausarbeitung von Maßnahmen zur Stärkung der Transparenz, des Vertrauens und der Sicherheit bei der friedlichen Nutzung des Weltraums; 8. fordert die Staaten, die Weltraumaktivitäten durchführen, sowie diejenigen Staaten, die an der Durchführung solcher Tätigkeiten interessiert sind, nachdrücklich auf, die Abrüstungskonferenz über die Fortschritte etwaiger bilateraler und multilateraler Verhandlungen über diese Angelegenheit unterrichtet zu halten, um ihr ihre Tätigkeit zu erleichtern; 9. beschließt, den Punkt "Verhütung eines Wettrüstens im Weltraum" in die vorläufige Tagesordnung ihrer sechzigsten Tagung aufzunehmen. 66. Plenarsitzung 3. Dezember 2004 Resolution 2222 (XXI), Anlage. Resolution S-10/2. Offizielles Protokoll der Generalversammlung, Neunundvierzigste Tagung, Beilage 27 (A/49/27), Abschnitt III.D (Ziffer 5 des zitierten Texts). Vereinte Nationen A/RES/59/65 Vorauskopie des Deutschen Übersetzungsdienstes, Vereinte Nationen, New York.
Report of the Joint Inspection Unit on the management review of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights * A/59/50 and Corr.1. Note by the Secretary-General The Secretary-General has the honour to transmit to the members of the General Assembly the report of the Joint Inspection Unit entitled “Management review of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights” (JIU/REP/2003/6). Prepared by Armando Duque González Joint Inspection Unit Geneva Paragraphs Page Acronyms 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: OBJECTIVE, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5 Geographical distribution of the staff 42-55 19 Post and contractual issues 56-64 22 Annexes ACABQ Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions APB Activities and Programmes Branch (OHCHR) EE Eastern Europe ICT Information and communications technology IMIS Integrated Management Information System JIU Joint Inspection Unit LA + C Latin American and Caribbean States NCE National Competitive Examination NGOs Non-governmental organizations OHCHR Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights OHRM Office of Human Resources Management OIOS Office of Internal Oversight Services RRDB Research and Right to Development Branch (OHCHR) SSB Support Services Branch (OHCHR) UNOG United Nations Office at Geneva UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services WEO Western Europe and Other States EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: OBJECTIVE, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Objective: To review the management and administration of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (the Office) as requested by the Commission on Human Rights (the Commission), with particular emphasis on recruitment policies and the composition of the staff of the Office, with a view to recommending improvements. INTRODUCTION (chapter I) Since 1997 the Office has been subjected to numerous audits, oversight reviews and evaluation studies, which have resulted in a considerable number of recommendations. The Office has undertaken a restructuring exercise taking into consideration most of those recommendations and it has submitted a proposal to United Nations Headquarters, which, at the time of writing the present report, has not taken an official decision thereon (see paras. 1 - 5 below). RESOURCES (chapter II) The Office is heavily dependent on voluntary contributions, which are increasingly used to fund core and mandated activities. Despite the strategic importance of human rights for the United Nations, the resources allocated through regular budget appropriations have not reflected such strategic importance. The resources allocated to human rights activities represent barely 1.75 percent of the total United Nations revised appropriation for the 2002-2003 biennium (see paras. 6 and 7 below). Extrabudgetary resources, on the other hand, have increased considerably, representing 64.1 percent of the Office's expenditure estimate for the 2002-2003 biennium (see paras. 8 and 9 below). These funding arrangements place the Office in a difficult position as any disruption in the voluntary contributions received will have a serious impact not only on activities of an extrabudgetary nature, but also on some core and mandated activities. Furthermore, the dependency of the Office on extra-budgetary resources is at the heart of the imbalanced geographical composition of its staff. ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES (chapter III) Considering that the Office is in the midst of a transition period and that most of the recommendations made in other reviews, which are in the process of being implemented, are of a structural and/or organizational nature, the present review focuses on management and administrative issues, in particular, with regard to their impact on the recruitment policies and the composition of the staff, as requested by the Commission. The major organizational changes proposed by the Office (see paras. 12 - 16 below) are: New and more detailed responsibilities are to be assigned to the Deputy High Commissioner with a clearer division between the functions undertaken by the High Commissioner and the Deputy High Commissioner; Strengthening of the Office of the High Commissioner by the creation of a post of “Chief of Staff” (grade D-2); Creation of two new branches: Special Procedures Branch and the External Relations Branch; The Information Management and Technology Unit, formerly part of the Research and Right to Development Branch, is included as part of the Support Services Branch together with the Administrative Section (see para. 22 below). The Inspector has noted a degree of overlapping between the functions of the Deputy High Commissioner and those to be undertaken by the new “Chief of Staff”(see paras., 14, 20 and 21 below). The creation of a D-2 post is not consistent with the request of the General Assembly for a streamlined management. The functions assigned to it are not consistent with the title of “Chief of Staff”. Furthermore, the Inspector concurs with the views expressed by the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions to the effect that the functions assigned to this position overlap with those of the Deputy High Commissioner and of the Director of the New York office. The new High Commissioner should: Reconsider the request to create a post of Chief of Staff to perform the functions detailed in the proposed programme budget document, so as to ensure streamlined management and avoid duplication of functions by the senior management of the Office, which should be exercised by the High Commissioner and his Deputy; Review the grading of the chiefs of branch with a view to ensuring optimal leadership and consistency of structures, presenting budgetary recommendations, as appropriate. EXECUTIVE DIRECTION AND PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT (chapter IV) Several reviews have highlighted the need for a detailed strategy for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), from which the medium- and longer-term tangible objectives of the OHCHR organizational units and operational activities should be derived. Although some improvement has been made, the Office still lacks a holistic strategic plan. The lack of a clear, long-term strategy and its communication remains an issue. Interviews with management and staff confirm this point, as more than 60 percent of the staff believe that there is no clear long-term strategy and that if there is any, it is not properly communicated. This underlines a managerial problem, as management should point the direction to follow and lead the way. The Inspector believes that national institutions are a key area, intrinsically linked to the support and development of human rights policies within any geographical area. Thus, the National Institutions Team of the Capacity-building and Field Operations Branch might be integrated within the various geographical teams, as it makes little sense to provide support for national institutions outside of the area of activity of those teams (see para. 28 below). The organigram of the proposed Capacity-building and Field Operations Branch should be revised by integrating the National Institutions Team within the various geographical teams in order to provide comprehensive support within each geographical area while assuring the availability of expert advice, as requested. The limited experience of OHCHR in field operations in comparison with other United Nations programmes, combined with a chronic lack of regular resources, calls for a higher degree of cooperation with United Nations agencies that have a large and well-established field presence. This would allow the Office to benefit from the field experience of more experienced partners, as well as from synergies deriving from a United Nations common approach to a specific situation, leading to a more rational use of resources (see paras. 29,30 and 31 below). Field operations conducted exclusively by OHCHR should be limited to a minimum and to those cases where it has been proven that no alternative exists. The implementation of field operations should be channelled through operational partners whenever possible; The Office might consider drawing an action plan detailing measures to develop cooperation with different partners such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), specialized agencies and United Nations programmes. ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT (chapter V) J. The support provided by the Administrative Section to the field representations remains an area in which there is room for considerable improvement. As an example, there is no established system to account for the assets of field representations, nor is there a field procedures manual (see paras. 32 - 35 below). The Administrative Section should establish a system to account for the assets of field representations and develop a field administrative procedures manual. The Office is part of the Secretariat of the United Nations, and the Secretariat relies heavily on its Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) as its main management information system covering the different areas of activity. The need for the Office to develop a parallel system, the Core Management System, does not seem reasonable. IMIS is currently being used at the Office and it is fully operational for financial and human resources management. Furthermore, scheduled developments include projects such as “IMIS in the field”, “IMIS on the Web” and a “Project Management Information System”, among others (see paras. 36, 37 and 38 below). The Office should develop a clear information technology strategy, taking the strategic plan developed by the Secretariat of the United Nations as a starting point to build upon, with a view to avoiding duplication of effort and waste of resources. The development of the Core Management System is duplicative of IMIS and should not be pursued. HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (chapter VI) The unbalanced geographical distribution of staff is an endemic problem (see paras. 42 and 43 below). It has been highlighted by the Commission, which has repeatedly expressed its concern in this regard, requesting the Office to take the necessary measures to correct it. In response the Office has taken various measures (see paras. 45 - 47 below), which have not contributed to the improvement of the situation. Among these measures was the establishment of the Advisory Panel on Personnel Issues, the composition of which is considerably unbalanced, and the request that a “human rights” occupational group be established for the purpose of competitive examinations (see paras. 48, 49 and 51 - 54 below). The Office should review the mandate of the Advisory Panel on Personnel Issues with a view to ensuring that it contributes towards the improvement of the geographical composition of the staff of the Office in general. The composition of the Panel itself should be reviewed so as to reflect a more balanced geographical distribution of its membership. The Office should compile annually a list of those countries which are either unrepresented or underrepresented within the Office, and the Secretariat should take that list into consideration when organizing specialized competitive human rights examinations. The General Assembly, in its resolution 57/305, reiterated its request to the Secretary-General to further increase his efforts to improve the composition of the Secretariat by ensuring a wide and equitable geographical distribution of staff in all departments, and requested the Secretary-General “to hold the heads of relevant departments accountable for the human resources action plans and to ensure that they in turn take due account of equitable geographical representation when considering candidates on the lists endorsed by the central review bodies, as well as on the rosters, and to report to the General Assembly annually on progress made by departments in the implementation of their respective human resources action plans” (see para. 55 below). The imbalance in the geographical distribution of the staff of the Office is an issue that can only be solved through a determined management action. Thus, the High Commissioner should prepare an action plan aimed at reducing the current imbalance and indicating specific targets and deadlines to be achieved. The heavy dependency on voluntary funding is a major issue, which has a considerable impact on the overall management of the Office. A considerable amount of core functions are supported by voluntary contributions and many of the core functions posts are occupied by project personnel. As a consequence, there is a wide diversity in the existing types of contracts for extrabudgetary posts, which has resulted in contractual instability and staff dissatisfaction. The Office submitted a proposal to the Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM) addressing staff contractual issues, which aimed at reducing the number of 200 series contracts of staff performing core functions by converting their 200-series contracts into 100-series contracts, “limited to service with OHCHR”. The Office proposed to align gradually its recruitment and contractual policies with those of the United Nations Secretariat once the proposed regularization is made. The Office's proposal goes against the staff selection process currently in place within the Secretariat (see paras. 56 - 62 below). The Office might offer a transition period, not longer than one year, during which contracts of staff currently under the 200 series of the Staff Rules and performing core functions would be regularized into 100-series contracts “limited to service with OHCHR”. Thereafter, the Office should align its recruitment and contractual policies with those of the Secretariat. The Office should check and align its post-classification criteria with those of the Secretariat before any post is advertised, and should discontinue the practice of advertising extrabudgetary posts without first checking the classification criteria with the United Nations Office at Geneva (UNOG). At its fifty-eighth session, the Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”) adopted resolution 2002/80 on the composition of the staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, (hereinafter “the Office”), in paragraph 17 of which it requested “the Joint Inspection Unit to undertake a comprehensive review of the management and administration of the Office of the High Commissioner, in particular, with regard to its impact on the recruitment policies and the composition of the staff, and to submit a report thereon to the Commission at its sixtieth session containing concrete proposals for the implementation of the present resolution”. The Economic and Social Council, at its 39th plenary meeting, on 25 July 2002, endorsed the Commission's decision. The mandate of the Office derives from Articles 1, 13 and 55 of the Charter of the United Nations, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action and General Assembly resolution 48/141 of 20 December 1993, by which the Assembly established the post of United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. In connection with his Programme for Reform of 1997, the Secretary-General indicated his decision to consolidate the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the Centre for Human Rights into a single Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Office's functions and organization are defined in ST/SGB/1997/10. The Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) has conducted the management review of the Office, taking into account the results of numerous recent audits, oversight reviews and evaluation studies and, in particular, the review carried out in 2002 by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS). In order to avoid duplication with previous reviews and notwithstanding the request of the Commission for “a comprehensive review of the management and administration” of the Office, the present review is focused on those aspects not covered in depth by other reports and looks specifically into the issue of recruitment policies and the composition of the staff, as requested by the Commission. It should be noted that the Office has undertaken a restructuring exercise, subsequent to the review carried out by OIOS, which also takes into account a special report requested by the High Commissioner on “enhancing OHCHR effectiveness to strengthen human rights at the country level”, finalized in February 2003. Taking into consideration the recommendations included in both reports, a proposal for reorganization has been submitted to United Nations Headquarters, which, at the time of writing the present report, has not taken an official decision thereon. In this regard and considering that the OIOS review includes an important number of structural and organizational recommendations, which are mostly in the process of being implemented by the Office, the Inspector does not deem it advisable to address issues currently in transition. Thus, this review avoids structural and/or organizational recommendations and only refers to these matters for information purposes or when a significant contribution leading to efficiency gains could be made. The methodology followed combines analysis of opinions derived from interviews with management and staff of the Office, and facts provided by management, in order to draw conclusions. Additionally, an electronic questionnaire has been distributed to 269 staff members, to which 150 answers were received. Bearing in mind that the Office has recently been the subject of a considerable number of reports, reviews and audits, the high participation (with a 56 percent rate of response) shows the commitment of the staff to seeking improvements and is highly appreciated. Despite the strategic importance of human rights for the United Nations system, which has been highlighted in numerous documents, the resources allocated through regular budget appropriations have not reflected such strategic importance. Table 1 below shows an analysis of regular budget resources allocated to human rights activities from the 1996-1997 biennium to 2002-2003. The resources assigned decreased in percentage and absolute terms from the 1996-1997 biennium to the one of 2000 -2001, increasing only in absolute figures for the 2002-2003 biennium. Despite this increase in the total amount, the Office's share of the total 2002-2003 United Nations revised appropriation still remains below the percentage share of previous bienniums. Table 1 (1) Expenditure figures. (2) Revised 2002-2003 appropriation. (3) Section 24: Human Rights, formerly Section 22. (4) Human Rights part of Section 23: Regular programme of technical cooperation, formerly Section 21. The issue of the allocation of regular budget resources has also been reflected in the OIOS report, which recommended that the Secretary-General should fully apprise the General Assembly of how the persistent shortfall in regular budget impacts on the mandated activities. The Secretary-General addresses this issue in the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2004-2005 (Section 24), which shows an increase of 12.5 percent over the biennium 2002-2003 in the proposed allocation of regular budget resources for human rights-related activities. The Office's proposed programme budget for the biennium of 2004-2005 represents 1.85 percent of the United Nations total. The General Assembly, in its resolution 57/280 of December 2002, included the promotion of human rights among the priorities for the 2004-2005 biennium. This dearth of regular resources is further compounded by an increase in the number of activities undertaken by the Office. The Office has had to cope with a considerable increase in the number of working groups it supports, as well as in the number of special rapporteurs, special representatives and independent experts it serves. Therefore, the Office is heavily dependant on voluntary contributions to fund core and mandated activities that should remain within the regular budget. In fact, the dependency of the Office on extrabudgetary resources is at the heart of the imbalanced geographical composition of the staff. As illustrated by table 2 below, which provides comparative figures for regular and extrabudgetary resources from 1996-1997 to 2004-2005, the dependency on voluntary funding is increasing. Extrabudgetary resources have increased considerably, representing 64.1 percent of the Office's expenditure estimate for the 2002-2003 biennium. Obviously, these funding arrangements place the Office in a difficult position as any disruption in the voluntary contributions received will have a serious impact not only on activities of an extra-budgetary nature, but also on some core and mandated activities. This risk is compounded by the reliance on a small number of donors. The Office is aware of this risk, and efforts are being made to secure voluntary funding in the future through multi-year contributions, flexible funding and diversification of the donors base. Table 2 Estimates (A/58/6 (Sect.24), 10 June 2003). Includes the human rights part of Section 23: Regular programme of technical cooperation. The specific organizational structure of the Office is defined in a Secretary-General's bulletin, and is established along the following lines: Office headed by the High Commissioner, who is directly supported by the Deputy High Commissioner and the Staff Office; Five separate units reporting directly to the High Commissioner as follows: Administrative Section, Research and Right to Development Branch (RRDB), Support Services Branch (SSB), Activities and Programmes Branch(APB) and the New York Office. As indicated in paragraph 4 above, this initial structure is currently being modified, though the approved new structure remains to be promulgated in a Secretary-General's bulletin. The major changes proposed by the Office in respect of the new organization are described below for information purposes. Instead of five separate units reporting directly to the High Commissioner, the new structure is to be composed of seven units: Support Services (including the Administrative Section and Information Management and Technology), RRDB, Treaties and Commission Branch (formerly SSB), Capacity-building and Field Operations Branch (formerly APB), and the New York Office. Additionally, two new branches are being proposed, the Special Procedures Branch and External Relations Branch. New and more detailed responsibilities are to be assigned to the Deputy High Commissioner with a clearer division between the functions undertaken by the High Commissioner and the Deputy High Commissioner. The report of the Secretary-General, entitled “Administration and management of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights”, includes a detailed description of the functions to be undertaken by the Deputy High Commissioner, who is responsible for policy planning, information management and technology and the administrative services of the Office, in addition to assisting the High Commissioner in different matters, such as acting as Officer-in-Charge during the absence of the High Commissioner; assisting the High Commissioner in the overall direction and supervision of the activities of the human rights programme; carrying out special projects as assigned by the High Commissioner; representing the High Commissioner at meetings and by making statements on his or her behalf; monitoring oversight activities; advising the High Commissioner regarding field operations; and coordinating the development of regional strategies. It has also been proposed to strengthen the Office of the High Commissioner by the creation of a post of “Chief of Staff” (grade D-2) undertaking the following functions: assisting the High Commissioner in maintaining relations with Governments, United Nations agencies and entities, international organizations, regional and national institutions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the private sector and academia; maintaining liaison on policy matters with the Executive Office of the Secretary-General and other relevant offices at Headquarters, as well as with the spokespersons of the Secretary-General at New York and Geneva, and the media; carrying out fund-raising functions and special projects as assigned by the High Commissioner. Pending approval of this post, the Office has established a position, and engaged an official, at the L-7 level, financed from general temporary assistance. The major areas of responsibility of the new External Relations Branch are : resource mobilization, partnership with NGOs, media relations and communication strategy. These functions were previously under the responsibility of the Staff Office of the High Commissioner. The functions assigned to the proposed new Special Procedures Branch, i.e. to provide substantive and administrative support to human rights fact-finding and investigation mechanisms, were previously under the responsibility of APB. The programme budget proposals for 2004-2005 include specific arrangements and resources to address the issues of effectiveness and management. In order to implement the above changes, the Office has included in its proposed programme budget for the biennium 2004-2005 a request for eight new posts (one D-2, one D-1, two P-5, three P-4, and one P-3) and the conversion from temporary assistance of five posts (one P-5, one P-4, and three P-3). In its related report, the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) has recommended the establishment of two P-5 posts (one on a temporary basis), three P-4 posts and the conversion of the five posts previously funded through temporary assistance. Consideration of the establishment of the D-2 post, referred to in paragraph 14 above, is to be postponed to give the new High Commissioner the opportunity to review the matter. ACABQ recommended against the creation of the remaining proposed posts. The Inspector has noted a degree of overlapping between the functions of the Deputy High Commissioner and those to be undertaken by the new Chief of Staff. The creation of an L-7 post, a level equivalent to D-2, is not consistent with the request of the General Assembly for a streamlined management. In this respect, it adds another layer to the current management structure in which the grades of the chiefs of branch or section reporting directly to the High Commissioner ranged from D-1 to P-5. ACABQ also observed that the functions assigned to this position overlap with those of the Deputy High Commissioner and of the Director of the New York Office of OHCHR and, furthermore, that an official at the L-7 level had already been selected and has been carrying out responsibilities since early July 2003, notwithstanding the fact that it was not submitted to the Committee for the review required by General Assembly resolution 35/217, section II, paragraph 2. ACABQ expressed concern about the action taken by the Secretariat to establish this L-7 position, which, in effect, prejudges the outcome of the consideration by the General Assembly of the question of the D-2 post, and recommended that consideration of the establishment of the D-2 post be postponed to give the new High Commissioner the opportunity to review the matter. The Inspector cannot but concur in the views of ACABQ referred to above. He is of the view that the post and the functions to be undertaken by the Chief of Staff should be reconsidered. The functions assigned to it, described above in paragraph 14, are not consistent with the title of “Chief of Staff”. The post was initially intended to strengthen the management of the Office, a function that, in the Inspector's view, should be exercised by the High Commissioner and his Deputy. With regard to the establishment of the Special Procedures Branch (SPB), the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2004-2005 included proposals for a D-1 post as head of the Branch, a P-5 post and a P-4 post to strengthen the thematic teams. In its report ACABQ recommended against the establishment of the D-1 post, notwithstanding the fact that other heads of branch are graded at the D-1 level. The Inspector welcomes the establishment of an Information Management and Technology Section reporting directly to the Deputy High Commissioner. The Information Technology and Management Unit was previously part of RRDB. He concurs with the idea of an independent information management unit able to establish, plan, implement and oversee an overall information management strategy for the Office, a strategy that does not exist at present. The new section should maintain constant dialogue with the relevant entities within the United Nations Secretariat. This would allow for an independent approach to the servicing of the information management requirements of the various branches, and would enable benefiting from the synergies derived from a closer cooperation with the Secretariat and maximizing the impact of the very limited resources available in this area, which might otherwise be wasted in scattered and partial initiatives. The Inspector believes that most of the proposals made by the Office are sound and constitute a first step in improving the effectiveness and management of the Office. The creation of two new branches, one focused on a much-needed improvement in the support provided to the Special Procedures and the other on the development of a comprehensive communication strategy combined with fund-raising activities, should lead to a better functioning of the Office. The proposals made address the major structural problems faced by the Office, which have been highlighted in different reports and are, in general, consistent with requests made by the General Assembly, which has encouraged the Secretary-General to improve and streamline the management of the Office. The executive direction of the Office is exercised by the High Commissioner, assisted by the Deputy High Commissioner. The Policy Review and Management Board Committee is the main body involved in the executive management of the Office. The restructuring being undertaken by the Office is in response to various organizational recommendations contained in previous reviews. Notably, the OIOS review highlighted the need for a “detailed strategy for the Office, from which the medium - and longer-term tangible objectives of the OHCHR organizational units and operational activities should be derived”. Although some progress has been made in this regard, the lack of a clear long-term strategy and its communication remains an issue. Interviews with management and staff confirm this point, which has been further reaffirmed in the results of the questionnaire distributed to staff (see chap. VII and annex II below). More than 60 percent of the staff believe that there is no clear long-term strategy and that, if there is any, it is not properly communicated. This underlines a managerial problem, as management should point the direction to follow and lead the way. The leadership capacity of management is questioned by more than half of the staff overall, with stronger criticism within the APB and the Administrative Section, which confirms the managerial nature of most of the issues that need to be addressed. The numerous reviews and audits have produced a considerable number of recommendations, many of which have not been fully implemented yet. The Office management knows now what needs to be done and the emphasis should be placed on implementation and follow-up. The lack of action on recommendations and of adequate follow-up mechanisms are major deficiencies which highlight a managerial problem. It is noted, however, that the Office is trying to implement, in a structured manner, some of those recommendations through the proposals contained in its proposed programme budget for the biennium 2004-2005. Additionally, a draft plan of action has been prepared in line with “Action 2” of the Secretary-General's report entitled “Strengthening of the United Nations: an agenda for further change”, which recommends the strengthening of national human rights promotion and protection systems. The plan aims at developing the ability of the United Nations system to provide an integrated and consistent response to Member States that request support in developing the capacities of their national systems. The United Nations country teams are basic vehicles for the plan. In this respect, the Inspector believes that the organigram of the proposed Capacity-building and Field Operations Branch should be revised. The National Institutions Team might be integrated within the different geographical teams, as it makes little sense to provide support for national institutions outside of the area of activity of the different geographical teams. National institutions are a key area, intrinsically linked to the support and development of human rights policies within any geographical area. The Office, through its strategic plan, should seek ways to make use of its resources in the most efficient way. In particular, it should find a balance between preventive human rights action and reaction to human rights violations. This dilemma is a very complex one, to which this review does not claim to provide answers through simple recommendations, but the way ahead has been highlighted by the Secretary-General in his reform programme, describing human rights as an area cutting across each of the four substantive fields of work of the United Nations: peace and security, economic and social affairs, development cooperation and humanitarian affairs. The Office must continue to focus both on prevention and reaction. However, while preventive human rights action is fundamental and a core area in the Office's mandate, and requires a specific know-how only available within the Office, reaction to human rights violations and the implementation of field operations should be channelled through operational partners whenever possible. The draft action plan for strengthening human rights at country level is a positive initiative focused on prevention, and the Office should draw another action plan detailing measures to develop cooperation with different partners such as NGOs, specialized agencies and United Nations programmes. The relatively limited experience of the Office in field operations in comparison with other United Nations programmes, combined with a chronic lack of regular resources, call for a higher degree of cooperation with United Nations agencies that have a large and well-established field presence. This would allow the Office to benefit from the field experience of more experienced partners, as well as from synergies deriving from a United Nations common approach to a specific situation, leading to a more rational use of resources. Field operations conducted exclusively by OHCHR should be limited to a minimum and to those cases where it has been proven that no alternative exists. The Administrative Section provides programme-support services for all substantive and operational activities of the Office. These services relate to financial and human resources planning and management, as well as general office administration. The Section also performs a number of additional functions with respect to extrabudgetary activities, including management of contributions, oversight of project formulation, coordination of executing agents providing operational and logistical support for OHCHR activities and security coordination for the Office. The Administrative Section was strengthened recently and is structured in three areas: human resources management, budget and finance and General Services and Field Support. As for other areas, a number of recommendations were made in recent audits, which are currently under implementation. OIOS indicated that “ … to achieve further improvements, the capacity of the administration needs to be further enhanced both in terms of its numerical strength and its expertise, with special emphasis on its support to the field presence”. In this regard, the Administrative Section represents 5 percent of the total staff of the Office (including field offices and project staff administered by partners), or 10 percent of the staff if field- office staff are excluded. The Inspector believes that this is a reasonable quantitative level of resources, particularly considering that Geneva-based project staff are administered by the United Nations Office at Geneva (UNOG) and field project staff by United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) and that there may be room to further improve staff productivity through the optimal use of information technology. The support provided by the Administrative Section to the field representations remains an area in which there is room for considerable improvement. For instance, there is no established system to account for the assets of field representations. The Administrative Section should establish such a system and develop a field administrative procedures manual. Following several recommendations, the Office is engaged in the development and implementation of a “core management system”, with a view to improving systems and procedures needed to manage the Office's human and financial resources. This activity began in 2001 and, according to the information obtained through interviews or provided in several papers published by the Office, such as the Annual Appeal, is focused on five main elements: the development of a data warehouse, contributions management, financial management, project management and human resources management. The core management system is not yet fully operational. In this respect, it should be recalled that the Office is part of the Secretariat of the United Nations. The Secretariat heavily relies on its Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) as its main management information system covering the different areas of activity. The report of the Secretary-General entitled “Information and communication technology strategy” indicates that: “At the core of the administrative structure and workflows is IMIS, which supports personnel, finance, payroll, procurement, travel and related administrative functions. Its integrated database ensures the integrity of data and single-source input to the Organization's financial statements and related reporting…. A premise of the proposed [information and communications technology] ICT strategy is that IMIS will continue to play a pre-eminent role in the administrative processes of the Secretariat for at least the next five years…”. Bearing the above in mind, the need for the Office to develop a parallel system, the core management system, is not reasonable. IMIS is used at OHCHR and is fully operational for financial and human resources management. Furthermore, scheduled developments include projects such as “IMIS in the field”, “IMIS on the Web” and a “Project Management Information System”, among others. The Office should develop a clear information technology strategy, taking the strategic plan developed by the Secretariat of the United Nations as a starting point and building on it. The Office might have some specific needs not yet covered by IMIS, in particular issues related to project management, but a closer communication with the central Secretariat in this respect would be very beneficial for the Office. In the past, there were some difficulties in the relationship of the Office with some implementing partners - UNOPS and UNOG, in particular. In this case, delays by UNOPS in reporting expenditures incurred in the context of its cooperation with the Office created some problems. The Board of Auditors noted that the Office planned to transfer all headquarters-based projects from UNOPS to UNOG and recommended that OHCHR draft a memorandum of understanding with UNOPS to cover the remaining operations entrusted to it. Subsequently, the arrangements between the two parties were revised. Most of the staff working in headquarters-based projects are being administered by UNOG since 1 January 2003. Regarding the relationship with UNOG, although some improvements have been made, delays in the issuing of allotments were reported by the Office. A memorandum of understanding between the parties is in the process of being finalized in order to reach the necessary service level agreements. Implementation should be expedited, given the fact that the cooperation between the two parties started about one year ago. In accordance with the mandate given to JIU by the Commission for this management review, it focuses on this key area and addresses the issues of the imbalanced geographical distribution, the contractual situation of staff, as well as several aspects of human resources management raised through the analysis of the answers included in the questionnaire distributed to staff. Additionally, a staff profile has been drawn with special emphasis on gender, type of contract and distribution of grades among staff. The relevant graphic charts can be found in annex I to the present report. Geographical distribution of the staff The unbalanced geographical distribution of staff is a serious problem. It has been highlighted by the Commission, which expressed its concern in this regard several times during the past years. In fact, the request to correct the imbalance has repeatedly been conveyed by the Commission through different resolutions (1997/76, 1998/46, 1999/70, 2000/73, 2001/78, 2002/80 and 2003/74) since 1997, when the current arrangements for the Office were introduced. Each of the above resolutions was followed, as requested by the Commission, by a report of the High Commissioner on the composition of the staff of the Office, including regular and non-regular staff, listing them by region according to the five groups established by the General Assembly (African States, Asian States, Latin American and Caribbean States, Western European and Other States and Eastern European States) and indicating grade, nationality and gender. During these past years, despite the repeated requests by the Commission, the imbalance in geographical distribution has worsened. The figures below show the geographical distribution of staff in the past six years and have been taken from the relevant High Commissioner's reports, which reflected the situation as at 1 December 2002. These figures have been supplemented and updated, with the inclusion of data as at 1 October 2003 under the last column of the table. Table 3 Posts subject to geographical distribution (1) Source: E/CN.4/2003/111, 10 December 2002. (2) Source: OHCHR, 1 October 2003. Table 4 Posts not subject to geographical distribution (1) Source: E/CN.4/2003/111, 10 December 2002. (2) Source: OHCHR, 1 October 2003. Table 5 Total posts (1) Source: E/CN.4/2003/111, 10 December 2002. (2) Source: OHCHR, 1 October 2003. The Commission repeatedly requested the Office to include in the High Commissioner's report the measures adopted to improve the current situation and their results. The Office's answers to these requests have included different proposals, repeated in the High Commissioner's reports of 2000 (E/CN.4/2001/100, 5 December 2000), 2001 (E/CN.4/2002/115, 28 December 2001) and 2002 (E/CN.4/2003/111, 10 December 2002). The following measures have been taken by the Office, as indicated in the relevant High Commissioner's reports: Establishment and subsequent strengthening of the OHCHR Advisory Panel on Personnel Issues. This internal management body has been entrusted with the responsibility of evaluating all recommendations for filling temporary posts at OHCHR headquarters and in the field, upgrading temporary staff, and lateral transfers, with a view to ensuring the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity, as well as equitable geographical distribution; Systematic development of job descriptions and consistent advertisement of vacancies in respect of temporary positions at OHCHR headquarters and in the field, and circulation of openings on the OHCHR web site. Another initiative reportedly taken by the Office to promote the recruitment of nationals of developing countries, in the context of the mainstreaming of human rights throughout the United Nations system, is the enhancement of its roster of applicants. This could indeed prove very useful, particularly when the Office is called upon to provide assistance for recruitment at short notice to other United Nations departments such as the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the Department of Political Affairs in connection with peacekeeping and related operations. In an effort to widen the pool of candidates for human rights positions, the High Commissioner recommended that the Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM) establish a human rights occupational group. It was felt that such a measure would contribute to attracting to the area of human rights qualified junior professionals from unrepresented and underrepresented countries. OHRM agreed and in May 2001 OHRM organized a specialized human rights competitive examination in which nationals of 17 Member States participated. Nevertheless, the measures described above have not yet helped to improve the situation, as reflected in tables 3, 4 and 5 above and as confirmed by the geographical distribution of new recruitments during the period 1 January 2002 - 1 June 2003. Table 6 below shows that recruitments during this period still reflect a biased situation, with a predominant number of recruitments from one region, i.e. Western European and Other States. Table 6 OHCHR recruitments for the period 1 January 2002 to 1 June 2003* * Source: data provided by OHCHR, June 2003. With respect to the measures taken by the Office to reduce the imbalance in the geographical distribution of the staff, it should be noted that the establishment of the Advisory Panel on Personnel Issues, although a reasonable initiative, should have taken into consideration the geographical distribution of its very membership. The current composition of the Panel is considerably inequitable, with only one member out of six, being from a developing country. The Office should redefine the composition of the Panel with a view to reflecting a more balanced geographical distribution of its membership. Regarding the second initiative taken by the Office to improve the geographical balance of its staff, namely, “a systematic development of job descriptions and consistent advertisement of vacancies in respect of temporary positions at OHCHR headquarters and in the field, and circulation of openings on the OHCHR web site”, it is not clear how this action could significantly help to solve the issue considering that candidates from developing countries may have limited access to Internet facilities. The Inspector believes that the action taken by the Office, recommending that OHRM establish a human rights occupational group, is a very positive initiative. However, it would have been more effective had the Office provided OHRM with a list of the countries unrepresented and underrepresented at the Office, which are not necessarily the same as for the Secretariat as a whole. Following the specialized examination, there are currently 12 candidates on the roster, 11 of whom are from Western European countries. In this regard, it should be recalled that the Office is part of the United Nations Secretariat, which, in accordance with a number of General Assembly resolutions, submits annually an official report to the Assembly on the composition of the staff at the global Secretariat level and not at the departmental level. This fact might lead to contradictory situations, where a specific country belonging to one of those regions underrepresented within the Office might be one of those overrepresented at the Secretariat level, or vice versa. In order to avoid this type of inconsistencies, a list should be compiled annually of those countries, which are either unrepresented or underrepresented within the Office, and the Secretariat should take that list into consideration when organizing specialized human rights competitive examinations. Given the fact that the composition of the staff of the United Nations Secretariat is assessed at the global Secretariat level and that there are no specific indicators of what would be an optimal balanced geographical distribution of the staff at the departmental level, OHRM might consider the possibility of providing guidance to the Office, indicating the target figures to be achieved for each of the regional groups established by the General Assembly. The General Assembly, in paragraphs 32 and 33 of its resolution 57/305 of 15 April 2003, reiterated its request to the Secretary-General to further increase his efforts to improve the composition of the Secretariat by ensuring a wide and equitable geographical distribution of staff in all departments, and requested the Secretary-General “to hold the heads of relevant departments accountable for the human resources action plans and to ensure that they in turn take due account of equitable geographical representation when considering candidates on the lists endorsed by the central review bodies, as well as on the rosters, and to report to the General Assembly annually on progress made by departments in the implementation of their respective human resources action plans”. The inequity in the geographical distribution of the staff of the Office is an issue that can only be solved through a determined management action. In this respect, the High Commissioner should prepare an action plan aimed at reducing the current imbalance and indicating specific targets and deadlines to be achieved. Post and contractual issues The heavy dependency on voluntary funding, highlighted in several reviews, is a major issue, which has a considerable impact on the overall management of the Office. In particular, human resources management cannot but be deeply influenced by the reliance on voluntary funding. A considerable number of core functions are supported by voluntary contributions and many of the core-function posts are occupied by project personnel. As a consequence, there is a wide diversity in the existing types of contracts for extra-budgetary posts, which has resulted in contractual instability and staff dissatisfaction. At its 18th meeting, held on 23 June 2003, the Committee for Programme and Coordination considered section 24, Human Rights, of the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2004-2005. Endorsing a recommendation made by OIOS, it was decided that a new expected accomplishment should be included in the programme budget as follows: “Systematic action is taken to reclassify all posts in the new organizational structure according to their levels and types of service and to decide whether they belong to the 100 or 200 series”. Additionally, the Committee requested that a new measurement of achievement be included as follows: “ The reduction in the number of staff under the 200 series of staff rules performing core functions of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights”. In September 2003, the Office submitted a proposal to UNOG addressing staff contractual issues. The proposal was aimed at reducing the number of 200-series contracts of staff performing core functions by converting their 200-series contracts administered by UNOG since 1 January 2003 into 100-series contracts, “limited to service with OHCHR”. The Office proposed to align gradually its recruitment and contractual policies with those of the United Nations Secretariat once the proposed regularization is made. The proposal goes against the staff selection process currently in place within the Secretariat, as it implies that P-2 and P-3 posts might be filled by staff who have not gone through the National Competitive Examination (NCE) process, as mandated by the General Assembly. At the same time, it is to be noted that current staff in P-2 posts filled through the NCE process are subject to stringent mobility and promotion conditions that would not be applicable to those staff regularized under this proposal. Additionally, the Office is requesting that all P-4-level posts advertised on Galaxy, regardless of whether they are funded from the regular budget or extrabudgetary sources, be open to the “60 days candidates” to allow those staff members who have not gone through the Appointment and Promotion Board, the Central Review Bodies or the NCE channels to apply for a post under the same conditions as those who have. This implies giving the same treatment to both internal and external candidates, which also runs against current administrative rules as described in the applicable administrative instruction. As of the time of writing the present report, no official decision has been made by the OHRM with regard to this request. The Inspector considers that fair treatment should be given to those staff members whose contracts are in the process of being regularized and that their contribution to the work of the Office must be recognized. At the same time, however, the acquired rights of regular staff should be respected. A possible transition period of one year could be offered, regularizing and extending contracts “limited to service with OHCHR”, under the 100 series, only for core-functions posts, with or without break in service. This should not be a major concern as the “break-in-service” can be managed by the Office in order to avoid the coincidence of a high number of staff taking the break of service at the same time. Once this transition period has ended, the Office should align its recruitment processes with those in place at that time within the Secretariat, in particular the use of the Galaxy system. According to the figures provided by the Office in June 2003 regarding the breakdown of staff by contract type and as indicated in table 1 of annex I, the current contractual mix shows that 45 percent of the staff have fixed-term appointments and 30 percent hold short-term appointments. Only 10 percent of staff have permanent contracts and 2 percent hold probationary appointments. Although the number of short-term appointments might seem high, the current funding structure of the Office and its dependency on voluntary funding justifies such figure. It has been reported that the Office does not always comply with established policies for the determination of post classification criteria before advertising extrabudgetary posts, a practice that should be corrected. The subjects included under this section are the conclusions drawn after the analysis of the questionnaire, which was distributed electronically to 269 staff members, 150 answers having being received. This high response rate (56 percent) shows one of the strong points of the Office, which is the commitment of the majority of its staff to seeking improvements and offering constructive criticism. In an effort to add value to the present report, the results of the questionnaire, broken down by branch and including the total for the Office, are attached as annex II. It is hoped that these results will be helpful for the management of the Office. Strategy. 62 percent of staff believe that there is not a well-defined, long-term strategy within OHCHR. This issue has also been repeatedly raised during the interviews conducted. Senior management should take note, prepare and communicate a strategic plan, as recommended in previous reviews. Objectives and performance appraisal. Staff members know their individual objectives (74 percent) and those of their team, unit or service (72 percent). Branch objectives are known (52 percent) but to a lesser extent. On the other hand, more than half of the staff, or 55 percent, believe that the current performance appraisal system (PAS) is not fairly and evenly applied. This issue was also raised in various interviews. Job descriptions appear to be consistent with the current work undertaken by the staff in general. However, there are discrepancies between branches with regard to workload and training results. It is hoped that the results, attached as annex II, will form the basis for the necessary analysis and, if needed, the subsequent action plans to be devised by the management of each branch. Leadership. More than half of the staff consider that both senior and middle-level management do not provide strong leadership. This, again, highlights a managerial problem. In this respect, OIOS indicated in its review that “middle-level managerial culture could benefit from more consistency and professionalism”, requesting the top leadership to infuse a healthy dose of managerial discipline at all levels, to conduct management training as required and to hold managers accountable for discharging their responsibilities. The Inspector concurs with the view expressed by OIOS and wishes to stress that managers need to give staff a clear sense of purpose and direction. On the positive side, results obtained from the questionnaire show that the staff feel empowered to carry out their duties, that teamwork is encouraged and that the opinions of the staff are taken into consideration on decisions affecting their work. Transparency. This is a major issue within the Office, as 73 percent of the staff do not believe that transparency is a guiding principle in decision-making. This could only be solved through improved communication processes. Most of the branches, sections or units hold regular communication meetings, but that is not enough to develop a sense of transparency. Management should look into the quality of communication and adopt a more open approach to decision-making. Contractual arrangements. The response to the question as to satisfaction with contractual arrangements (Q.15), to which 49 percent responded positively, can be explained by the fact that 81 percent of the answers received were sent by staff holding either permanent or fixed-term contracts. Career development and mobility. 66 percent of the answers show a strong desire among staff members to develop their respective careers within OHCHR, although only 27 percent of the staff who answered believe that this is possible. At the moment, there is no career counselling facility within OHCHR, and consideration should be given to providing such facility. As to mobility, 61 percent of the staff who answered the questionnaire would like to have the possibility of developing part of their careers in the field. Only 24 percent of the staff who answered are not interested in participating in field operations. Geographical distribution. Although this issue has already been dealt with in this review, it is important to note that more than half of the staff who answered (53 percent) believe that there is not a balanced representation of different nationalities within the Office. Additionally, 56 percent of the answers indicate that a different mix of nationalities would be of significant benefit to OHCHR. Overall staff satisfaction. This does not seem to be a problem according to the answers received (47 percent of the answers show a reasonable level of satisfaction with current work, 11 percent are very satisfied and only 20 percent of the answers correspond to low and very low levels of satisfaction). In order to fully understand this result, the profile of staff who answered should be considered, in particular the high percentage (81 percent) of those who hold either permanent or fixed-term contracts, as well as the 69 percent of answers received from professional staff. Additionally, it is to be noted that 60 percent of the answers received came from staff with a seniority of less than five years. Annex I Staff distribution by type of contract28 Table 1: Staff distribution by type of contract28 Gender distribution29 Table 2.1: Gender distribution (total staff)29 Table 2.2: General service staff29 Table 2.3: Professional staff29 Table 2.4: Gender distribution by grade (professional)29 Table 2.5: Gender distribution by branch30 Staff distribution by grade31 Table 3: Professional staff distribution by grade31 Staff distribution by branch and office31 Table 4.1: Staff distribution by branch and office31 Staff distribution by type of contract Table 1 Gender distribution Table 2.1 Table 2.4 Staff distribution by grade Table 3 Staff distribution by branch and office Table 4.1 Annex II Analysis of questionnaire distributed to OHCHR staff * The original questionnaire had five possible choices for every question, for ease of reference answers have been grouped together (“strongly agree” has been grouped with the “agree” option, and “strongly disagree” has been grouped with the “disagree” option). E/2002/INF/2/Add.2, decision 2002/272. A/51/950, para. Management review of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Report of the Secretary-General on the activities of the Office of Internal Oversight Services, (A/57/488). Organization of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, (ST/SGB/1997/10). Ibid. A/58/7/Add.12. Ibid. A/57/488, para. A/57/488, para 54. A/57/620, paras. 35 and 37. A/57/5(Vol. I), paras 230 and 231. Proposed programme budget for the biennium 2004-2005, Part VI Human rights and humanitarian affairs, Section 24 Human rights, (A/58/6 (Sect.24)), 10 June 2003. Programme questions: proposed programme budget for the biennium 2004-2005, Committee for Programme and Coordination, (E/AC.51/2003/L.5/Add.25), 3 July 2003. Ibid. Staff selection system, Administrative instruction, (ST/AI/2002/4), 23 April 2002. * Data as provided by OHCHR in November 2003. Table 2.3 Table 2.2