SIXTY-FIFTH WORLD HEALTH ASSEMBLY Provisional agenda item 19.1
A65/38 3 May 2012
Election of the Director-General of the World Health Organization: report of the Working Group
The Director-General has the honour to transmit to the World Health Assembly the report of the Working Group of Member States on the Process and Methods of the Election of the Director-General of the World Health Organization (see Annex) and a draft resolution (see Appendix). The Working Group met in Geneva from 11 to 13 April 2012.1
This report responds to the decision of the Executive Board in EB130(7) to convene a follow-up session of the Working Group to further explore discussed proposals and finalize its work ahead of the Sixty-fifth World Health Assembly.
1
A65/38 8
ANNE EX REP PORT OF THE WOR RKING GR ROUP OF MEMBER M R STATES O ON THE PROCESS P AND ME ETHODS OF O THE E ELECTION N OF THE DIRECTO D OR-GENER RAL OF THE WORL LD HEALT TH ORGAN NIZATION N
INTR RODUCTI ION 1. The Worki ing Group of o Member States on th he Process and a Methods s of the Ele ection of the e Direc ctor-General of the World Health Org ganization met m in Genev va from 11 to o 13 April 20 012 and was s chaire ed by Amba assador Tan Yee Y Woan ( Singapore), with the foll lowing Vice-Chairs: Mr Faiyaz Kazi i (Bang gladesh), Dr r Mokhtar Warida W (Egyp pt), Mr Jacqu ues Pellet (Fr rance), Dr M Masato Mugitani (Japan), , Mr C Colin McIff (United Stat tes of Ameri ica) and Mrs s Petronellar r Nyagura (Z Zimbabwe). The session n was a attended by 81 8 Member States S and on ne regional economic inte egration orga anization. 2. The Worki ing Group’s discussions w were charact terized by a spirit of goo odwill and fle exibility and d were conducted with w a view to t enhancing g fairness, tra ansparency and a equity am mong the Me ember States s of the e six region ns of the Wo orld Health O Organization n with respec ct to the pro ocess of nom mination and d appoi intment of the Director-General. Th he third session of the Working W Gro oup built on n discussions s held at its second d session1 an nd its first se ession.2 Mem mbers of the Working Gr roup expressed hope that t they w would conclu ude their wo ork during the e third sessio on. 3. At the req quest of the e Working G Group at its s second se ession, the S Secretariat prepared p the e follow wing three documents: d key k principle s of a code of o conduct,3 specific mod dalities for a candidates’ ’ forum m,4 and spec cific modalit ties for a rig gorous scree ening proces ss at the Ex xecutive Boa ard.5 A draft t resolu ution prepare ed by the Ch hair was con nsidered an im mportant step p towards ag greement, as it contained d d equitable geographic all th he elements s of a “pac ckage” agre eement, nam mely, proposals: to add c representation as an overarch hing conside eration in th he nominatio on and appoi intment proc cess; for the e Execu utive Board to nominate e more than one candida ate to the World Health Assembly; to t develop a code of conduct; to establish a candidates s’ forum ope en to all Mem mber States; and to hold d a review of f the re evised process after the election e of th he next Direc ctor-General l. The Chair’ ’s draft resol lution served d as the e basis for th he deliberatio ons of the Wo orking Group p. 4. The Worki ing Group ag greed that eq quitable geog graphical repr resentation s should be an overarching g consi ideration in the t nominatio on and appoi intment proc cess.
1 2 3 4 5
Outlined in document EB130/29 Corr.1. Outlined in document A64/41. /2. Document EB/EDG/WG/3 E /3. Document EB/EDG/WG/3 E /4. Document EB/EDG/WG/3 E
3
A65/38
Annex A
The roles of the Exec cutive Boar rd and Wor rld Health Assembly 5. The W Working Gro oup discusse ed a proposa al to send mo ore than one candidate fr rom the Executive Board to th he Health Assembly as a way of stren ngthening th he democratic nature of t the process. There was substan ntial discussion on the nu umber of, and d process by which, cand didates would d be nominat ted by the Executiv ve Board for r the conside eration of the e Health Ass sembly; whether the cand didates sent to the Health Ass sembly shou uld come fro om different t regions; and a whether priority sho hould be giv ven to candidates f from regions s from which h a Director-G General has not n been elec cted yet. 6. In co onsidering th he proposal to t send more e than one candidate from the Execu utive Board to the Health Asse embly, the Working W Grou up highlight ted the need to maintain a balance be etween the ro oles of the Executiv ve Board and d the Health Assembly, w while not we eakening the role of the E Executive Bo oard in the nomina ation process. Agreemen nt was reac ched that th hree candidates should b be sent from m the Executive B Board to the Health Asse embly, as fa ar as practica able, and the e modalities of the nomin nation and appoint tment proces sses were to be b further de eveloped.
Code of co onduct 7. There e was discus ssion on a proposal p for a code of co onduct and agreement a th hat one shou uld be developed i in line with recommenda r tion 7 of the e JIU report on o “Selection n and Condit tions of Serv vice of Executive H Heads in the United Nations System Organization ns”.1 It was pointed p out t that key prin nciples of such a co ode could inc clude: (a) (b) promotion of equal opp portunities am mong candid dates; o a position of power; abstention from abuse of
(c) prohibition n of unethic cal practices s such as promises, p fav vours, invita ations, gifts, etc., provi ided by cand didates or th heir supportin ng governme ents, during the selectio on and nomin nation proce ess; (d) (e) (f) (g) f other partie es to campaig gn and dissem minate their i ideas; respect for the rights of compliance e and accoun ntability; rules of com mmunication n; and rules for in nternal candid dates.
There 8. e was agree ement that th he Secretaria at should de evelop optio ons on a cod de of condu uct for consideratio on by the Six xty-sixth Wo orld Health A Assembly th hrough the 13 32nd session n of the Executive Board, build ding on Key y principles of o a code of c conduct,2 an nd taking into o account be est practices across a the United N Nations.
1 2
See d document JIU/R REP/2009/8. Docu ument EB/EDG G/WG/3/2.
4
Annex x
A65/38 8
Cand didates’ for rum 9. The Work king Group agreed that a candidate es’ forum sh hould be es stablished, which w would d provi ide an oppor rtunity for al ll candidates s to make themselves and their visio on known to all Member r States s1 on an equ ual footing. The Group p pointed out that possible e options for r the timing of a forum, , includ de: cutive Board (a) several weeks in n advance of f the nomina ation process s by the Exec d, soon after r the candida ates’ names are a communi icated to Me ember States; ; and (b) (c) imm mediately befo ore or at the margins of the Executive e Board;2 in th he context of the Executiv ve Board.
The Worki ing Group also a consider red whether the intervie ews conducte ed in the co ontext of the e candi idates’ forum m would com mplement or r replace those e conducted during d the Ex xecutive Boa ard. 10. The Secret tariat was req quested to d develop optio ons for a can ndidates’ foru rum for cons sideration by y the Sixty-sixth World W Health Assembly, t through the Executive E Bo oard, buildin ng on Specifi ic modalities s for a candidates’ forum3 and taking t into a account best practices, su uch as the can andidates’ for rum recently y held b by the Intern national Labo our Organiza ation.
Crite eria 11. The Worki ing Group di iscussed a re evision to the e criteria con ntained in re esolution EB97.R10. The e Work king Group underscored u the t paramou unt importanc ce of professional qualific ications and integrity i and d the ne eed to pay due d regard to equitable ge eographical representatio r on, and gende er balance in n the process s leadin ng to the nom mination of the t candidate es that should d be submitte ed to the Hea alth Assembly. 12. The Worki ing Group considered c to ools to prom mote the effe ective applica d ation of the criteria and proce edures for de eveloping a shortlist, inc cluding: dev velopment of f a standard form for the e curriculum m vitae of candidate es and a que estionnaire to o accompany y the standar rd form; requ uirement of professional l refere ences as a part p of the ap pplication pa ackage; and developmen nt of specific c modalities to make the e Board d screening process mo ore inclusive e of all Member States. The Secre etariat was requested r to o devel lop appropriate tools to enhance the e Board’s eff fective application of the e revised lis st of criteria, , build ding on Speci ific modaliti ies for a rigo orous screeni ing process,4 for consider eration by the e Sixty-sixth h Worl ld Health Ass sembly and submitted s thr rough the Ex xecutive Boa ard.
Vaca ancy annou uncement 13. The Worki ing Group di iscussed a pr roposal to us se additional media such as relevant publications, p , periodicals and web w sites, par rticularly the e WHO web site and soci ial media in announcing the vacancy y for th he post of the Director-G General in or rder to raise awareness of qualified c candidates ab bout the post t 1 2 3 4
And, where applicable, reg gional economic c integration organizations. See docume ent EB/EDG/WG/3/3, paragrap ph 3. Document EB/EDG/WG/3 E /3. /4. Document EB/EDG/WG/3 E
5
A65/38
Annex A
on as wide a geographi ical basis as possible. At t the same time, it was noted that ca andidacies for f the post are pro oposed exclusively by Me ember States s and that the e use of some e of the med dia proposed might not be appro opriate or co ost-effective.
Review pr rocess 14. The W Working Gro oup agreed th hat, within on ne year of th he election of f the next Dir irector-Gener ral, an evaluation of the revised process and a methods s for the ele ection of the Director-G General shou uld be conducted b by the Execu utive Board. Such an eval luation could d be undertak ken during a regular or special session of th he Board or through a Working W Grou up establishe ed by the Board. There w was agreemen nt that the evaluati ion should al llow for equal participati ion by all Member M States1 and that th he outcome report of the evalu uation should d be submitte ed to the Hea alth Assembl ly.
Amendme ents to the Rules R of Pr rocedure 15. The W Working Gro oup consider red the moda alities of the e nomination and appoint tment proces ss and potential am mendments to the Rule es of Proced dure of the Executive Board B and t the World Health H Assembly. I In this conte ext, a range of o views wer re expressed d on the appr roach that sh hould be used d, and the extent to o which the Working Gr roup should p provide guid dance to the Executive E B oard on ame ending the Rules of Procedur re, such as with respe ct to specif fically ident tifying Rule es that shou uld be maintained or amended. . 16. The Secretariat outlined o Rul les of Proce edure that would w potent tially have t to be amend ded to implement the resolutio on, particula arly in conne ection with the t proposal ls for: the B Board to nom minate three candid dates to the Health Asse embly; the H Health Assem mbly to appo oint the Direc ctor-General l from among three candidates s; and the est tablishment of a candida ates’ forum. In this regar rd, Rule 52 of the Rules of Pr rocedure of the t Executiv ve Board and d Rules 107 and 108 of the Rules of f Procedure of the World Heal lth Assembly y would pote entially requi ire amendme ent. didates out of the 17. The S Secretariat outlined o som me possible m modalities fo or nominatin ng three cand eceiving the shortlist, in ncluding the following: (1) rounds o of voting in n which the candidate re e least number of votes would be droppe ed until arri iving at thre ee candidate es; (2) selec ction of the three candidates w which obtain ned the highe est number o of votes in a single round of voting; and (3) roun nds of voting whe ereby those candidates receiving r a majority of votes would receive th he nominatio on, as outlined in R Rule 51 of th he Rules of Procedure P of f the Executiv ve Board. 18. Durin ng the discus ssion, the Wo orking Group p noted that some existin ng procedure es of the Executive Board and the Health Assembly, A in nvolving sec cret ballots, shortlisting of candidate es and interv views, have been useful and effective. Moreover, M th here was dis scussion on the appropr riate majorit ty for electing the e Director-G General and agreement that the Ex xecutive Bo oard would consider tha at the Director-Ge eneral should d be elected by b a clear an nd strong maj jority. 19. It wa as noted that t possible am mendments would depe end upon fur rther work u undertaken by b the Executive B Board. Addi itional time would also be needed for a thorou ugh analysis s of the Rules of Procedure a and how the ey would be e affected by y the resolu ution. In this s regard, the e Working Group G requested th hat the Director-General l undertake such an ana alysis and pr resent to the e Executive Board B options for amendments s to the Rules s in order to implement the t resolution n.
1
And, , where applicab ble, regional ec conomic integra ation organizations.
6
Annex x
A65/38 8
ACT TION BY THE T HEAL LTH ASSEM MBLY 20. The Health h Assembly is invited to t take note of the t report of f the Working g Group and d to adopt the e draft resolution co ontained in the t Appendix x, which was s agreed in th he Working G Group by con nsensus.
7
A65/38
Annex
Appendix DRAFT RESOLUTION
The World Health Assembly, PP1 Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, inter alia, Article 101, paragraph 3; PP2 Having regard to the Constitution of the World Health Organization, including Article 31; PP3 Recalling resolution EB128.R14 on the Election of the Director-General of the World Health Organization, which established a time-bound and results-oriented Working Group on the process and methods of the election of the Director-General of WHO with a view to enhancing fairness, transparency, and equity among the Member States of the six regions of the Organization with respect to the process of nomination and appointment of the Director-General of WHO; PP4 Reaffirming that the qualifications of the candidates are of paramount importance in the selection and nomination process of the Director-General, and that due regard should be paid to the importance of recruiting future Directors-General on as wide a geographical basis as possible from Member States of the six regions of the Organization; PP5 Reaffirming the critical importance of the role of the Executive Board in the screening and nomination, and of the World Health Assembly in electing and appointing the Director-General, and therefore the need to consider ways to strengthen and improve relevant elements of these procedures; PP6 Having considered the report of the Working Group on the process and methods of the election of the Director-General of the World Health Organization,1 1. DECIDES that: (a) due regard shall be paid to the principle of equitable geographical representation in the overall process of nomination, election and appointment of the Director-General of WHO, being mindful at the same time that candidates appointed to this post have so far only come from three out of the six regions of the Organization, and that the paramount consideration of the necessity of securing the highest standard of efficiency, competence and integrity in the election and appointment of the Director-General shall be maintained; (b) the Executive Board will nominate three candidates for the Health Assembly’s consideration for the appointment of the Director-General, paying due regard to equitable geographical representation; (c) in exceptional circumstances, where the above is not practicable, such as where there is only one or two candidates, the Executive Board may decide to nominate less than three candidates for consideration by the Health Assembly for appointment as Director-General; 1
See document A65/38.
8
Annex
A65/38
(d) a code of conduct, in line with Recommendation 71 of the JIU’s report “Selection and Conditions of Service of Executive Heads in the United Nations System Organizations”,2 which candidates for the post of Director-General and Member States should undertake to observe and respect, will be developed by the Secretariat to be considered by the Sixty-sixth World Health Assembly through the Executive Board; (e) a candidates’ forum, open to all Member States,3 shall be established to provide a nondecision-making platform for candidates to make themselves and their vision known to Member States on an equal basis. The modalities of the candidates’ forum will be developed by the Secretariat to be considered by the Sixty-sixth World Health Assembly through the Executive Board; (f) the Executive Board should ensure that the nominated candidates fulfil the following criteria, while underscoring the paramount importance of professional qualifications and integrity, and the need to pay due regard to equitable geographical representation, as well as gender balance in the process leading to the nomination of the candidate(s) that should be submitted to the Health Assembly; he or she should have: (1) a strong technical background in a health field, including experience in public health; (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) exposure to and extensive experience in international health; demonstrable leadership skills and experience; excellent communication and advocacy skills; demonstrable competence in organizational management; sensitivity to cultural, social and political differences; strong commitment to the mission and objectives of WHO; good health condition required of all staff members of the Organization;
(9) sufficient skill in at least one of the official working languages of the Executive Board and the Health Assembly; (g) appropriate tool(s) to enhance the Executive Board’s effective application of the revised list of criteria will be developed by the Secretariat to be considered by the Sixty-sixth World Health Assembly through the Executive Board;
1 Recommendation 7: “The legislative/governing bodies of the United Nations system organizations should condemn and prohibit unethical practices such as promises, favours, invitations, gifts, etc., provided by candidates for the post of executive head or their supporting governments during the selection/election campaign, in return for favourable votes for certain candidates.” 2 3
See document JIU/REP/2009/8. And, where applicable, regional economic integration organizations.
9
A65/38
Annex
(h) an evaluation, open to all Member States,1 will be conducted by the Executive Board2 within one year from the appointment of the next Director-General, to assess the efficacy of the revised process and methods, in order to discuss any need for further enhancing fairness, transparency and equity among the Member States of the six regions of WHO; 2. REQUESTS the Executive Board to give effect to all the provisions outlined in paragraph 1 above and to submit a report on the implementation of this resolution to the Sixty-sixth World Health Assembly, with the exception of the report referred to in operative paragraph 1(h) which will be submitted to a later session of the Health Assembly; 3. FURTHER REQUESTS the Executive Board, in implementing operative paragraph 2, to do so on the understanding that some of the existing procedures of the Executive Board and Health Assembly such as those involving secret ballots, shortlisting, voting and interviewing of candidates have proven to be useful and effective and should be continued. The Executive Board will also consider that the Director-General should be appointed by a clear and strong majority at the Health Assembly; 4. REQUESTS the Director-General to propose to the Executive Board amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Executive Board in order to implement this resolution.
=
=
=
1 2
And, where applicable, regional economic integration organizations. This agenda item shall be an open meeting as per the Rules of Procedure of the Executive Board, Rule 7(b).
10