WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
ORGANISATION MONDIALE DE LA SANTE
REGIONAL OFFICE FOR THE WESTERN PACIFIC BUREAU REGIONAL DU PACIFIQUE OCCIDENTAL
REGIONAL COMMITTEE Sixtieth session Hong Kong (China) 21–25 September 2009 Provisional agenda item 17
WPR/RC60/12 1 July 2009 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH
PROCEDURE FOR NOMINATION OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
Article 52 of the Constitution of the World Health Organization provides that the head of the Regional Office shall be the Regional Director appointed by the Executive Board in agreement with the Regional Committee.1 During its fifty-ninth session, a proposal was submitted to the Regional Committee for possible ways to improve the procedure for the nomination of the Regional Director as laid down in Rule 51 of the Rules of Procedures of the Regional Committee of the Western Pacific. The Legal Counsel was requested to prepare a report on ways to improve the fairness of the nomination procedure, including options to address issues raised by Member States, taking into account best practices in WHO and other United Nations agencies . The Regional Committee is asked to review and consider the options presented in the report.
___________ 1
WHO Basic Documents, forty-sixth edition, 2007, p. 13.
WPR/RC60/12 page 2
NOMINATION OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR Report by the Legal Counsel
1. INTRODUCTION
The Regional Committee for the Western Pacific, at its fifty-ninth session, requested the Legal Counsel to prepare a report on possible ways to improve the fairness of the procedure for the nomination of the Regional Director. This matter was discussed at an informal meeting of representatives and the Regional Committee was informed of that discussion by its Chairperson. The Chairperson reported that during the informal meeting many Member States emphasized the importance of maintaining a level playing field among countries with different levels of development and economic resources, and of giving candidates a fair opportunity to present their vision and programmes to Member States. This included ensuring access by Member States to all candidates and vice versa. The Legal Counsel was requested to report on possible ways to improve the nomination process, taking into account best practices in WHO—including with regard to the nomination process for the Director-General—and other United Nations agencies. Rule 51 of the Rules of Procedure of the Regional Committee lays out the process for the nomination of the Regional Director. The Rule, in summary, requires Member States of the Region to propose one or more candidates, with the exception of the Director in office if he or she is available for reappointment, and regulates the conduct of the secret ballot that the Committee must hold to nominate a candidate. No additional measures or particular
processes are envisaged. In order to set this matter in a broader perspective, it should be noted that the nomination procedures for some other elected positions within WHO contain certain features to improve their fairness or to better ensure that the most qualified candidate is nominated. In particular, the procedures for the nomination of the Director-General, as well as of the Regional Directors for Africa, the Americas and Europe, have been revised for this purpose. Similarly, a few United Nations and United Nations-related agencies have introduced specific procedures leading to the nomination of their respective executive heads
WPR/RC60/12 page 3 for the purpose either of facilitating the building of consensus around a candidate or of enhancing the transparency and legitimacy of the overall process. The discussion during the fifty-ninth session of the Regional Committee for the Western Pacific showed that Member States were concerned both with the formal process of nomination by the Regional Committee as provided for in the Rules of Procedure, as well as with the varying abilities of Member States to effectively support their candidates in the light of different stages of development and the availability of economic resources. The latter issue, having to do with political and economic realities outside a constitutional process, is certainly the most difficult to address. At the same time, in view of the request from the Regional Committee, certain measures to at least partially redress the effect of an unequal distribution of resources may be envisaged. The Regional Committee, in particular, referred to the possibility for candidates to travel throughout the Region to present their vision and programmes to Member States.
2. MEASURES TO REDRESS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEMBER STATES
As noted above, the actual difference in resources between Member States—from the point of view of their ability to support their respective candidates—is possibly the most difficult issue to address as an international organization, as it does not concern the formal statutory process of submission of candidacies and nomination, but rather the inescapable consideration that different countries have different levels of resources at their disposal. Moreover, no measures to redress such differences have been taken either within WHO or in other United Nations system organizations. In view of the aforementioned suggestion to enable candidates to travel throughout the Region, a possible measure that could be envisaged is for the Regional Committee to establish a fund to at least partly defray the cost of travel by candidates from low-income countries to other Member States within the Region for the purpose of presenting their vision and programmes. The fund could either be financed with voluntary or assessed contributions (subject, of course, to approval by the World Health Assembly), or a combination of both. Requests to use the fund would be subject to clear criteria, in terms of eligibility as well as of maximum amounts that can be allocated, with such criteria to be approved by the Regional
WPR/RC60/12 page 4 Committee. The Regional Committee could also consider setting up a working group to monitor and review the management of the fund. Another possible measure could be the adoption by the Regional Committee of a code of conduct on expected behaviour by Member States of the Region during the nomination process. The code of conduct would not be binding but would rather express a political understanding by the Regional Committee about desirable behaviour by Member States on certain aspects that could increase the fairness of the process. It could, for example,
recommend that Member States facilitate meetings by candidates with their respective governmental authorities, even if the Member States themselves have proposed other candidates, and enable other Member States to meet with their candidates, if they so request. As noted, to the knowledge of the Legal Counsel there is no precedent for a code of conduct of this nature within the United Nations system. Should the Regional Committee wish to further consider this option, consideration could be given to possible precedents of codes of conduct used in national electoral processes. A third measure, which could form part of a code of conduct or could be the object of an ad hoc recommendation by the Regional Committee, would be to recommend that Member States not pursue bilateral visits by their respective candidates to other Member States, and conversely that they do not meet candidates bilaterally during the period leading to the Regional Committee. Meetings during this period could be arranged on the occasion of conferences or other events involving Member States of the Region. This measure would reduce the expenses of Member States with fewer resources at their disposal to support travel by their respective candidates and could thus help in addressing the unequal availability of financial resources across the Region.
3. MEASURE CONCERNING THE NOMINATION PROCESS
A number of measures could be considered at various stages of the nomination process to increase its transparency, objectivity and fairness, drawing from relevant precedents within WHO or other United Nations or United Nations-related organizations. A measure which has been used to assist the nomination process, in particular the decision of individual Member States to support a certain candidate, is to adopt criteria concerning the desirable qualifications of candidates. Examples of this approach are the
WPR/RC60/12 page 5 resolutions by the Executive Board, the Regional Committee for Africa, the Regional Committee for the Americas and the Regional Committee for Europe, by which the Executive Board and the Regional Committees concerned laid out criteria that the candidates nominated as Director-General or Regional Director, respectively, should fulfil. The criteria adopted thus far focus on the desirable competencies and qualifications of the person to be nominated, intended to guide Member States in identifying the candidate who best fulfils those criteria. Even though the promulgation of criteria does not, as such, ensure the fairness of the nomination process, the agreement of the nominating body on a set of criteria or qualifications is intended to increase the objectivity of the process and facilitate the selection of the candidate most qualified for the post at stake. Certain organizations have introduced formal or informal processes through which an attempt is made to reach consensus on a candidate to be nominated as executive head. This is the case, for example, at the United Nations with regard to the role of the Security Council in the nomination of the Secretary-General, the International Atomic Energy Agency with regard to the nomination of its Director-General by the Board of Governors and the World Trade Organization with regard to the appointment of its Director-General by the General Council. In these cases, the Chairperson of the body concerned is given the mandate to pursue informal consultations with Member States through a variety of channels to assess the level of support garnered by individual candidates. Chairpersons are given considerable authority to consult with Member States with a view to building as much consensus as possible around the candidate or candidates who receive the broadest support and thus progressively narrow the range of candidates. The rules adopted by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Trade Organization encourage individual candidates to make themselves known to Member States and to engage in discussions on the issues facing the organizations. The rules also envisage that all candidates be invited to a formal meeting of the nominating organ to address it and respond to questions, in advance of the actual nomination. The processes in question have the advantage of favouring the achievement of consensus on a candidate through a participatory and consultative process facilitated by an elected officer and which, at the same time, does not exclude recourse to formal balloting in case a consensus cannot be reached. At the same time, the informal nature of the consultations led by the Chairperson may be seen as favouring political bargaining and not adequately ensuring the transparency of the process Another feature of several nomination processes, both within and outside WHO, consists in providing for the interview of candidates by the nominating or appointing body or during informal meetings of Member States. Within WHO, this is the case first and foremost
WPR/RC60/12 page 6 for the nomination of the Director-General, where candidates are interviewed by the Executive Board during the session at which a Director-General has to be nominated, after a shortlisting process in case of more than five candidates. Interviewing of candidates also
characterizes the process of nomination of the Regional Directors for Africa and the Americas, respectively. For the former, the candidates are interviewed by the Regional Committee at the same session at which a Regional Director is nominated; for the latter, candidates are interviewed at a candidates' forum to be held on the margins of the Executive Committee session preceding the conference at which the Director is to be nominated. Also in the case of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Trade Organization, candidates are interviewed at a meeting of the Board of Governors or the General Council, respectively, held for that purpose in advance of the session at which the nomination takes place. Interviews customarily consist of a presentation by the candidates on his or her vision about the Organization and its problems, priorities or directions, followed by a question-andanswer period. In the case of the nomination of the Director-General, the procedure for the interviews is particularly formalized and elaborate to ensure equal treatment of the candidates to such a sensitive position. The travel expenses of candidates invited to be interviewed are normally defrayed by the Organization. The very fact of having candidates interviewed at a meeting where all the Members of the nominating body are present increases the fairness and inclusiveness of the process, as it enables candidates to present their vision and programmes and to respond to questions or requests for further elaboration of their views. As to whether candidates should be interviewed at the same session at which the nomination has to take place or in advance of that, there may be advantages for either alternative. Interviewing candidates in advance may arguably leave more time for Member States to further reflect on the best candidate or to pursue further consultations. At the same time, it may increase substantially the costs for the Organization as it requires holding two intergovernmental meetings rather than one. A possible compromise solution would be to interview candidates at the meetings of Member States of the Region that take place during the World Health Assembly. Most if not all Member States are present at the Assembly and this would offer an opportunity to hear about the vision and strategic proposals of candidates while considerably reducing expenses for both WHO and Member States. If the Regional Committee wants to consider this option, it is recommended that interviews take place at informal meetings of Member States rather than during formal meetings of the Regional Committee to be convened during the Health Assembly. The latter would entail administrative, procedural and financial implications without adding to the essential purpose of the meetings, i.e. to allow Member
WPR/RC60/12 page 7 States to interview the candidates. If the Regional Committee wishes to pursue this proposal, moreover, the calendar laid out in Rule 51 would have to be adjusted to ensure that the deadline for proposing candidates expires before the Health Assembly.
4. SEARCH COMMITTEES
Finally, a measure which has been considered within WHO is the establishment of search committees with the main functions of raising awareness about the position to be filled; soliciting Member States to submit qualified candidates for the post; assessing and interviewing candidates; and reporting its conclusions to the nominating body concerning their qualifications and fitness for the position. The Regional Committee for Europe, in particular, has made the establishment of a Search Committee a regular component of the nomination process for the Regional Director by amending accordingly its Rules of Procedure. The use of a search committee presents a number of advantages, in particular enabling a smaller dedicated body to assess and analyse the qualifications and characteristics of candidates more thoroughly and in depth than would be possible at a formal meeting of the nominating organ. The search committees established within WHO, moreover, have always required candidates to submit written statements about their respective vision, approaches and strategic priorities. The search committees have also interviewed the candidates, thus giving them an opportunity to present their views and programmes. The written statements and the outcome of the interviews provide the main elements for the assessment of the candidates by the search committees and their report to the nominating organ, thus arguably ensuring a more objective and fair treatment of the various candidates. At the same time, confining the presentation of the candidates and their visions to a smaller body rather than the whole nominating organ may be seen as insufficient to guarantee the fairness and integrity of the nomination process. Moreover, the work of a search committee may substantially increase the cost of the nomination process. Possibly for these reasons, the Regional Committee for Africa and the Governing Council of the International Agency for Research on Cancer have discontinued, for the time being, the use of search committees. If the Regional Committee wishes to pursue this option, it will have to consider a number of procedural issues, such as the number of members of the Search Committee, its terms of reference, how candidates for the Search Committee may be proposed and how they are appointed. Such arrangements may be made through a resolution by the Regional
WPR/RC60/12 page 8 Committee or by amending the Rules of Procedure, if the Committee decides to make a Search Committee a permanent feature of the nomination process. The Legal Counsel will elaborate further on such issues if the Committee so requests. However, some initial
considerations that the Regional Committee may wish to reflect on are: (a) members of the Search Committee should serve in their individual capacity rather than as representative of their Member States; (b) the various parts of the Region should be represented on the Committee; and (c) the Committee could be requested not only to assess candidates but also to reach out and encourage the submission of qualified candidates.
5. CONCLUSION
As the foregoing analysis shows, several different approaches or measures may be considered to increase the fairness of the procedure for the nomination of the Regional Director, both with respect to the statutory process enshrined in the Rules of Procedure, as well as to the actual situation of Member States proposing candidates. The Regional
Committee may wish to discuss the options reviewed above and to provide further guidance to the Legal Counsel and the Secretariat.